Skip to main content

View Diary: BARRIERS & BRIDGES: On Being Called a Racist (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Now you're derailing (12+ / 0-)

    This isn't about one commenter. Can we get back to the issue please?

    "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

    by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:06:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think she is derailing. (10+ / 0-)

      The point she is making is that black skin alone does not privilege the depiction of reality being made by the commenter, even with respect to race.  If an African American told me I was racist or had said something racist or was doing something racist, of course I'd consider what was said.  But I won't give epistemological privilge to that person because they are AA.  Yes, what the person said would be considered.  But other data also would be considered by me.   Based on my interctions with Denise over two years, I'd give soemthing she said a whole lot more credence in that consideration than I would something some others might say.

      So it is a very real issue.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:20:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's different (20+ / 0-)

        I don't know punditician's background or identity, so the ad hominem reference to previous comments (and yes that's technically still ad hominem) did nothing to explore the larger issues you are now talking about.

        I would say that having a black skin in a majority white country, does count for something in terms of epistemology.  You cannot know racism, in your bones, until you've been the victim of it. You can maybe imagine, appreciate and understand, but you cannot know in the sense of 'savoir' rather than 'connaitre'.

        Now that doesn't make any commenter or comment absolutely more informed because there are many other factors. But on the issue of racism, I do give the victims of it some extra credence.

        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

        by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:31:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It counts for something, yes, (12+ / 0-)

          but that is different from it being determinative.  There is much room betwen something and determinative.  It is in the room where the struggle to define reality occurs.

          This boycott to me exemplifies that issue. In my mind, those boycotting did the math wrong.  I did not see it as disproportionate as compared to the number of combatants in the HR wars.  They measured against a vague figure of AA participation.  Since many of those NRed were white, then one added in "allies."

          Because I thought the math was wrong, and that Kos was not disproprtionatly applying the rules against AAs and white allies, I did not join it.  

          Mnay AAs said it was disproprtionate.  I considered it, but the evidence I saw did not support it.  Some AAs chose not to boycott.  

          Two points: (1) evidence was lacking in my view, a view that can be reduced to white privilege and ignored if one is so inclined and (2) not all AAs had the same view (no surprise).  So which AA viewpoint gets privileged?

          It's complicated stuff where it really matters.  

          I accept a "weak version" of the white privilege viewpoint (people can be blind to their way of seeing the world) /AA privileged viewpoint to define racism.  

          It is data, sometimes important data, but rarely determinative.

          Others, for exampel, sooth, would fundamentally disagree with me.    

          And that's fine.  I can and am wrong often.  All I can do is try to be intellectually honest and check out my own preconceptions as best as I can do.

          The American people must wise up and rise up!

          by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:41:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let be more clear about this. (0+ / 0-)

            I accept a "weak version" of the white privilege viewpoint (people can be blind to their way of seeing the world) /AA privileged viewpoint to define racism.  

            It is data, sometimes important data, but rarely determinative [in close cases where it matters most].

            It often does not be determiantive in non-close cases, because then racism often is rather obvious.

            The American people must wise up and rise up!

            by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:44:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I have to strongly disagree (10+ / 0-)

            You make this comment but provide absolutely zero substantiating evidence:

            In my mind, those boycotting did the math wrong.  I did not see it as disproportionate as compared to the number of combatants in the HR wars.

            You can certainly argue about data sets used, but even at the most basic level, there is strong evidence supporting the boycotters claims.

            Disciplinary action was taken against 1/3 of Black KOS's active members.

            If you then look at those that trolled Black KOS through despicable comments and disgusting uprates of those comments over the course of several months, you will find that 2 were banned, and approximately 40 escaped any disciplinary action.

            You can run the probabilities math of that result being totally random. I tried - it runs like one in three million chances.

            •  We disagree. (6+ / 0-)

              How do you define "active members"?  I guess I don't count.

              I do not think kos is a racist nor do I think he disproprtionately penalized people.  

              So those people were not in hide rate fights?

              We will just have to disagree.  

              The American people must wise up and rise up!

              by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:21:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, we're probably not going to get anywhere (6+ / 0-)

                I offered numbers, you offered opinion.

                I do not think kos is a racist

                Wow, where did that come from??? I myself have said clearly many many times, Markos is not racist. And, i said that in response to people here who were smearing boycotters by claiming the boycotters were acusing Markos of being racist.

