The Republican Party enforces discipline very strictly, but in places where they could never win with an honest campaign they run stooges -- Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Bloomberg, Sen. Coleman in MN. These are allowed to wander off the reservation on specific issues, as long as they come through on a few key votes (especially but not only the vote for Speaker). Their independence is fake.
Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins are a somewhat different story -- survivors of the old moderate Republican wing. They're a pitiful, fraudulent bunch and play by the same rules -- Jeffords couldn't stand it any longer, but these guys have no shame.
Then you have three conservative Republicans in the Senate who aren't complete zombies: Lugar, Hagel, and McCain. Their independence is overrated too, but the comparison is with the 35-45 Republican Senators who are kneejerk wingers without a brain in their head or an ounce of self-respect.
I think you may have a point, John, except you know none of those people votes for Speaker. And I suspect there's lots less independence in the House for other structural reasons.
Granted -- I condensed a bit too much. The Speaker vote is the most important single vote in either house. There are about a dozen must-win votes every year in each House, and up until last year Rove was incredibly successful with almost all of them. The relative independence recently is impressive only in comparison to the immediately preceding period (or to the Democrats).
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship? On the one hand, I know this is important in places like this, on the other, I can't remember not feeling more-or-less a partisan Democrat always.
It's a big deal in NYC politics. Guiliani and Bloomberg were both elected by partisan Democrats, because they were personally liberal and the candidates running against them were painted as self-evidently incompetent (an evaluation which I disagree with). I really want to hammer home that that's nonsense -- which team you say you're on has real consequences.
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship?
I think there are two reasons.
1. There are lots of Democrats and independents in California who will vote this year for Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's acting like a non-crazy Republican now. (Same goes for New York and Pataki or Bloomberg.) It's probably a good idea to point out that the non-crazy Republicans (like our local friends, naming no names) enable the crazy Republicans to set crazy policy. (At least, one thinks it's a good idea because one hopes that maybe we'll change the minds of those voters. Though in the case of Schwarzenegger I doubt it.)
2. There are some people, me and SCMT at least included, who either actively identified as conservative or had some sympathy for conservatives a decade or so ago, who changed our minds as we became aware that the crazies were running the show. One hopes that more such will have similar revelations the more we remark on the problems cited above.
I do have a theory about seemingly-thoughtful Republicans.
I think that they're something of a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption. Considering that Republicans surpassed the Democrats in corruption (and set a new record which may never be matched) 5 or 10 years ago, I don't think that that's a valid reason any more.
Jimmy Hoffa is not only long dead, he was bipartisan.
a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption
I think you really have to include people who had an allergy to various forms of what, for lack of a better phrase, I'm going to call political correctness---who thought the Democratic Party and liberalism more generally went off the rails went it lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed.
I know I'm expressing that badly, but I think there's something there.
There are also seemingly-thoughtful Republicans who think that the Republicans do a better job with national security, though at this point you have to emphasize the 'seemingly'.
How much of this anti-pc thing is just race-baiting propaganda?
I think a lot of it is, or was, and I'll go you one further---it's also gender-baiting and gay-baiting and.... you name it. I think there's a substantial number of people who support the Republican Party today because they chafed under sexual harrassment and other sensitivity training, and when they heard some Republican pundit telling them in effect that it was okay to affirm a complete lack of responsibility for the black poor, that it was okay to regard women and gays as weak and Mexicans as lazy and so forth, they felt tremendous relief.
I don't pretend to complete knowledge of the psychology involved here, but you certainly hear lots of people talking this way. Well, I do.
In origin, or in practice? I think the anti-pc thing was probably largely racist and sexist in origin, but it successfully got sold to a number of people who aren't unusually racist or sexist themselves. I spent yesterday listening to my annoying downstairs neighbor be pissy about another neighbor for raising the issue at a community meeting that opposition to a new high school in the neighborhood might be somewhat racist. While the guy I was talking to is an ass, I know him well enough to know that he really isn't a noticably racist ass. But he was really offended and annoyed by the other guy bringing up the possibility of racism at the meeting. He was pissy because he's learned to hate what he thinks of as sanctimonious liberals, not because he's defensive about his personal racism.
