Author Topic: There Will Be Blood  (Read 30536 times)

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #135 on: February 02, 2011, 07:21:43 am »
Curtis, I am not preventing anyone from expressing any point of view they wish to on the Forum. So don't go there.

Clearly not what I said (misunderstood or misconstrued?). Your double standard claims seem like an attempt to dismiss what others say because of what you perceive they didn't say. I call bullsh*t. Everyone can make their own judgments. My objection is more along the lines of your tactics being opposed to fostering the dialogue that you claim to value.

What we see in the article you posted, above, is an attempt to smear everyone in the "Tea Party Movement" with the same broad brush based on the momentary activity of one organization and the comment of one individual, despite the fact that it was because of pressure from other "tea party" organizations and activists that the sign was taken down a few days after being erected. You see, even when the sign is taken down because of "tea party" pressure, the events are "spun" by leftist zealots to paint as negative a picture as possible. Instead of saying, "That's great that such a stupid and offensive sign was taken down as a result of self-policing." The article you quoted is just another example of more partisan political zealotry, an attempt at character assassination on a large scale. Ho-hum, more of the same from our "Progressive Activist" friends. I am not impressed.

Sez you. As is your right. (Though is it necessary to launch an ad hominem attack on this Scott P fellow to make your point?)

As for the article, maybe it's reporting an incident and inquiring just what is this Tea Party thing anyway. And what are its requisite responsibilities. What I liked was the explanation of the contexts of the overloaded and frequently misused term "socialism".
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #136 on: February 02, 2011, 07:24:46 am »
P.S. Did you like the video I posted, above?

Not much. I didn't find it particularly funny or pertinent.
The Will Rogers quote is much more amusing to me.
"I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #137 on: February 02, 2011, 07:46:55 am »
I call out double-standards, and other forms of hypocrisy, when I see 'em.  If you wish to view that as an "ad hominem" attack, be my guest. I prefer to view it as nothing more than the demand for intellectual consistency, and honesty.

Glad to hear you viewed the video, albeit through vacant glassy zombie eyes ... ;) (hahaha, that's a joke, Curtis, based on the video).

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #138 on: February 02, 2011, 10:59:57 am »
Scott P is trying to defuse charges that he, himself, is a hypocrite, if he did not object to the extremely venturous Bush-basing during the Bush years...

The article you quoted is just another example of more partisan political zealotry, ...

So based on your speculation about his alleged lack of objection (although I've already called bullsh*t on this standard, let's set that aside for the sake of argument), you're calling him a hypocrite and a zealot. Now I've never heard of Scott P before yesterday and so I don't know what he has objected to. Neither do you.

ad hominem - adj. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
If the shoe fits...

I call out double-standards, and other forms of hypocrisy, when I see 'em.  If you wish to view that as an "ad hominem" attack, be my guest. I prefer to view it as nothing more than the demand for intellectual consistency, and honesty.

I'm not questioning your right to demand those things, merely your judgment in evaluating them.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #139 on: February 02, 2011, 11:14:19 pm »
Curtis, my comment (that you underlined) contained as a modifier the word "if" and I'm sure you know what "if" means. As to political zealotry, it is not difficult to sniff out, based on the tone of an article, what is emphasized in it and what is not. Just as it is not difficult to sniff out hypocritical double standards. Only those lost souls with putrefied leftist zombie noses are incapable of doing so. 

As to responding to the substance, I did respond to whatever substance was worth commenting on (please re-read my prior posts). I won't defend the billboard, which was stupid, and I am pleased that due to pressure from other "tea party" organizations it was taken down. The attribution of a dumb comment made by one individual to the totality of a nationwide movement comprised of tens of thousands of individuals is asinine. As to an extensive discussion of Socialism, we've already discussed that topic on this forum. On that front, I just wish Barack Obama were as honest as some members of this forum.

I don't wanna repeat myself further. So why do I stay here? ...

Oh yesssssssss … I rememberrrrrrrr:

'Cause I'd rather stay here
With all the madmen
Than perish with the sad men roaming free
And I'd rather play here
With all the madmen
For I'm quite content they're all as sane
As me


David Bowie, All the Madmen
Link to the song with amusing images at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgBgKxhZg_4

Day after day
They send my friends away
To mansions cold and grey
To the far side of town
Where the thin men stalk the streets
While the sane stay underground

Day after day
They tell me I can go
They tell me I can blow
To the far side of town
Where it's pointless to be high
'Cause it's such a long way down

So I tell them that
I can fly, I will scream, I will break my arm
I will do me harm
Here I stand, foot in hand, talking to my wall
I'm not quite right at all...am I?

