Signals and Meaning, N***** (Stephen Colbert fans, YAY)

Lately there has been discussion of racially offensive words (such as the n-word) and capturing or desensitizing them through use.

There is just something that disturbs me about 4thepeople's diary. If the word nigger is so powerless, why write a diary defending it, and why do 1000 people respond? There's something deeper going on here.

Please, please please, follow me over the fold

A word is a communcating signal. Hate words are offensive only because and only when they communicate a certain attitude.

The question is not whether this word or that word is offensive, but whether in each individual case hateful meaning is being spread and validated.

With that in mind, I think there is an important omission in 4thepeople's diary. Let's take a look--

If you say the word 'nigger' enough times, then like every other word you repeat, it becomes just an absurd collection of meaningless sounds, stripped of any emotional baggage

This would require not you or me, or a group of DKos liberals, actively changing norms of definition, but the whole of society. I don't think we'll there in a long while yet. In the meantime, the word still has the power to signal hateful attitudes given the meaning suggested by the context.

I didn't read the diary that started the whole thing, but how do we know which context, which meaning, was intended when he used it? I'd ask for clarificaiton- 'Are you comparing victims of 'troll hunting' on some Internet blog to the historical oppressed faced by African-Americans?' and get a No. That's probably worth about 3, maybe 4 comments. It didn't deserve as many as it probably got. You are right on that score.

I was born black (OK, so I'm not Stephen Colbert) I'll die black, and I'll be black at every moment in between. (Stephen Colbert's new black friend).  

Just to clarify, black people are no less capable of racism than whites or any other race, and whether or not a diarist who writes something provocative on race is a member of the race being provoked doesn't matter apart from the substance of the personal experience brought in. Which brings us to...

When I was a kid, I got called nigger.  I hated it.  But then, one day, something happened. I stopped being a nigger. (Punched somebody hard)  That was a long time ago.

Apparently you were living in an openly racist community. If true, your feelings of hatred were valid, and but you suggest they were not.

Instead you suggest your feelings derived from personal inadequacy; once you took your adulthood through physical violence, you didn't feel that way anymore. But the general implication is that taking offense at racial hate speech(your tormentors probably weren't using the word just to 'densensitize' it) represents a personal inadequacy, even when the meaning is racist. That's a disturbing meaning.

You engage in magical thinking when you act as if using the word 'nigger' can cause someone else pain, can diminish someone else in the fullness of their humanity, can intimidate someone else, can define someone else. Can change someone else.

Offensive speech won't diminish the fullness of your humanity, or destroy your self-respect. It can't do that. But it can signal the presence of attitudes which determine actions and which ought to be changed. And that gives them a certain amount of power over you, depending, of course, how much they can influence your life and how much you care about changing their thinking.

Ultimately, social attitudes determine rights and rewards to which we are assigned and opportunities which we are given, and speech perpetuates, reinforces attitudes.

You want to deprive haters a tool from their vocabulary by capture the meaning of a word. I applaud you for that.

But until your efforts make it into Webster's and replace the previous definition, there will still be contexts where offensive words such as 'nigger' do represent and perpetuate hateful attitudes. And when they do, you do have the right to be offended by that meaning.

Repeat after me. Meaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningme aningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaningmeaning

You can try to change the meaning if you want. But it's a long process. In the meantime those who are offended by that word when they do see it in a hateful context have valid reactions. That's the bottom line.

•  The diarist who started this

  Finally  changed the title of the diary.  He replaced "N***** in the woodpile"  with "demonized subhuman".  But he claims his orignal title was not racist.  Go figure.

  by MadRuth on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:29:47 AM PDT

  •  Was that who started it?

    I thought it was the "troll-hunters" guy.

    by SensibleShoes on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:47:18 AM PDT

    •  This

      is the one I'm talking about

      by MadRuth on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

      •  See, the context/meaning

        Was clearly inappropriate-- disproportionate. And to me, though he was pretty explicit about his analogy, the word 'nigger' did tell me something (negative) about his mindset and what he was trying to communicate than if he hadn't used that word. And, because of the nature of the analogy, that'd be true even if nigger was a word used more commonly in inoffensive contexts, as 4thpeople suggests it should be.