                I guess I don't count.

                Oh lord. Of course you count. You're a frequent visitor/poster in BlackKOS. Why did you assume that I said you don't count?

                I think I'm ending this conversation. Its a perfect example of how these issues can't be discussed here even amongst the most reasonable people.

                •  take care. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue, cotterperson, psychodrew

                  Dialogue sometimes includes disagreement.

                  The American people must wise up and rise up!

                  by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:38:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Tom, I don't think kos is a racists, (7+ / 0-)

                    but looking at this objectively, does it not appear that he handled this in such a way that makes it far from ureasonable to at least wonder? I'm a white guy, but in my white guy mind, if I look at this from my imagined perspective of a black guy, I'd sure wonder about it.

                    Kos handled the situation recklessly and in such a way that he set himself up for being thought of as racist. He handled it with his temper leading the way, not his intellect. That seldom works out well, certainly not if one is concerned with justice.  

                    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                    by JTinDC on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:14:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Kos handled it as he usually does. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Brit, Seamus D

                      He did the same thing in the primary wars.

                      Different black people thought differently about this.  Many boycotted.  Some did not. I don't really know the percentages here.  I'd guess more boycotted, but I don't know that for sure.

                      The American people must wise up and rise up!

                      by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:24:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Can I ask a question? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  evergreen2

                  The place where I got hung up with the boycott is twofold:

                  - Assume for the moment, based on whatever data set we choose, that 1/3 of BK members were subject to punishment and that is disproportionate.  Is the argument then that, by definition, that its racially motivated?  In employment law, there is the notion of "disparate impact" - where a facially neutral criteria impacts minorities more than proportionately.

                  Note that disparate impact does not mean that something is racially motivated legally (and maybe herein lies the substance of the discussion).  It does, however, make us look further, and require the proponent of the criteria (here, Markos' don't be a dick rule) to proffer the non-racially motivated reasons for the impact.  Here, presumably, Markos thought those people's comments violated the rule.
                  Which leads me to...

                  - The third phase would be that the originally person with the disparate impact claim (here, the boycotters) could rebut Markos' evidence that, yes, in fact, the people who were punished violated the don't be a dick rule and the others did not.  In employment law terms, this is usually something along the lines that the proferred reason is a subterfuge (ie, he's really just a racist and this is cover).

                  Thus, my second concern - the conclusion it is easy to reach is that the boycotters think that, despite Markos' contention that he had reasons for all punishments or non-punishments - that the ban hammer was wielded in  a subconsiously (hopefully - I don't think anyone here is actually saying the Markos is an overt racist) racial manner.  

                  If that's true, then that in itself is quite a conversation, although I've not seen it framed that way, and in fact, most boycotters I've read specifically disavow this.

                  If its not, then what is the racism inherent in the system that is causing the disparate impact?  Since Markos is the system, it's hard to see it otherwise, but I fully admit I may just be missing it.

                  Now, granted, this is a fairly legalist framework to analyze such a question, but law school warped me that way.  

                •  Yes, every boycotter I have met (13+ / 0-)

                  ...in the last seven days (and there have been a lot on the Moose), including one now banned, has said

                  I don't think Kos is a racist.

                  Can we just nail that one now. Otherwise I'm going to have to coin an new and ugly acronym to add to AYCMAR.

                  Are You Calling Kos A Racist (AYCKAR).

                  I have not since one instance of this in the last seven days.

                  "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                  by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As a matter of factual accuracy . . . (4+ / 0-)

                    you should be aware that Robinswing, who initially called for the boycott, has quite directly called Markos a racist and has called DK a "racist site."  

                    You may head over to ThePeoplesView and look at her comments.  She also posted about it at criticalmassprogress.

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:33:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As a matter of factual accuracy (7+ / 0-)

                      The Moose gained around 100 new members over the week. No one said Kos was racist. Indeed the vast majority, including Adept2U, emphatically stated they didn't think Kos was racist, and that the disproportionate banning of BKos members was unintentional.

                      So I've got dozens of boycotters to your one - if this is really where you want this conversation to go. I've got links too.