I was going to say "lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed. = failed to cater to their racism/sexism/homophobia," but I see that's been covered. Yet I typed it, so here it is.
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests". Yet the interests of the minuscule percentage of families who are going to derive benefits in the billions from the inheritance-tax cut are not "special"?
Isn't the problem more that "racism" (and by extension sexism and homophobia) are somewhat overloaded to include both overt and more subtle societal forms of racism? This is what makes South Park style anti-PC'ness seem so simple and obvious to people; they don't have white hoods and nooses in the closet, so how the hell can they be racist?! It's bogus, but the defensiveness is really hard to get past.
Hey, I wasn't the one being sanctimonious. I was the one handing the ass a beer and listening to his woes. (Sally's birthday party. The kids had returned from bowling, and were eating cake, as the adults picking them up chatted.)
The other guy? He's the one bringing the Democrats down.
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests".
I did say "seemed". I was not trying to support the position. I was trying to explain what certain people of my acquaintance see as the reason for their alienation from the Democratic Party or from liberalism, and to point out that it had nothing to do with union corruption.
This is very simply a politics of whose interest the party appears to be acting in, and a selfish calculation that the answer is "not mine". I don't say it's a correct calculation or a morally laudable one, but that it's a calculation I hear people make all the time.
I think our politics is distorted by widespread "grievance envy." People refuse guilt, by-and-large.
Christopher Lasch claimed, as what he called "The Spiritual Discipline Against Resentment," that MLK's great contribution was to merely claim the same rights as anybody else, without looking back or blaming.
Yeah. They've been really successful in painting accusations of racism and sexism as magically offensive fighting-words -- you'd better not say anything about either unless you can back it up with proof that the person you're describing is a bad bad evil nasty horrible person.
This is idiotic, of course. I'm a serious feminist, and one that's prone to self-examination. And I think or say sexist stuff (that is, conventionally patriarchical anti-feminist stuff) all the blasted time. Pointing out racism or sexism should not be a huge deal -- perfectly normal, decent people suffer from both, and would benefit from having their attention drawn to it a little more so they could suffer from it less.
This is a discussion much worth having. I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up. Possible reasons (the first of which I see on preview Glenn has noted):
1. It's way past time to retire "racist" and "sexist" for all but obvious and overt instances. It makes people super defensive, which is another way of saying that institutional, not-quite-willfull racism and sexism just aren't what most people understand by the terms, and you stop the discussion before it even begins by using them. Think of some other way to talk about it. Ditto "discrimination" and synonyms. You can argue all you want that their use is justfied, but you're still going to lose politically.
2. This. Insofar as "liberal" politicians or "Democrats" are supposed to represent my interest or point of view, their cravenness rankles the more, and they've been plenty craven. Maybe that's going to change.
Yeah, I think the guilt thing is key. Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless. And the perception that anti-prejudicial arguments are about guilt feeds very nicely into the "weak liberal" meme.
Of course, I'm sure that a lot of the reason that crap is effective is because it does, in fact, hit home: after all, if speaking up for, say, Mexican immigrants = "not standing up for my interests," the underlying presumption is that there's some kind of either/or, zero-sum game going on. I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote. It's easy to think that other people are just whining if you don't know much about their realities, but I think it's in the nature of stories to solicit empathy.
Part of the problem has to be linguistic. "Racism" and "sexism" are pretty powerful accusations in todays world. For obvious reasons, that shouldn't be diluted. We need new words to describe the more subtle stuff, so discussion's can be held without people going "Holy shit, I'm getting called out."
I'm really suspicious of any argument that starts with 'we need to change the names for things, because the old names are too hurtful'. Where PC did that, it was about letting groups choose their own names -- e.g., enough people of East Asian heritage thought Oriental was offensive that we now say Asian instead. But I can't see a name-change for structural racism that won't get treated as "You conniving bastards of liberals, you're trying to insult me and call me a racist because you think I'm too stupid to know what [new term] really means. I hate you anyway."