        That doesn't mean 4thepeople is wrong-- just that he was only looking at part of the picture. As I said, it all depends on context.

        by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:22:45 AM PDT

      •  Ah-- me too.

        by SensibleShoes on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:29:25 AM PDT

  •  There were 1000 comments largely because...

    ...it was a well argued and well written diary on a topic too infrequently addressed here at DKos (race in America), and 4thepeople kept the discussion going with a lot of equally well argued and well written responses to the comments.

    by richter on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:51:52 AM PDT

    •  He/she was definitely navigating difficult waters

      It's difficult waters because sometimes the context is unclear. The user and listeners may not be thinking the same thing, a mistake which goes both ways.

      His point was well-argued, but it seemed a little shallow to me... the real issue is the meaning behind the words and how clear that meaning is from the context they are spoken in. It's true that when nigger sees the light of day in normal contexts, it gradually loses the source of its power, but until that day comes where it's just another word, people who are offended by its usage to signal hateful attitudes (as it arguably was in the original diary that started it) have valid complaints. I thought 4thepeople went too far by trivializing their reactions. That's really my only point.

      by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:07:12 AM PDT

    •  In my opinion, that was one of the

      worst and most shallow diaries written on a racial topic that I've seen here.

      by GN1927 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:17:13 AM PDT

      •  I think what gets me...

        is the high number of comments.  I know I wrote one, if not more, saying that the diarist didn't speak for me or my experience being black in America.  

        It just seemed to me that a lot of people who have always been culturally prohibited from using the word were having a field day with the ability to use it due to the discussion topic.  It seemed to me that the diarist's  example of repeating "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger..." ad infinitum is almost like porn to white folks -- it's such a taboo that it's somehow titilating to say it and get away with it. The word does have power, and I believe it always will.  To me it doesn't define me, I take it as a signal that people who would use it to describe me mean me harm, whether emotional or physical.    

        I don't know of one black person who was raised to think they were a nigger just because someone called them that.  As a matter of fact, most black people I know where taught to go on regardless and in spite of what white people may say.  I was always taught that I would probably have to be twice as smart, work twice as hard, etc. to be considered "just as good" by some whites, but that they don't define who I am.  That was probably one of the biggest lessons of my childhood..

        by DemInCville on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:37:03 AM PDT

        •  Very true

          I don't know of one black person who was raised to think they were a nigger just because someone called them that.  As a matter of fact, most black people I know where taught to go on regardless and in spite of what white people may say.  I was always taught that I would probably have to be twice as smart, work twice as hard, etc. to be considered "just as good" by some whites, but that they don't define who I am.  That was probably one of the biggest lessons of my childhood...

          Exactly.  My childhood was immersed in the "black is beautiful" energy of my parent who had participated heavily in the tail end of the civil rights movement.  I was taught that black is beautiful and should be a source of pride, and that I had everything it took to navigate a society in which yes, I would be treated unfairly at times because I'm black.  That doesn't mean that I can't recognize it when I see it and call it out, just that I had a responsibility to persevere anyway, just as black people have been doing for centuries.

          That diary was designed to provide a comfort to those who think that black people did and do bring it on ourselves.  For those who think that reverse racism is real, and that racism against black people is nothing more than a cottage industry scam by which race-baiters make careers for themselves.  And unfortunately, that type of thinking describes at least half of this society.

          It was an awful diary, from my vantage point, just awful.

          by GN1927 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:44:58 AM PDT

          •  Well said...

            That diary was designed to provide a comfort to those who think that black people did and do bring it on ourselves.  For those who think that reverse racism is real, and that racism against black people is nothing more than a cottage industry scam by which race-baiters make careers for themselves.

            Thus, at least part of the answer (IMHO) to why more blacks don't blog on dKos.

            I think there needs to be a lot more discussion on race, but we first need to get on the same page regarding definitions like racism and predjudice. Then we can set some guidelines for polite discussion of potentially incendiary topics.

            by DemInCville on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:57:32 AM PDT

            •  why more blacks don't blog on dKos.