                      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                      by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:36:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sigh. I responded to what you wrote. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        psychodrew

                        Specifically, to this:

                        Yes, every boycotter I have met (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:Onomastic, Diogenes2008, AaronInSanDiego

                        ...in the last seven days (and there have been a lot on the Moose), including one now banned, has said

                        I don't think Kos is a racist.
                        Can we just nail that one now.

                        Presumably, what you are saying is that you haven't "met" Robinswing.  If that's your claim, I suppose you're technically correct.  I am simply pointing out that one of the more prominent boycotters has, in fact, called Markos a racist.  If you wish to deny that reality, that is your choice.  Personally, I find it better to deal with facts, even if they don't fit one's preferred narrative.

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:51:03 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No I haven't met Robinswing (5+ / 0-)

                          Her catalysiing diary on Sunday was the first time I'd ever read one of her diaries. I'd never been into sistahspeak.  Her diary was the pebble that precipitated the avalanche, but it wasn't the cause in any moral sense.

                          What am I denying? I haven't seen a link from you and trust you wouldn't falsely report this. But as for narratives, are you somehow saying that the majority of boycotters think Kos is racist?

                          That wouldn't be just a false narrative: that would be a harmful and abject lie.

                          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                          by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:01:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Links, strawmen, etc. (4+ / 0-)

                            Let's take the strawmen first:

                            But as for narratives, are you somehow saying that the majority of boycotters think Kos is racist?

                            The answer to this question would be obvious if you had read what I wrote, but since you appear determined to put words in my mouth, I'll respond.  No, that's not what I'm "somehow saying."  What I said is that one of the more prominent proponents of the boycott has, indeed, called Markos a racist.  

                            And lest I be further accused of creating a "false narrative," I invite you to view the comments to this post over at TPV.  Among those comments, you will find this:

                            Robinswing 9 comments collapsed Collapse Expand

                            A business always reflects the owner.  Markos and his site are one.  His business partner Jane Blackface all Obama supporters are dumb motherf*ckers and his statement that we are idiots is clear enough.  I called him on the racism at his site. First Armando goes into other diaries asking what it would take to keep them from boycotting. Never came into mine and I am the one who called for it. Ignore black folks. Then Armando starts a community to discuss race as if Black Kos did not exist. Ignore black folk.  Finally he banned me.  There are some like Land of Enchantment and Slinkydink who are vile beyond belief.  The people who escaped his purge were FDL folks.  Do I think he is a racist? Hell to the yes.  His site is his business and reflects his attitudes perfectly. It is a racist site.

                            So I stand by what I wrote (although not by your interpretation of what I wrote).  I note that it is not necessarily inconsistent with your claim that "every" boycotter you have met has said they don't think Markos is a racist.  You've said you don't know Robinswing, so your claim can be accurate to the extent it speaks to your personal knowledge alone.  

                            I hope that clarifies things.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Robinswing shouldn't have said that (10+ / 0-)

                            I hope she retracts and apologizes.

                            However, Robinswing's anger doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sometimes, there is only so much a person can endure before they lash out. She endured months of trolling and ugly attacks.

                            In that vein, I would also hope those that inflicted that kind of pain on her would also apologize.

                          •  I understand that. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            psychodrew, Seamus D

                            One can discuss whether her statement is accurate and/or whether her anger is justified.  She cites a lot of reasons for her conclusion.  People can read them and judge for themselves whether the facts support her conclusion.

                            My only point here is that Markos has, in fact, been called a racist.  

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:37:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for understanding it (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn, mahakali overdrive, Brit
                          •  Yet my personal knowledge (7+ / 0-)

                            Thanks to being an admin at the Moose extends to dozens of boycotters there who explicitly said Markos is not a racist. You've brought only one instance. I have several for you

                            http://www.motleymoose.com/...

                            May I ask how do you imagine he might be crippled? (2.00 / 6) [delete comment]
                            IP Address: 75.142.52.123
                            Markos Moulitsas is not a racist.  He will have no problem defending himself against such a charge

                            http://www.motleymoose.com/...
                            No one called him a racist, but I was accused (2.00 / 18) [delete comment]
                            of calling him a racist. I don't think he is a racist, and I never did
                            .  

                            http://www.motleymoose.com/...