I'd rather stick with the same words until people get over it.
I'd rather not talk about that kind of thing at all. Otherizing isn't on a serious agenda. You got your heartbreaking divide between rich and poor; this makes people literally sick and weak. You got your terrorist-manufacturing foreign policy and your completely inept defense system. Isn't that enough to chew on?
D. H. Lawrence asserted, in "The White Novels of Fennimore Cooper," that the American character resolved into a pair of polar opposites: A few earnest, self-tortured people, and the rest a mass of escaped slaves, spiritually speaking.
We run to the former, on this site, and fail dysmally when we expect others to feel as we do. A successful progressive politics is when the former — who else would care? — figure out how to appeal to the latter.
It's not that we should change the name, it's that we should discriminate(heh) more finely between two very different phenomena. The first is one where we want to be hurtful, where we are calling the person an asshole. The second we don't.
That type of context will never be recogonized unless we formalize it. All the "but we're all racist, including me" in the world won't get past the fact that it's still the same word.
I think Ogged's 27.1 is something to think about, notwithstanding my insistence on identifying spades when I step on 'em and they whack me in the nose. I suspect that the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it (as LB's 23 says); in a classroom setting, it works pretty well to preempt defensiveness by offering examples of one's own unconscious bigotry and talking about the distinction between intent and effect, but that doesn't always work so well irl.
OTOH, I think that the other reason that the anti-pc thing has gained such traction is Ogged's #2, and renaming things in order to make them more palatable feeds into the weak meme. Which is one reason I'd just as soon fight this shit out. But it's a tougher problem than it seems at first glance.
the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it
It's also that imputations of serious character flaws are pieces of heavy-duty conversational machinery which are often used to grab power. And saying, "oh, but we all are, me too!" turns into a self-criticism session.
A publicist sent me a book for review (weird, I know) called The Trouble With Diversity, by Walter Benn Michaels, which hits a lot of this stuff. I've been trying to get around to writing a somewhat extended review for a week or so now, but work's been getting in the way.
12: do think such opposition often has racist motives and effects. But how to say so, in the context of that community meeting, without giving legitimate offense to those in opposition?
47: That's the problem with 'just not talking about it'. Racism may not be the biggest problem out there any more (I'd say economic inequality wins), but we can't make it taboo to talk about it where it's a real possibility just because it will piss people off.
I don't propose making it taboo. I propose focusing on different problems. Making something central doesn't mean outlawing other concerns.
Pointing out racism and sexism is incredibly annoying?
No, of course not. But sanctimony is. And I stick by my earlier position that there are other problems, which strike me as both more important and more politically useful, around which to organize liberalism and Democrats.
Sigh. I agree with the commenter on that thread who proposes the corollary to Godwin's Law that the first person who makes a WWII comparison to a modern conflict loses the argument.
Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless.
Right, then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it?
Accusing somone of racism or sexism is a hurtful, harmful thing to do. You can talk alll you want about how you think people should react, but that's not going to change things. So you have to follow the law of proportionality. Unless the racist/sexist action is serious enough to warrant real reprobation, you let it slide.
I don't like PC either, especially the nuances of PC having to do with micro-sexualities, but this whole argument seems to be situated in some imaginary universe.
We're actually living in the midst of what seems to be an attempted [authoritarian right-wing] takeover, by people who devoutly hope for World War III, World War IV, or best of all, Armageddon.
But we're whining about snotty people who are important only because they happen to belong to our own little social groups, and are furthermore incredibly annoying.
Point of fact: few Democrats are liberals any more. Most are centrists, and many are snots, but being a snot doesn't make you a liberal.
In short, there are a lot of people who should STFU.
I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote.
Everyone who can should get behind the firewall and read Judith Warner today. The-senator-who-represents-me, and not his awesome god, being a mensch again, while I find out that my older brother has learned from talk radio to refer to him as "Dick Turban."