              -- because we know dkos "culture" is racist?
              -- because dkos is a "cottage industry scam..."

              and conversely
              -- because blacks are not "identified with" or "identifiable" at dkos
              -- because dkos is not a "marketplace for black cultural" er, products

              how about:
              -- because more blacks prefer to spend their free time elsewhere
              -- because more blacks have less leisure to blog; or at least ...
              -- because blacks have nothing new to learn or nothing new to articulate in the dkos "community". well, the former often seems the case to me; but the latter, brings me back.

              by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:44:06 AM PDT

              •  Partially because...

                -- because we know dkos "culture" is racist?
                -- because dkos is a "cottage industry scam...

                I don't know that I'd say the dKos "culture" is racist. I think there are a lot of white people that won't/can't acknowledge that racism is ingrained in this society at large but as white they don't experience it.  I don't think a lot of whites that I've run into on this site understand the idea of "otherness" that I experience as a black woman in America. Sometimes that makes the atmosphere here seem a little hostile. I think it's more about being oblivious to other ways of thinking and doing things that are different from the dominant culture's way of looking at things.

                -- because blacks are not "identified with" or "identifiable" at dkos
                -- because dkos is not a "marketplace for black cultural" er, products

                I don't necessarily think that's true.  There are good writers here that identify as black, and I love reading their insights.  I don't know what you mean by "cultural products".  Do you mean dKos -- sponsored by Afro Sheen?

                -- because more blacks prefer to spend their free time elsewhere
                -- because more blacks have less leisure to blog; or at least ...
                -- because blacks have nothing new to learn or nothing new to articulate in the dkos "community". well, the former often seems the case to me; but the latter, brings me back.

                Yes, it's true more blacks prefer to spend their free time elsewhere. I also think we make time to do the things we want to do, so it's not about having less leisure time to blog.  There are actually many black blogs out there. I am here because I think there are things both to teach and learn. Sometimes it gets tiring but I keep coming back too.  

                by DemInCville on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

                •  ha. afro sheen ;)

                  naw. what i actually had in mind (oh dear) is the equally overdone body of work "celebrating black" culture for its own sake (true nuf), as if the "otherness" weren't a necessary instrument of dem party power.
                  

                  by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:03:52 PM PDT

          •  What the hell?

            That diary was designed to provide a comfort to those who think that black people did and do bring it on ourselves.

            All I read was somebody who argued that they felt that censoring words gives the words more power, and that they refused to be defined by those words, trying to deflate them and taking the power from those words instead.

            Now, you may or may not agree with that (obviously you don't). But there was nothing in there about black people bringing it upon themselves. Or even that it was "designed" to do so. That's quite an accusation.

            If you disagree with the diarist, criticize the diary on what it actually contained, but don't put up strawmen. Your entire comment seems to be about something different, not about the actual diary.

            It was about the use of words. It wasn't some conspiracy to enable latent racists to feel good about themselves. Sheesh.

            by Frank on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:07:47 PM PDT

            •  Then you need to re-read both that diary

              and many of the comments that followed before you accuse me of setting up strawmen.

              by GN1927 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:11:31 PM PDT

              •  Actually, I did..

                To make sure I wasn't seeing ghosts. But it still seems like we're talking about entirely different things here.

                I have no beef with this diary, in fact, I think it makes some good points. But your comment left me somewhat bewildered.

                by Frank on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:33:50 PM PDT

                •  Perhaps because I have been

                  communicating with that diarist in another diary and her "ideas" have become more clear, I don't know.  We can agree to disagree, but in my honest opinion, that diarist was completely full of shit and lacks even a basic understanding of the nature of race and oppression.

                  I stand by my earlier words.

                  by GN1927 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

        •  amen, to porn

          this is precisely why 4thepeople and the "troll" put the word in their diary titles.

          shit to flies or nectar to bees.

          you or i could do the same to leverage ALL the diaries that we write that scroll off the list.

          but we don't either because we're not desperate, were raised "different", or we're just not as determined as 4thepeople (who i actually admire).

          heh. teaching is tough work.

          by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

        •  Taboo

          I don't think it's about saying the word 'nigger'.

          I've noticed that white, liberal people often aren't sure how to behave around black people (or any other minority race). There is a sense of guilt, since their race has been historically on the wrong side against several other races. They are afraid to offend. This makes it hard to openly discuss race.