                            Markos IS NOT A RACIST. (2.00 / 21)

                            I have literally dozens of these from a quick search on the Moose, and that's not counting the recs they get. So I'll repeat my statement about having not met a boycotter who thinks Kos, is a racist, and  I'll repeat my question in a way you can't misconstrue:

                            Do you think your one example of a boycotter calling Markos a racist is somehow more indicative than the dozens I can provide to the contrary?

                            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                            by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:40:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think it's indicative of exactly what I claimed. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            psychodrew, Seamus D

                            Which, if you go back and read my original comment, was that one of the proponents of the boycott -- Robinswing -- has in fact called Markos a racist.  

                            So your question to me has nothing to do with what I wrote.  I never claimed that my example demonstrated anything other than what it demonstrates on its face, and I never claimed it was "indicative" of anything else.  You are the one who is seeking to expand the dimensions of what I'm saying, for reasons I can only guess at.  

                            If you would like to take issue with the accuracy of what I actually said, please feel free to do so.  So far, you haven't seemed terribly interested in my actual words.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:46:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You did say that (9+ / 0-)

                            and you've characterized your statement in a way that is accurate from what I read. But I think the question is why did you bring up one person's views (an obviously angry while writing since she was just banned) to respond to Brit's assertion that he had not met anyone who had called Markos a racist, which is a true assertion as well.

                            So the question is why did you bring that up?

                            For what purpose?

                            The floor is yours!

                          •  MO, the answer to that question is obvious, at (3+ / 0-)

                            least to me. It is sad and pathetic. I won't even bother typing it down. I just don't understand human beings sometimes. I don't understand why someone would go fishing out what was written by one stressed out woman...on another blog...drag it here...expose it just to make a point. Amazing!

                          •  I am asking FogCityJohn an earnest question though (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, Brit, COwoman

                            I've had nothing but positive interactions with him and think he can best answer for himself here. I would consider him a friend and an ally against bigotry on this blog. I know he's a man of excellent ethics. I think he can answer my simple question and hope he does.

                            Not so that I can attack him or prove him wrong. So that I can remember that we're both committed to fighting the damned bigotry together and are allies here, as is Brit, as are you, as are we all, we who are still speaking about this matter.

                            I hope that makes sense!

                          •  See my reply above. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 12:43:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For the purpose stated in my original comment. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive

                            Which is in the interest of factual accuracy.  I have also pointed out above that Brit's statement is not inconsistent with what I wrote.  One proponent of the boycott made a statement that Markos is racist.  Brit says that every boycotter he has met has said otherwise.  Both of those statements can simultaneously be true.  They are not inherently contradictory.  I would also note that I am not imputing Robinswing's views to anyone else.  

                            As is so often true in cases like this, the facts are somewhat complicated.  But I generally think it's best to acknowledge what they are and then deal with them accordingly.  

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 12:41:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right. We caught that. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, Bonsai66, Onomastic

                            That's what you have said.

                            Again, why do you feel that it's important to bring up one person's views, a person who Brit states he has not talked with? I'm really trying to understand why these two facts need to be linked together?

                            Are you trying to propose that some boycotters have stated that Markos is a racist? That may be true. But it is certainly not MOST, or even the MAJORITY, of boycotters from what I have seen on SEVEN sites which have been discussing. So why bring in what is essentially an outlier to prove a larger point? It's not a good argumentative strategy since it is, as mentioned, a hasty generalization (and perhaps a straw man as well).

                            What would probably be more productive is if, instead of pursuing this line of argument, you detailed your original point more clearly leaving all of the previous conversation aside.

                            What is it that you want to say, FSJ?

                            Because your message is getting lost here.

                          •  And just to add a personal note (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, evergreen2, Bonsai66

                            to make this conversation hopefully more real, I am now literally typing with my fingers covered in Elmer's Glue while trying to email something to myself. It's not pretty.

                          •  You're right about this: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, Seamus D
                            Because your message is getting lost here.

                            Let me see if I can clarify by taking your points in order.

                            Again, why do you feel that it's important to bring up one person's views, a person who Brit states he has not talked with? I'm really trying to understand why these two facts need to be linked together?

                            My original comment is actually premised on the assumption Brit was unaware of Robinswing's statement.  You can see that in the introductory phrase, "You should be aware that . . ."  I'm not entirely sure of what "linkage" you're referring to, because I don't think I've suggested that there are any links to be drawn.  I made a statement of fact, the accuracy of which does not appear to be disputed.  