Don't set me free, I'm as heavy as can be
Just my Librium and me
And my E.S.T. makes three

'Cause I'd rather stay here
With all the madmen
Than perish with the sad men roaming free
And I'd rather play here
With all the madmen
For I'm quite content they're all as sane
As me

(Where can the horizon lie
When a nation hides
Its organic minds
In a cellar...dark and grim
They must be very dim)

Day after day
They take some brain away
Then turn my face around
To the far side of town
And tell me that it's real
Then ask me how I feel

Here I stand, foot in hand, talking to my wall
I'm not quite right at all

Don't set me free, I'm as helpless as can be
My libido's split on me
Gimme some good 'ole lobotomy

'Cause I'd rather stay here
With all the madmen
Than perish with the sad men
Roaming free
And I'd rather play here
With all the madmen
For I'm quite content
They're all as sane as me

Zane, Zane, Zane
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien
Zane, Zane, Zane (ah ah ah)
Oeuvre le Chien



Wasn't he just soooooooooo sexy back then?

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #140 on: February 03, 2011, 05:52:03 am »
Curtis, my comment (that you underlined) contained as a modifier the word "if" and I'm sure you know what "if" means.
Yes, therefore the speculation comment.

As to political zealotry, it is not difficult to sniff out, based on the tone of an article, what is emphasized in it and what is not. Just as it is not difficult to sniff out hypocritical double standards. Only those lost souls with putrefied leftist zombie noses are incapable of doing so. 
In other words, anybody who disagrees with you. Sure.
Why can't you acknowledge the difference between "I think you're wrong about that" and "you must be a zealot/partisan/leftist"?
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #141 on: February 03, 2011, 09:32:54 am »
Curtis, my comment (that you underlined) contained as a modifier the word "if" and I'm sure you know what "if" means.
Yes, therefore the speculation comment.

Duh. That is why I said "if" ... Don't know how to be more honest than that. In any event, the author's language at the end of the article was obviously a preemptive strike against the obvious point that Bush was also frequently called "Hitler" by Left-wing individuals and organizations, without a lot of objection from many on the Left. Because many folk on the Left DID refer to Bush as "Hitler" even if the author himself did not (though I bet he did, or his pals did, given the tenor of his article and the fact that he does not straight-out state in his article that such treatment of Bush was objectionable and/or that he objected to it at the time).

As to political zealotry, it is not difficult to sniff out, based on the tone of an article, what is emphasized in it and what is not. Just as it is not difficult to sniff out hypocritical double standards. Only those lost souls with putrefied leftist zombie noses are incapable of doing so.  
In other words, anybody who disagrees with you. Sure.
Why can't you acknowledge the difference between "I think you're wrong about that" and "you must be a zealot/partisan/leftist"?

Agree with me? Nope, that's not the issue (notwithstanding my follow-up Zombie joke; sheesh, don't be so literal, Curtis).

If I believe someone is simply making an honest mistake, I'm happy to point that out. Particularly if he or she is the kind of person who has the humility to admit mistake from time to time. If, on the other hand, the behavior of the person is fundamentally unfair, then that indicates that something else is going on. By "fundamentally unfair" I mean embracing a biased double standard, or taking quotes out of context, of fabricating quotes or events, or fabricating unstated negative meanings not based on what is actually said, and so on.

Any Left-winger who compared George Bush to Hitler was a ideological/partisan zealot. Any Right-winger who compares Barack Obama to Hitler is an ideological/partisan zealot. Those who did not object to the former, but who do object to the latter, and those who did object to the former, and don't object to the latter, have embraced a hypocritical double standard.

And again, for the record, I objected to both (to the Bush/Hitler comparison then, and to the Obama/Hitler comparison now). No double standard in my case. Evidently some "tea party" organizations also objected to Obama being compared to Hitler, and as a result the billboard was taken down. No double standard there either.

P.S. Curtis, did you watch the "All the Madmen" video? Doesn't it remind you of the HEF?  ;D

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9853
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: There Will Be Blood
« Reply #142 on: December 27, 2019, 12:24:00 pm »
Friday, 27th December 2019
White people assume niceness is the answer to racial inequality. It's not.

by Robin diAngelo




I am white.

As an academic, consultant and writer on white racial identity and race relations, I speak daily with other white people about the meaning of race in our lives.

These conversations are critical because, by virtually every measure, racial inequality persists, and institutions continue to be overwhelmingly controlled by white people.

While most of us see ourselves as “not racist”, we continue to reproduce racist outcomes and live segregated lives.

In the racial equity workshops I lead for American companies, I give participants one minute, uninterrupted, to answer the question:

“How has your life been shaped by your race?”

This is rarely a difficult question for people of color, but most white participants are unable to answer.

I watch as they flail, some giving up altogether and waiting out the time, unable to sustain 60 seconds of this kind of reflection.

This inability is not benign, and it certainly is not innocent.

Suggesting that whiteness has no meaning creates an alienating – even hostile – climate for people of color working and living in predominantly white environments, and it does so in several ways.

If I cannot tell you what it means to be white, I cannot understand what it means not to be white.

I will be unable to bear witness to, much less affirm, an alternate racial experience.

I will lack the critical thinking and skills to navigate racial tensions in constructive ways.