I had this whole long comment written, but it sucked, so let me just say that I'm with LB in 49. I'm wary of applying the "sanctimony" label with too broad a brush.
To me the anti-PC whine is much sillier than the PC whine, so we don't agree. PC is fluff, and anti-PC is meta-fluff.
The Democrats' real problem isn't mostly excessive PC, or issues of any kind. The problem is, above all, the absence of an all-year every-year message machine, which (combined with the abysmal media we've got) means that Democrats always face an uphill fight.
re: the "i do it too!" technique of racism/sexism accusations. I'm not sure if people get quiet after this because they accept the position or if they're just confused. (I suspect it has more to do with the latter.) Regardless, I think the proper response to this is not, "oh, that's ok then," but, "right, and I extended you the benefit of the doubt and the courtesy of letting it slide, why don't you do the same for me?"
I think I'm going with a categorical statement here: If there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
re: 60
But there are cirumstances which, while not severe enough in a single instance to merit calling someone out, nonetheless have a cumulative effect that can be extremely damaging. Cf. the mommy wars.
Right. And if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big deal, then you can't call them out unless it's a really, really big deal -- the taboo area expands.
But mostly I'm with Emerson and slol on this. PCness should not be the center of liberal politics -- it's just that the people who get worked up about the horrible obnoxiousness of PC are several steps sillier than the overly PC themselves.
then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
if there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
I don't think this is true at all. Example: as an undergrad, I went to ask the only black professor in my department, whom I had never met, if he would be willing to supervise my honors thesis. I caught him just as he was leaving his office. Now, in my mind for some reason I had pictured him as older and formally dressed; the man shutting the door was young and wearing an REI-type rain shell. Thinking he was a graduate student, I asked if professor so-and-so were in the office; he said, "I'm he." I said, "oh, I'm sorry, I expected you to be older and more formally dressed." He gave me a long look and asked, "why do you think you expected that? Do your other professors dress more formally than I do?"
I submit that that wasn't, in and of itself, a serious instance of racism; arguably it wasn't racist at all. But the point is, from his point of view, it was a minor instance of you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you). I often use this anecdote to explain the importance of racism in a broad social sense and why the experience, intent and judgment of example white person (me) aren't necessarily the best indicators of what does and doesn't constitute "serious" breaches of etiquitte.
In any case, I was (properly, I think) mortified.
I realize this story proves Labs' point re. self-examination in 42 correct. Which is why I think that this sort of thing is really useful, actually, in a classroom setting. But I agree that it can seriously hijack political discussions.
I agree with slol more or less all the way through. And I think "unacceptable," in #62, is wrong. What controls is what's useful, not what is somehow ethically appropriate.
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
Yet you don't expect shame/guilt to be the appropriate emotions at the recognition of a wrongful action?
and, regarding the tale of the black prof. The awkward part was where you told him what you expected him to look like. That's just awkward, and would have been even if he were white. But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big dea..
I don't think I'd go with the word "unacceptable." It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Re: 65
I think most people draw distinctions between behavior that is incorrect that doesn't reflect upon the persons character and behavior that is incorrect which makes us go "Wow, that guy's a schmuck." You should feel guilt if you do the latter, but certainly not if you do the former.
But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
Okay, I'd perceive that conversation as calling her out, and I'd think most people who get tense about liberals oppressing them would too. (I think it was justifies, and that he handled it well, but I can't read that as letting it go by.)
It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Again, if you're calling what B.'s professor said the 'more tolerant approach', we haven't got anything to argue about. But I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
I don't know about you people, but if in a social situation someone called me on a racist/sexist remark there is no way, none, that I wouldn't feel some combination of guilt and/or anger. And I would totally not like that person for the rest of the night, and maybe the next week, and maybe the next month, depending on context.
I think Emerson and mrh are missing my point. I'm not advocating anti-PC. I'm making three claims.