                            Are you trying to propose that some boycotters have stated that Markos is a racist?

                            No.  I have quoted only one person who has said so.  As I've explained elsewhere, I do not impute her views to anyone else.

                            But it is certainly not MOST, or even the MAJORITY, of boycotters from what I have seen on SEVEN sites which have been discussing.

                            I think you're absolutely right about this.  You will note that I have never claimed otherwise.

                            So why bring in what is essentially an outlier to prove a larger point? It's not a good argumentative strategy since it is, as mentioned, a hasty generalization (and perhaps a straw man as well).

                            Here we have entered the realm of inference.  You seem to think I'm trying "to prove a larger point."  I'm not.  I am not making any generalizations.  If people think I am, then I don't think they are reading what I actually wrote.  At the very least, they are reading into what I actually wrote.

                            My personal view of this is that we would all be better served if we tried to stick to the actual, demonstrable facts and looked at all of those facts before coming to conclusions.  One of the reasons I think this purge turned out the way it did was because Markos failed to do that.  Rather than investigate each case carefully, he took a snapshot in time and used that as the basis for his judgment.  (I believe he has analogized it to a cop catching people who speed -- they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.)  

                            Anyway, unless you feel you need further explanation, I'll bow out of this thread.  I honestly shouldn't have posted here.  The effect of my first comment has been disruptive, and I see no benefit in prolonging an unproductive discussion.  

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:32:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair, but I'm still confused (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, Drewid, Onomastic

                            by why you brought it up? No need to answer though. I respect you. I think the facts are pretty clear. And I think we're all on the same page. I think it really is crucial to look at all of the facts too. Of course, facts are always subjective to whatever degree. I can't speak to what Markos did or how he did it; I can only speak to what he said he would do and then what outcomes it had.

                            But I respect your desire to either keep engaging or to bow out. This is your choice and you have my respect regardless. Besides, you know where I stand, I think. And where my commitments lie.

                            I think you're right. It's gotten convoluted. Although I did try to follow along faithfully. It seemed like a series of miscommunications? I won't claim to understand the point of it all. But no harm, no foul.

                            Cheers!

                          •  Still confused? (5+ / 0-)

                            Well, let me see if I can make one more try at it.

                            In the comment to which my initial comment replied, Brit said this:

                            I have not since [seen?] one instance of this [calling Markos a racist] in the last seven days.

                            I pointed out to him there was a case of which he appeared unaware.  Now, perhaps I shouldn't have done that.  Perhaps I should simply have let it pass without comment.  In retrospect, I probably should have let it go, because as this thread makes apparent, a lot of people are assuming that I'm trying to make a larger statement or prove a larger point than the rather narrow one that I addressed.  But as I've tried to explain, I don't impute one person's views to any other person.  

                            I'm afraid the lawyer in me took over.  I should simply have left this fact out of the discussion.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:53:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you hit the nail on the head, friend (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn, Brit, Drewid, Onomastic, Kysen
                            I'm afraid the lawyer in me took over.

                            I totally get it. Not a problem. I look forward to continuing to smack down bigotry with you, FCJ. Always have, always will. You're tack sharp and needed in the battle. Plus, you do amazing work that honestly, I admire. You know what I think, so I'll shush up now.

                          •  Lawyers don't like surprises. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, Kysen

                            If I make an argument and say, "There has never been a single instance of X," the last thing I want to discover after I've made the argument is that, in fact, there has been an instance of X.  My preference is to be able to tackle the contrary fact up front and explain why it doesn't undermine my argument.  Probably a learned behavior, but that's basically where I'm coming from.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:04:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I get it... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn

                            It's just like my training to go for weird linguistic points that no one gets why they are important. And yet, to me, to my eye, they are glaring. It's part of my irritation about peoples' random explanation about terms and meaning and how these are constructed online at times. This is my training, to think about how meaning is constructed by text, who owns it, how it functions, through metaphor, through metonymy, through connotation, how it is semiotically infused or has pragmatic linguistic implications. In other words, how it's situated.

                            And do most people know where I'm coming from?

                            I really don't expect that they do. They occasionally write me off as pretentious. But damn the man, it's what I DO.

                            So don't worry. I get it. Honestly.

