Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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!

      •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site