This creates a culture in which white people assume that niceness is the answer to racial inequality and people of color are required to maintain white comfort in order to survive.

An inability to grapple with racial dynamics with any nuance or complexity is ubiquitous in younger white people who have been raised according to an ideology of colorblindness.

I have been working with large tech companies whose average employees are under 30 years old.

White employees are typically dumbfounded when their colleagues of color testify powerfully in these sessions to the daily slights and indignities they endure and the isolation they feel in overwhelmingly white workplaces.

This pain is especially acute for African Americans, who tend to be the least represented.

While the thin veneer of a post-racial society that descended during the Obama years has been ripped away by our current political reality, most white people continue to conceptualize racism as isolated and individual acts of intentional meanness.

This definition is convenient and comforting, in that it exempts so many white people from the system of white supremacy we live in and are shaped by.

It is at the root of the most common kind of white defensiveness.

If racists are intentionally and openly mean, then it follows that nice people cannot be racist.

How often will a white person accused of racism gather as evidence to the contrary friends and colleagues to testify to their niceness; the charge cannot be true, the friend cannot be racist, because “he’s a really nice guy” or “she volunteers on the board of a non-profit serving under-privileged youth”.

Not meaning to be racist also allows for absolution.

If they didn’t mean it, it cannot and should not count.

Thus, it becomes essential for white people to quickly and eagerly telegraph their niceness to people of color.

Niceness in these instances is conveyed through tone of voice (light), eye contact accompanied by smiling and the conjuring of affinities (shared enjoyment of a music genre, compliments on hair or style, statements about having traveled to the country the “other” is perceived to have come from or knowing people from the other’s community).

Kindness is compassionate and often implicates actions to support or intervene.

For example, I am having car trouble and you stop and see if you can help.

I appear upset after a work meeting and you check in and listen with the intent of supporting me.

Niceness, by contrast, is fleeting, hollow and performative.

In addition to niceness, proximity is seen as evidence of a lack of racism.

Consider the claims many white people give to establish that they aren’t racist:

“I work in a diverse environment.”

“I know and/or love people of color.”

“I was in the Peace Corps.”

“I live in a large urban city.”

These are significant because they reveal what we think it means to be racist.

If I can tolerate (and especially if I enjoy and value) proximity, claims of proximity maintain, I must not be racist; a “real” racist cannot stand to be near people of color, let alone smile or otherwise convey friendliness.

In a 1986 article about black students and school success, Signithia Fordham and John Ogbu describe a “fictive kinship” between African Americans, a kinship that is not consanguineal (by blood) or affinal but derived from the assumption of shared experience.

The racial kinship white people attempt to draw from niceness might be seen as a false or fabricated affinity.

Most white people live segregated lives and in fact have no lasting cross-racial relationships.

We are in the position to choose segregation and often do.

The claims of non-racism that we make are therefore based on the most superficial of shared experiences:

passing people of color on the street of large cities and going to lunch on occasion with a co-worker.

Note that our cursory friendliness does not come without strings.

Consider the case of a white California woman who called the police this past May when a group of black Airbnb guests did not return her smile.

The expectation is that the “nod of approval”, the white smile, will be reciprocated.

This woman, like all the other white people who have called the police on people of color for non-existent offenses, vigorously denied she was racist.

After all, she did smile and wave before reporting them.

I have heard many black Americans talk about the awkwardness of white people “over-smiling”.

The act is meant to convey acceptance and approval while maintaining moral integrity, but actually conveys white racial anxiety.

Over-smiling allows us to mask an anti-blackness that is foundational to our very existence as white.

A fleeting benevolence, of course, has no relation to how black people are actually undermined in white spaces.

Black friends have often told me that they prefer open hostility to niceness.

They understand open hostility and can protect themselves as needed.

But the deception of niceness adds a confusing layer that makes it difficult for people of color to decipher trustworthy allyship from disingenuous white liberalism.

Gaslighting ensues.

The default of the current system is the reproduction of racial inequality.

To continue reproducing racial inequality, the system only needs for white people to be really nice and carry on – to smile at people of color, to go to lunch with them on occasion.

To be clear, being nice is generally a better policy than being mean.

But niceness does not bring racism to the table and will not keep it on the table when so many of us who are white want it off.

Niceness does not break with white solidarity and white silence.

In fact, naming racism is often seen as not nice, triggering white fragility.

We can begin by acknowledging ourselves as racial beings with a particular and limited perspective on race.

We can attempt to understand the racial realities of people of color through authentic interaction rather than through the media or through unequal relationships.

We can insist that racism be discussed in our workplaces and a professed commitment to racial equity be demonstrated by actual outcomes.

We can get involved in organizations working for racial justice.

These efforts require that we continually challenge our own socialization and investments in racism and put what we profess to value into the actual practice of our lives.

This takes courage, and niceness without strategic and intentional anti-racist action is not courageous.
















Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people?CMP=share_btn_tw
« Last Edit: December 27, 2019, 10:35:47 pm by Battle »