          With the diary in question, where the issue was the use of, and more specifically, the censoring of a word, there was probably a sense of "hey, a black person dares to discuss this, so we are allowed to as well".

          In other words, they may have felt that censoring the word wasn't right (even though they do not like the word), but didn't dare speak up about it, afraid to offend. But then someone black posted a diary which argued against censoring it, and they felt happy that it was ok to talk about this after all.

          I think the main problem here is that such feelings of guilt and awkwardness (call it "political correctness" if you will) prohibits a frank discussion.

          by Frank on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:45:35 PM PDT

  •  He didn't change the title

    doesn't have enough sense for that.  Armando changed it.  Damn, I miss Armando.

    by GN1927 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

    •  Title changes:

      Armando changed it to "N plus too many asterisks".

      Ormondotvos changed it to "demonized subhuman".

      by ormondotvos on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

      •  Seriously,

        you need not respond to my comments.  Your diary was a piece of shit and you are a fucking troll.  Take this elsewhere.

        by GN1927 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:24:22 AM PDT

  •  Uh, It Was Written by a 'She'

    guess that demonstrates your in-depth understanding...

    by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:50:57 AM PDT

    •  sorry

      I don't know the person personally. I did read the entire diary as you can see, but I suppose it was a mistake on my part. Still, I trust you'll read what my words say and not hold it against me that I made a mistake with the pronouns.

      by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:52:53 AM PDT

    •  Not a she. Not that it matters. n/t

      by ormondotvos on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:58:20 AM PDT

  •  I'm the evil diarist. I'll try to explain:

    Your poll gives context as a choice.

    The context is a progressive Democratic activist blog, neh?

    As one of them pDa's, I foolishly presumed a certain amount of ability, much touted here, to make sociological analogies.

    About two in ten maybe addressed the issue I was addressing. The rest just flamed out. Once again my foolish hope for an intellectual renaissance was boinked.

    The analogy was definitely that the practice of troll-hunting had turned into a drunken frat prank, with people whipping each other into progressively (!) more obscenities and hate-filled remarks, until there was no remnant of reason or rationality in the behavior.

    So there I was, trying to read what ModerateLiberalConservative was trying to get across, and I was reminded of the descriptions of black families huddled in their houses while the Klan burned a cross on their yard, and shot up the windows.

    The reason I was reminded is that I saw such an event, in 1958 Tallahassee, when most of Kos was in diapers. I know racism exists. It's an expression of xenophobia, the opposite of curiosity, both of which are reactions to strangeness. Basic cognitive science.

    Now, I was aware it was a very strong analogy, and that it carried a lot of weight. I didn't know then that the weight was too much for the supposedly open and liberal minds here. I know more now, and this diary may be a more sane and calm approach.

    I didn't burn a cross on anyone's lawn. Kossacks (there's a term that could stand a diary on its own...) might note how easily they are triggered into an orgy of self-destruction. The famous liberal purity circular firing squad. God, I know them!

    I'm not a right-winger, I don't read ANY of the rightwing sites, I don't listen to frightwing radio. I do take freedom of speech seriously. I do carry an ACLU card.

    I really don't like troll-hunters who spend their time on this blog looking for politically incorrect speech.

    I won't speak to the delicacy and sensitivity issue. It's done to death, and this is the internet, not real life.

    In real life? I'm sometimes more arrogant and abrasive than here. I think it's genetic, and in some peculiar way, I demand to be allowed to be me. Just like a black man.

    by ormondotvos on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:40:26 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      My poll was about the use of words. You did more than just use a word, you created a whole analogy. Nothing anyone can do to you on this blog compares with the physical violence engaged by the KKK. It's just not a good analogy.

      by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:53:21 AM PDT

    •  So

      Your position is we're all just too stupid to understand your  analogy.  

      by MadRuth on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:26:11 AM PDT

  •  what that diary indicates

    is that it's always open season on the american negro. if the title had been "stephen colbert....dirty jew bastard", it would have been vaporized within 5 seconds.    

    by cyclonejim on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:50:01 AM PDT

•  I agree with this...