                          •  Eee gads! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive

                            I don't ever want you to read any of my legal writing.  It probably wouldn't withstand this kind of scrutiny:

                            This is my training, to think about how meaning is constructed by text, who owns it, how it functions, through metaphor, through metonymy, through connotation, how it is semiotically infused or has pragmatic linguistic implications. In other words, how it's situated.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:42:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh! I have absolutely read legal briefs (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn

                            for genre! I had to analyze jury duty instructions as well. That's funny! There's a big disconnect with what an expert in any field thinks they are communicating and what someone else takes away from it. For Linguists, looking at the written product of any discourse community is really illuminating. Oh wow, on so many levels too! Don't think for one second that I don't know how legalese functions as a genre, or couldn't dismantle it as one. Especially at the level of pragmatics, where it becomes especially interesting (syntax and stuff, eh... not so interesting in my view for ethnography).

                            This is where Brit buys me a plane ticket to Morocco for actually succeeding in boring myself and everyone else reading. Sorry! Love you, FCJ. I'm going back to work now. I keep stopping in for little mental health breaks. It's kind of working, as strange as that sounds.

                          •  As my dad puts it... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FogCityJohn, Denise Oliver Velez

                            Never use 'never' or 'always' for emphasis in an opinion, you will always be proven wrong.

                            (or near that..is too late to call him for the exact wording)

                            Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

                            by Kysen on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:59:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So said the judge I clerked for . . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kysen

                            my first year out of law school.  He read something I'd written for him, and he told me, "One of the first things you learn in this job is that you never say 'never.'"

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:12:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually it's quite simple what I'm doing (6+ / 0-)

                            You present a case where a boycotter has said one thing.

                            I present several cases where many other boycotters have said something different.

                            It's calling setting the record straight

                            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                            by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then we do not disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit

                            At least not as far as I can see.  

                            You present a case where a boycotter has said one thing.

                            I present several cases where many other boycotters have said something different.

                            Both of those things can be true simultaneously.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 12:45:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But some more true than others n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic

                            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                            by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:02:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And FTR, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit, mahakali overdrive

                            Robin made those comments, which I don't agree with, after kos banned her on Friday I believe, since we're all trying to get the record straight.

                            Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. B. Franklin Wish you were here.

                            by Drewid on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:32:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is a hasty generalization... n/t (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, Brit, COwoman, Bonsai66
                          •  Some people are addicted to pie fights Brit, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brit

                            dontcha' know?  especially in diaries to do with race. They are not interested in this mending bridges you speak of. They want to be RIGHT... Sad thing is that I see the same people on Black kos "playing nice".

                      •  I can back up Brit on this one emphatically. n/t (7+ / 0-)

                        Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                        by Bonsai66 on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:54:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  These numbers have never been substantiated. (0+ / 0-)
              Disciplinary action was taken against 1/3 of Black KOS's active members.
              IMHO, this will be an ongoing problem because these numbers are being referenced without a common factual basis. By my witness the numbers are not true. Without an accounting it should be known that use of this swag is not reputable.

              Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

              by kck on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:00:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  my understanding was that (4+ / 0-)

              about 1/3 of disciplined members were active in Black Kos, not that 1/3 of active members in Black Kos were disciplined.

              "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

              by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry you felt that that was 'derailing'. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geomoo

          I found it extremely relevant to your diary.    The point being that the behavior did, and still does continue to exist.  That I used one very blatant example of someone definitely suggesting that the vast majority of posters are indeed white male racists.  When you tried to complain that we 'couldn't use history', I again very specifically rebutted you with the information that this was a current, rather than historical post.  

          Each post I made was substantive and on topic.  The claim that I was using 'ad homs' and 'derailing' was not substantiated, but was actually incredibly similar in both intent and methodology to making a charge of 'racism' with no grounds.  You felt that because I could give an example that worked against your thesis, my voice must be marginalized, and so you simply threw out unsubstantiated negative 'buzz words'.

          Don't worry, I'll marginalize my own voice by leaving your 'house'.  I can see that you don't want to actually listen to me.

          •  Please don't lead the diary. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cotterperson, Bonsai66, catly

            People are easily angered, especially today.  Brit and you had an intereation.  While a bit heated, no reason for either of you to stop dialogue.  Both of you have important points and building bridges starts with such honesty from each.    