1. One of the things that has generated so much support for modern Republicanism is a precursor, if you like, of anti-PC, i.e., the perception that the Democrats had turned away from their focus on the working class per se and had begun to focus on sundry oppressed groups. This is not really anti-PC, and it predates PC; see Rieder's Canarsie, e.g.
2. I think organizing liberalism by responding to each of the sundry claims of oppression we generally categorize as PC is therefore a politically bad idea because it loses support that would otherwise accrue to a liberalism focused on working people.
3. I think organizing liberalism that way is also, given the present state of affairs in the country and the world, missing the point.
One other point about the origins of anti-PC sentiment: an awful lot of people's education on race and gender issues consists of (1) MLK and Susan B. Anthony, plus (2) training at work. MLK and Susan B. Anthony are a long time ago, and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural). So smart and well-meaning people can end up assuming that all that "PC stuff" is just more of the same dumb stuff that they were forced to sit through at work. Such people may just shut down when they think they're about to get more of what they've already heard from some earnest nitwit in "sensitivity training."
68: This is a separate question from whether it's politically productive to call people on racist/sexist shit, but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that? Based purely on the 'everyone does it sometimes' rule rather than anything I've noticed about your tendencies toward either (which, to be clear, is nothing), you've probably made racist or sexist remarks without thinking about them. Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you).
My sister had a funny story of one month as a surgical resident where she was on a team with a black guy and a Latino guy. First, they immediately began calling themselves the Mod Squad. Second, none of them could get recognized as doctors -- they were respectively a nurse, an orderly, and a janitor.
I seriously bring up the example of blind auditions for symphony orchestras once every week or two in making the point that I'm about to discuss unintentional discrimination.
I'm really not interested in calling anyone out in a social situation, but I do care that a good chunk of the electorate can be led to vote against their own interest by anyone who cares to push their racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist buttons. Mexicans taking my job? Swarthy terrorists? Let me give you some of these civil rights; I wasn't using them anyway. Homosexuals wanna get married? Bring the Armageddon, if you want, just protect marriage from the gay cooties. Are liberals somehow responsible for this?
Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith. Moreover, I'm inclined to think that various minority issues are better served if "racism," at a minimum, remains a serious charge that people are careful about over-deploying.
but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that?
goodness no. After an internal audit of my own policy (arranged by and conducted by myself) I have come out totally in favor of and in support of my own position.
More seriously, I had a really good friend who was very proper (a much better word than PC, b/c it refers to a different motivator) who did help me perceive that I did make inappropriate comments. But always in situations between ourselves or another close friend. And if I do say somethine inappropriate these days, I'm going to feel bad afterwards when I realize it, regardless of whether someone calls me on it.
and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural).
The place I work settled a discrimination lawsuit shortly after I started there (the official line is that while the suit was meritless, fighting it in court would cost more than settling, so that's what we did.) One of the conditions of the settlement was that the entire staff would participate in a diversity training session. Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one. The funny thing is, it turned out to be about the opposite of what we expected: instead of some sort of liberal guilt trip, we received a talk from a lawyer on how to harass someone right up to the point the law allowed, and no further.
Id be pleased if Racism, a name whose very form suggests an ideology, were reserved for intentional acts and expressions. Something like "unconscious racial prejudice" would be fine for the other.
No, but candidates who want to win elections have to run political campaigns in that country, the country we actually live in. I think liberals ought to want to win elections, so they can implement policy that improves the country in a liberal way. So I think liberalism ought to focus on those issues that will make this possible.
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith.
Right, I want to emphasize this b/c it's important. Calling someone out is a sign of dislike, another reason to dislike the caller. Secondly, it's a stormy topic, and if the occurance in question isn't clear (and, really, when is anything clear to everyone?) either a) an unwanted discussion ensues or b) the callee lets it slide, and he and his friends resent the caller.
I tend to be humorless about sexist/racist language, to the point where they mock me at work for calling people on it. I try to be nice about it, but I don't stay quiet, and I expect to be called on it, too. Racism and sexism are ingrained in our culture in some very ugly ways and if no one ever says 'Do you realise that's not right?' no one will ever realise that no, it's not right to call people offensive names/perpetuate dumb stereotypes. It's irritating and embarrassing to get called out for racism or sexism, but I can't think it's more irritating or embarrassing than being someone who is hurt by ugly names, so it's something to cope with and hopefully learn from.
