The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing

[Curtis Metcalf]

Wise Son. If there are 1000 people and 100 are disadvantaged due to discrimination past or present, one could couch it as the 900's privilege or the 100's disadvantage.  Even in saying this I am repeating myself. My point of view is clear and you know it. One's choice of words, one's way of framing issues can bring people together or pull them apart.  This is my last comment on the topic on this thread. I am really tired of it.  Please don't ask me anything further on this.

And if one happens to be among the "disadvantaged" perhaps that phrasing is equally off-putting. I for one am not accepting of the implicit victimization in that manner of framing the issue. So perhaps it's a matter of whose feelings we are considering. Which brings us full circle...

And Michael, there are others here for Wise Son to address. It's easy to not participate if that's your choice.

[michaelintp]

The issue is not what is off-putting in the egoistic sense but rather what is likely to foster unity or "us vs them".  As to you all continuing the conversation, great. It just seemed that Wise Son was specifically quoting and addressing me on a topic that we exhausted already, running in circles, in the past. Together with you, I should add.  Haha. 

[Curtis Metcalf]

The issue is not what is off-putting in the egoistic sense but rather what is likely to foster unity or "us vs them".  

True enough. However, I don't necessarily value unity above all. Or to be specific, above justice, liberty, equality, and truth. Or perhaps those things are prerequisites to real unity.

As to you all continuing the conversation, great. It just seemed that Wise Son was specifically quoting and addressing me on a topic that we exhausted already, running in circles, in the past. Together with you, I should add.  Haha. 

I don't know that we exhausted the topic so much as each other before. Seems like there has been an occasional new notion here and there.

As for addressing you directly, guilty as charged. Still, you don't have to answer. 

[michaelintp]

                     Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...

[BmoreAkuma]

You have to be kidding me. Really?

[Kristopher]

You have to be kidding me. Really?

 

[Wise Son]

Wise Son. If there are 1000 people and 100 are disadvantaged due to discrimination past or present, one could couch it as the 900's privilege or the 100's disadvantage. 

You could, but that really isn't the kind of thing we've been discussing. Or at least, it's too vague to summarise what we've been talking about.

My point of view is clear and you know it. One's choice of words, one's way of framing issues can bring people together or pull them apart.

Very true, but so can the way you listen to one's words, or the way they frame issues. No need to respond if you don't want to, I'm just, as ever, trying to explain the reasons I differ.

[Wise Son]

True enough. However, I don't necessarily value unity above all. Or to be specific, above justice, liberty, equality, and truth. Or perhaps those things are prerequisites to real unity.

Damn good point. I totally agree, true unity has to be based on justice, freedom and honesty.

Or to put it another way, IAWC.

[michaelintp]

The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth."  

I don't see this as something to celebrate.

[Curtis Metcalf]

The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth."  

I don't see this as something to celebrate.

I don't find truth or honesty particularly lofty. Just necessary.

I have always admired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I believe the order of the terms is significant. Reconciliation without truth is fiction. Or, more likely, coercion.

I think maybe Michael is arguing for civility. It is possible to simply disagree about some things and remain polite by changing the subject because those things ultimately don't matter that much. Some things -- I nominate justice and liberty -- do matter. And that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable and civil discussions about our disagreements. But until we have those discussions, there is no real unity, only wishful thinking.

[Curtis Metcalf]

True enough. However, I don't necessarily value unity above all. Or to be specific, above justice, liberty, equality, and truth. Or perhaps those things are prerequisites to real unity.

Damn good point. I totally agree, true unity has to be based on justice, freedom and honesty.

Or to put it another way, IAWC.

Ta, WS. 

[michaelintp]

The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth."  

I don't see this as something to celebrate.

I don't find truth or honesty particularly lofty. Just necessary.

I have always admired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I believe the order of the terms is significant. Reconciliation without truth is fiction. Or, more likely, coercion.

I think maybe Michael is arguing for civility. It is possible to simply disagree about some things and remain polite by changing the subject because those things ultimately don't matter that much. Some things -- I nominate justice and liberty -- do matter. And that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable and civil discussions about our disagreements. But until we have those discussions, there is no real unity, only wishful thinking.

Curtis, I speak for myself.  We don't need to hear your distortion of what I say. What I've said is that the same facts and same truth can be framed to bring people together for progress, or to foster "us vs them" attitudes to foster prejudice and disunity. Virtually everyone who does the latter does so in the name of "truth," "justice," etc... Whether on the Right or Left, black or white.

I am all for discussions. We have had them repeatedly. I would say more than most folk on the forum. That does not mean endless repetition is desirable or warranted.  

So please, don't reformulate what I've said. Particularly where I am trying to respectfully bow out. If you wish to continue to share your views with Wise Son and he with you, great. But please don't act as my proxy in order to create a strawman to tear down.

We all suffer from the temptation to have the last word. But when one does so it really should be one's own words.  You have stated your opinions clearly, as has Wise Son. In my own words, so have I, on the Forum.  Why can't that be enough? I see where you are coming from. We disagree. No surprise.   

[Curtis Metcalf]

Umm, where have I allegedly committed the offense of distorting what you say? 

Here:
"I think maybe Michael is arguing for civility."

That sentence? Doesn't the start of it indicate both speculation and ownership? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

The rest of that paragraph is just my musings on dialogue, not yours. Believe it or not, it's not always about you. And I say this with a smile. See?

[Wise Son]

The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth."  

I don't see this as something to celebrate.

I guess that is the core of the disagreement. I don't think we see it as a "promotion" of those attitudes. If anything, I think a proper understanding of privilege reduces the us vs. them attitude, as you can't understand it without seeing how you also benefit, often unwillingly, from another form of privilege.

I will definitely agree that a shallow understanding could lead to promotion of antagonistic, but I'd never defend a shallow understanding of anything. After all, a shallow understanding runs counter to the idea of promoting truth.

[Curtis Metcalf]

The promotion of "us vs them" attitudes is usually justified on the basis of some lofty principle. Particularly "truth."  

I don't see this as something to celebrate.

I guess that is the core of the disagreement. I don't think we see it as a "promotion" of those attitudes. If anything, I think a proper understanding of privilege reduces the us vs. them attitude, as you can't understand it without seeing how you also benefit, often unwillingly, from another form of privilege.

I will definitely agree that a shallow understanding could lead to promotion of antagonistic, but I'd never defend a shallow understanding of anything. After all, a shallow understanding runs counter to the idea of promoting truth.

Per usual, Wise Son said this more clearly. That is, IAWWS. Shocking, I know.

If you prefer to think of it as disadvantage instead of privilege, that's fine. We agree that we're talking about two sides of the same coin. By the same token, if I prefer to express the concept as privilege instead of disadvantage in a given situation, why is that wrong? Understanding others' perspectives is one of the purposes of dialogue. Sharing perspectives is to me the antithesis of divisiveness. Indeed, I believe that mutual understanding is the only foundation of true unity.

If you are wary of the term white privilege because of the way others have used it, I can understand that. That is not my intent nor Wise Son's. (I feel safe in saying that on his behalf.)

I believe, or rather, hypothesize, that at root, you don't trust my sincerity. That is, that I mean what I say at face value. And that's not an unreasonable position. After all, I have mocked your ideas on occasion on the forum. All I can tell you is that I do try to state things as I see them as accurately as I am able. It's an ongoing endeavor. You'll have to make your own judgments about the results. I'm OK with that.