            The American people must wise up and rise up!

            by TomP on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:19:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want you to leave (4+ / 0-)

            Please stay. I just don't want this to be about another commenter as a 'case in point'.

            "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

            by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:24:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well said and well supported. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ohmyheck, Agathena, Seamus D, 4kedtongue

            I'm reading a few comments today, just a few.  It looks as though some posters have picked up right where they left off.  Contrived narratives which, when challenged, lead down the rabbit hole (even as one is forced to repeat one's simple point over and over), complete with other team members jumping in, ad hominems, red herrings, etc.  It's all back alive and well on dkos today.

            No ground must be yielded.  It must be insisted that no awful things were said on Motley Moose about kos, dkos, or other kossacks, except the one that is totally excusable because some kossacks should be given a pass of they are "angry."  I did a little reading at MM over the week.  I saw many hateful things said there directed at various aspects and particular members of the community here.  TPV was much worse, but that's hardly news.  I have seen no expression of contrition anywhere from previous enthusiastic supporters of banned members whose long horrendous history of hateful commentary is more than reason to explain their bannings, at least from any reasonable and decent human being.  Instead, I see the usual denials and red herrings.  Most popular of all is to claim racism.

            No, the polarity must continue, with one side never having done or said anything worthy of criticism while the other side must have been wrong about everything.  Forget nuanced reasoning.  Forget history.  Forget evidence.  Hell, forget the meanings of words.  Very difficult to see how this behavior could spring from an actual desire to work effectively together, from a devotion to what is best for the site as a whole.  What I keep hearing is what I heard as the message of the boycott--some people will insist that their narrative be the dominant one or they will do what they can to destroy the site.

            I have no heart for this anymore.  So what, good Dr., if you manage to "win" this thread for the rational readers.  You have still spent your time dealing with liars and obfuscators rather than addressing the real problems of the nation.  To me, that means that my side is losing, because my side is anyone who is interested in dealing with real issues, in treating allies with respect even in disagreement, in honoring the meanings of words and the reality that is put in evidence.

            Wouldn't it be great if you could make something be true just by saying it? Wouldn't that be a magical marshmallow world?

            by geomoo on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is a heroic comment (3+ / 0-)

              ...and it must be tough to be the one of the few people on this thread who believes in truth, decency or justice.

              But please... where in any of this is the subject of the diary: i.e. how people react to accusations of racism?

              I'm more than happy to discuss the many issues that you raise, but they are so vast and general, I think you ought to write a diary of your own so I can understand them.

              "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

              by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:47:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When in doubt, turn to ad hominem. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena, Seamus D

                This part strikes me as funny.

                I'm more than happy to discuss the many issues that you raise

                You can go on to working the rest of the room, Brit.  You and I won't be "discussing" anything further at this time.

                Wouldn't it be great if you could make something be true just by saying it? Wouldn't that be a magical marshmallow world?

                by geomoo on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:44:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really. I've dealt with every comment here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Onomastic

                  ...with respect and civility. It's hardly an ad hominem to point out that your comment, which suggests Western Civilisation and Enlightenment values will collapse as a result of my diary, is unanswerable and profoundly off topic.

                  But write a diary about it, and I shall be there, answering your points in substance.

                  "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." Walter Benjamin. More sane debate on the Moose

                  by Brit on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:02:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If I thought you were serious, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Seamus D, 4kedtongue

                    I would ask you to read my comment again.  I talk about behavior of a very small group of people.  I did not say how important or effectual they might be.  No mention of collapse of anything.  One thing I'll grant you, you are consistent in your word twisting, even in a thread whose point is that you twist words.

                    As to respect and civility, we could debate whether twisting people's words counts as disrespectful.  But I do appreciate that you are almost always careful to protect your image as a thoughtful, reasonable person.  The devil is in the details.

                    No, there'll be no diary.  I responded to the good Dr. Bloodaxe because I appreciated his accurate naming of what happened in this very thread.  I enjoy clarity of thought even when I expect such clarity to have no appreciable on the person to whom it is addressed.

                    Wouldn't it be great if you could make something be true just by saying it? Wouldn't that be a magical marshmallow world?

                    by geomoo on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:24:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  It's relevant (0+ / 0-)

          but far from dispositive.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site