  Just to clarify, black people are no less capable of racism than whites or any other race, and whether or not a diarist who writes something provocative on race is a member of the race being provoked doesn't matter apart from the substance of the personal experience brought in.

  However ...

  Racist views - prejudice - are one thing. But the difference between the racist views a black person has regarding whites and those a white has regarding blacks is that, historically speaking, the racist views of whites were transformed into long-standing policies that kept blacks in a subservient position. The residue of those policies remains, just as it remains, say, for American Indians even though the laws have themselves changed.

  Personally, I couldn't care less if someone today calls me a "red nigger," as they did in my childhood. I only care that neither I nor others be discriminated against.

  by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:34:22 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. Racism alone, vs. (Racism + Power)

    Two very different effects on others, on society, on history.

    by pat208 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:35:43 AM PDT

  •  Historically, yes.

    But with the majority of blacks in the middle class now, I think we're approaching closer to Equal Opportunity Racism.

    What we have instead now are vast bypassed communities (I lived in one for six years-- an Alaskan Native community with no running water or sewer system of any kind) that are being equally ignored by just about everybody, without regard to race, creed or color.

    And middle-class people of every race --the minority, fortunately-- who cling to racism as if they're afraid they would have no identity without it.

    by SensibleShoes on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:46:40 AM PDT

    •  Certainly, blacks have more opportunity ...

      ...and the middle class has expanded greatly (and a whole lot of other good things came out of the civil rights movement and the laws it brought into being).

      And agreed about those bypassed communities.

      But when one out of six black men has been in prison (compared with one in 38 white men), we still have a long way to go.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:58:19 AM PDT

      •  Oh, well, men.

        If you wanna talk about men.

        by SensibleShoes on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:28:54 AM PDT

      •  White America

        stil views Black Males, particularly, as a scary threat, and comes down on them big-time.  And then, in the ultimate hypocrisy, they blame Black Folks for not having a father in the home!!!!!

        by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

        •  Not just black males,

          but poor and young black males, in particular.

          by Karmafish on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:25:34 AM PDT

          •  In Particular,

            but it's beyond that.  'Member when even Danny Glover couldn't get a cab to stop 4 him???

            by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:32:55 AM PDT

            •  And Black Stars,

              both athletic and celebrity, are routinely singled out for enforcement...Eldridge Cleaver...

              by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:34:36 AM PDT

              •  For example,

                the NBA dress code.  They made a special point of saying no "bling".  Why is that necessary?

                by DemInCville on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:38:27 AM PDT

    •  The problem is

      A lot of racism is very ingrained and still has a lot of way to go.

      Part of my family is from Georgia, and I have relatives who happen to live about a mile or so from Butler, Georgia - that's the place that made international headlines 3 years ago for having the "all-white prom".

      The thing that surprised some people were the reactions by some of the black students, such as the one quoted in the article:  "But I went to a black prom and I had fun," she added. "It didn't kill me, so I tell my son, 'Just go to the prom and have fun. Don't come out hating anyone."'

      Some rural parts of the South (and no doubt some rural and even certain urban parts of the rest of the U.S.) have a very ingrained form of racism that can at times be not as much visceral hatred but almost more of "that's just the way it is."  I've talked to white, highly religious churchgoing folks in various parts of rural Georgia who explain to me how blacks just are all right, but they just aren't like white people and then go on to explain where in the Bible it says that.

      I recall about 10 years ago walking down a sidewalk with my sister in either Butler or Reynolds (they're both a couple miles from one another in Taylor County) and having a black man walking toward us step off the sidewalk into the street, duck his head, and say, "Excuse me, sir."  

      I recall a kid who was adopted by the white couple living across the road from my grandmother.  The kid was mixed race black, and the irony was that while the white couple had adopted him, they always told him his real father was Hawaiian - hence his skin color and hair - and when he and I were talking he was saying things like "Black people are lazy, they're thieves, etc."

      My stepkids had culture shock when we went to Georgia last year.  Here in Houston, which is fairly integrated with a Hispanic majority in the Houston schools, it's just not the same.  I had warned them, but they were still surprised at the exposure to racism unlike any they've seen here.

      We have a long, friggin' way to go still, unfortunately.

      by cappy on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:41:55 AM PDT

•  The diary did not defend the use of the word.

  I agree with richter upthread:  it was well argued.  It was painful to read, but so are many things.

  Kudos on reflecting on the meaning of the diary; even though I don't agree with your interpretation.  Clearly this is a hot topic; it had many people grappling with many levels of meaning.  One thing that got little attention was this:

  The diary and comments almost all deal with the effect of this word on those who hear it.

  What about its effect on those who use it?

  For some, using it may constitute a kind of  countercultural jujitsu.

  For others, its use reflects the dehumanizing effects of a culture of white supremacy.

  So what do we think of those who use this word to defame, debilitate, and dehumanize?  What does its use say about them?

  by Fasaha on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

  •  Actually...

    I thought the point was the there is nothing inherently offensive about any word when its meaning is flexible. Which is true... which is defending it in a way. That's not an accusation though. I thought it was well argued, excellent diary.

    But what 4thepeople are arguing was changing the social meaning of the word by using it in non-offensive contexts.

    That doesn't mean there are no contexts in which the use is actually still offensive-- like it was in the troll rating diary. In that case, I just don't want people coming away from it thinking that their feelings-- their negative reactions, are somehow invalid, and they should shut the hell up, because they're not, and they shouldn't.

    by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

•  thanks for your meaningful

  contribution to the topic "race". (honestly, no snark)

  i lost the tone and thesis of the essay however when you moved from technical terms (signal, definition, right, normal vs normative) to literary, psychological or semiological phenomena, in order to evaluate the word nigger AND 4thepeople's essay AND the response of readers, generally.

  that trick is tough enough to pull-off in book-length format -- where the analyst affords equal opportunity to speaker AND hearer -- when the speech in question is treated as art.

  an artwork is an instance of culture; comprehending the purposes and meaning of art today is a quite complex endeavor -- involving both "speaker" and "hearers" independent relationships to canon, politics, technique, and vocabulary.

  OTOH, your essay does not overtly embrace the utility of art criticism. Rather it presents an opportunity to psychoanalyze 4thepeople, the person, given what you perceive perverse or defective exposition of the word nigger. (straight up normative reading)

  and, what i understand least of all is this non sequitor:
  

  Offensive speech won't diminish the fullness of your humanity, or destroy your self-respect. I can't do that. But it can signal the presence of attitudes which determine actions and which ought to be changed.

  anyway, props to you for going after the truth or truthiness.

  by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:40:45 AM PDT

  •  Thanks MarketTrustee

    I can't give an artistic critique because I have no expertise in that subject. To be truthful the word 'art' never even occured to me. Symbolism and communication (though perhaps ambiguous) did... the difference is that in symbolism/communication there is no aesthetic enjoyment.

    I wasn't trying to analyze 4thepeople the person... I was responding to what he wrote about himself only because he used his own experience as an example to make a point to general to everyone.

    Other than what didn't you understand about what I wrote?

    In that line "I can't do that" should have been It (offensive speech). A typo, sorry.

    by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:47:33 AM PDT

    •  ahhh. typos. i'm the worst offender

      very well then. heh. perhaps you'll reconsider your role here as anart critic ... which is not to imply you require "artistic" or "aesthetic" expertise. at all ;) we all see and know what we like, those pleasant sensations.

      that art today is not often pleasant should come as no surprise, if one presumes that art is an expression of the mores and times in which we live, culture. "symbols" -- words, images, people -- are devices of language replete with old and new meanings. semiologists study this social phenomena most often in relation to political changes. so do "professional" artists (all kinds in order to manipulate expectations) and art critics.

      tell me i over-intellectualize the 4thepeople's skill :) attibute value to a diary that has none ...

      so my only caveat (jess sayin) concerns your style: the diary begins addressing the diary's value (or lack thereof) to the whole, imaginary "community". but the body of your diary addresses the diarist ("You", "your personal experience"), repeatedly. that would be a missive, perhaps an accusation, rather than examination of how and why the diary taxed a variety of responses from its readers.

      what was the diary's impact on the "community" what was this disturbance? and why did the diarist choose to disturb the political complacency and cultural ignorance that lurks therein.
      dkos is growing rapidly. the cycle of disturbance and confrontation and learning (perhaps) will repeat and must repeat for each "new" user who enters the, er, truth seeking domain of, er, democratic organization.

      (end hijack)

      by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

      •  styles...

        that would be a missive, perhaps an accusation, rather than examination of how and why the diary taxed a variety of responses from its readers

        The point was just to respond to what was being written. I could have used any style. Missive style? Fine, why not? It was easier to type that way. Accusation? On some of the more specific parts I quoted, yes. Of the diary as a whole and its overall (valid) point, no.

        The ultimate goal was to make a specific set of arguments (specifically that the original diary represents an incomplete-- rather than incorrect-- dialogue), not necessarily explain everything, or address the diary's value.

        What was the diary's impact on the community? I'd say the best answer to that question is to reread the diary itself. Beyond that, I've nothing more to say about it.

        by Beet on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:56:36 AM PDT

•  I Learned, Painfully

  many years ago (c.1969) that "Liberal" or "Progressive" did not necessarily mean "not racist."  I was in the Boston area at the time, and witnessed the sharp divergence of activists opposed to the War when the subject came to race.  I also saw the full weight of the "justice" system applied to Black folks.  I think this is a discussion we need to have.  

  To me, the Voting Rights Act Renewal is a crucial issue.  Are we willing to "throw down" and make common cause w/Black and Brown folks to make this real, or do we pontificate from our secure little enclaves?  In other words, when it comes to human and civil rights, we talk a good game, but do we really mean it?  Do we really care?  And, btw, do we really want to win when that means truly forming an alliance w/Black and Brown folks in this country, or is that out of the comfort zone????

  by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:57:00 AM PDT

  •  I think people are too concerned with comfort...

    these days.  Things have never really changed in terms of civil rights until people have gotten uncomfortable and/or scared. From the soldiers that marched (sometimes barefoot) in the snow at Valley Forge, to those who braved police dogs, fire hoses, and worse in their struggle to vote, there usually had to be discomfort before the inertia of the status quo could be broken.

    Right now, I think most people are so stressed and depressed just from having to make ends meet these days, there isn't a lot of time or energy left to worry about phone or bank surveilance, voting booth paper trails, the Voting Rights Act renewal or anything else.  

    Even if we care (I certainly do) who's got the action plan?

    by DemInCville on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:08:06 AM PDT

    •  I Think You're Basically Correct

      on this, and it really concerns me, cuz the Bushies understand that well and are taking full advantage in ways I'm sure we'll regret for a long time to come.  

      To bolster your point, MILLIONS of Mexicans and other immigrants and sympathizers marching in the streets to assert their rights, only tens of others for other issues....

      We may not wake up from our false comfort zone b4 it's too late....

      by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:29:55 AM PDT

  •  Welcome Back, 4thepeople

    Got your second wind?  I got your back!

    by serrano on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:16:16 AM PDT

•  I'd change the poll

  "Always-- it's a signal of someone's hateful attitude"

  to

  "Always-- it's a signal of someone's hateful attitude or ignorance"

  by shpilk on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:20:34 AM PDT

•  What the hell does this or that last diary

  have to do with Stephen Colbert?

  by twalling on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:26:18 AM PDT

  •  is this snark?

    if not 4thpeople's diary was, stylistically, an extended, satiric and provocative, reply to colbert's ongoing search for "a new black friend". since colbert's show premiered, his facetious badge of alliance to "allen" (literally, a photograph of them both) has been a motif of the parody that colbert is himself.

    most recently, this? last? week, colbert and allen enacted a verrrrrrry melodramatic scene of unrequited love, where allen appeared in the studio audience with a "new white friend".

    4thepeople is no stooge.

    by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

    •  I'm very familiar with the 'Alan' gag

      but I didn't understand how 4thepeople's diary tied in with it, specifically it's title.

      "Stephen Colbert on N**************" suggested to me it was about Colbert's views on "the N-word."   But it wasn't.  I caught his allusion to "Colbert's new black friend" but I honestly didn't see how it tied in with the point of the diary.  It was a well written diary, just had a misleading title, to me.

      This diary's use of Colbert's name is even more perplexing.

      by twalling on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:03:44 PM PDT