To me the whole PC debate is basically a way for rude people to stomp on civilized behavior. It's a triumph of the petty lazy side of human nature that people complain about not being allowed to refer to groups of people in ways that are hurtful.
There are people who use politeness to shut down discussion- I know people I can't have conversations with because they can spend all day parsing language for insults to the most obscure groups, but I am willing to bet that most of the people who complain about 'PC' are not dealing with the whole hir/shim/whatever crowd, but people like me who patiently reminds her coworkers that calling trans people 'she-males' is not a way to win friends and influence people.
This has been my one serious comment for the whole year, I promise.
No. Really no. I called Ogged out on something he said to L. (is she still reading? If so, hi!) in the thread where she delurked. He made a joke about harassing her, and I pointed out that even though he was clearly and absolutely kidding, that the joke reinforced the norm that if you're a teenage girl, you're sexual prey. If you run into people who will treat you like something other as prey, you got lucky, but you shouldn't count on it.
And I really like Ogged. He's why I started hanging out here so much -- the comments section hadn't yet coalesced into the bizarre entity it has become, so back then the blogger's personality was a much bigger part of the site. Calling someone out really needn't be hostile, or indicative of generalized dislike, or meaning anything more than "I wish you wouldn't do that anymore."
91: It was great. Understanding "the best that has been thought and said in the world" as of my growing up about 1970, and realizing that to a certain extent a great period was ending right about that time, has been a pre-occupation of mine, as you can tell just from the way I mention it.
Thinking about what I was go with instead of "inappropriate" from upthread. Basically, I think we all can agree that there are ways to disapprove without making it explicit. Shifting your attention away from someone, or changing the way you address them. Or, like B's prof, ask a question which doesn't specifically allude to race, but has it in its undertones. These methods are strong clues that behavior is disapproved of, but without the negative effects of explicitly calling someone out.
Certainly, some types will brand even this mild behavior as "being too PC." But it's also the case that a lot of people who think of themselves as anti-PC will approve of these tactics.
92: Re stereotypes and such, I think it's actually kind of cool to live in a place where ethnic humor and playing around with stereotypes are alive but mostly harmless. I may be wrong, but I tend to think the goal is to get to a world where calling Ogged a lazy Mexican is harmless, not unthinkable. But, as I say, I could be wrong, and even if I'm not, it's something that has to be treated with a whole lot of caution by us pale types.
93. I should have been more precise. My friend's calling me out was not a sign of dislike, either. But if someone is an acquaintance, or peripheral friend, then, generally, can we agree that they'll be lenient towards you if they like you, and intolerant of you if they don't?
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
88: I agree, but it's not liberals who keep these issues at center stage, it's the right. So if right wing candidate X accuses liberal candidate Y of supporting gay marriage and abortion, what is Y supposed to say? What I think he should say is: yes I do, and X wants to make sure that if you go bankrupt you'll lose your house. If Y says: oh uh, no, I only support abortion in the case of rape or incest, he's lost my vote, because I expect when he gets to congress he'll cave on every other issue.
99: Okay, but that's a characteristic of criticism generally, not a reason that criticism for thoughtless racism or sexism, as Winna says, should be particularly out of line.
(And I don't call people out all the time, of course. It just really bothers me that bringing up racism is treated by lots of people as as offensive, or more offensive, than actually saying something racist.)
I think context is important, certainly. But the problem with playing with stereotypes is that even playing with them tends to reinforce them. I don't directly call people on the marginal things, because otherwise I'd be at it all day, and I try to make it as neutral an observation as possible, because it is embarrassing to have someone tell you that you're out of line.
I stopped someone once from making Asian jokes by calling them 'roundeye'. Sometimes fighting fire with fire can work, too.
Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
Yes. Hate it. Deal with it by embracing my uncoolness and doing a wide-eyed, "Oh, that was a joke. I'm sorry, I wasn't following." "Was that another joke?" which at least breaks up the rhythm of it, and makes it less fun for everyone.
In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
102: I tend to avoid commenting here on serious things for that exact reason- I'm never certain if comments are intended to be an ironic hipster joke which is obvious to everyone but me. Being as humorless as I am about some things, it's really easy to fall into that trap.
I'm not sure of the scope of PC. It seems powerful in academia, non-profits, parts of government, and perhaps some big for-profit organizations. Sometimes it's motivated by fear of lawsuits, and other times by reforming impulses.
I've spent a moderate amount of time in (A) venues where open racism-sexism-homophobia is still OK, more in (B) places where the racism-sexism-homophobia has to be veiled, but is still a big factor, and some in (C) places where PC rules. [I suppose I should add (D), places where none of this is a big factor because it's all been hashed out.]
What I'd say myself depends on which venue is being discussed, but in the public discussion a lot of A/B people whine as though they were in C, and a lot of C people pretend that they're in A.
The PC issue can be confused thith the Dem strategy of zeroing in on sexual and racial minorities based on their stereotype issues. It's related, but different.
I agree with slol 73 that, to the extent that the Dems really are identified with PC, that's bad. I tend to encounter the issue as oral-tradition whining.
106: I guess I'm less worried about stereotypes per se, since a lot of them really do have something to do with real cultures that really shape real people, and more about how stereotypes get used to define some people as outside the "normal" culture.
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
This is related to the exchange you and I had before, isn't it, where I said Trilling was onto this special American style?
115 to 111. And to 110, I'm sure it's not a joke. I can completely imagine a talk on what sorts of being mean to people are actionable harassment, and what is just good clean all-American fun.
Re "hipsterish ironic racism," if the intended reaction is a challenge that can then be mocked, it's an asshole move and a clear sign that whatever was said is not something that can be said in a humorous way by someone of the speaker's race and gender at that time and place.
1) It is true that all else being equal, a socially liberal Republican is still a Republican and will support broadly Republican goals. What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican. I get the sense that LB was speaking to the generally-die-hard-but-recent-mayoral-Republican converts, but I did want to point out that as far as appealing to undecideds, this argument won't carry a lot of weight.
2) The problem with the PC battle isn't just that it's been successfully framed as a bunch of whiny rich kids finding oity causes to feel bad about, though I think that's most of it. It's also that there seems to be a gap between what I except to happen if I call someone 'racist' in the common usage sense and what happens if I call them a 'racist' in the academic, liberal sense. If I call someone racist in the normal sense, I'm harshly condemning their behavior and maybe their character, and I'm holding them responsible for it and pressuring them to change.
If I call someone a racist in the academic liberal sense, I'm not calling them a bad person, nosirree. In fact, they may be racist without thinking about it or really, doing anything at all. And while I agree intellectually that it's a real problem, it's a very hard one to sell because 'racist' is a term that also rightly applies to lots of horrible individual decisions.
'You're racist!' cries the strawliberal, "because your firm doesn't have an affirmative action policy. But we don't mean that you're bad, or even that you know you're racist, or that you mean to be racist. We just mean that your firm isn't actualizing a progressive future. But we don't mean to blame you! It's just a structure"
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
And I think there's a strong presumption that if it's not a problem that can be solved by pointing fingers or expecting people to change their individual behavior, it's probably a manufactured, made-up problem.
114--Not directly, but I'm willing to give you and Trilling credit for any intelligent point in my earlier comment.
111--It can be tricky for me too, since I tend towards the "humorless" end of the Unfoggedariat spectrum. It gets me differently when I hear such jokes out loud, though; I read crazy shit on the internet all the time, and perhaps falsely presume that people are kinder and saner in person.
113: That is true, and that's when I try to intervene. It's a lot of what I do at work, because I live in a Southern Suburban Nexus of Ordinary and people are nice, but have a big cultural push toward othering. I am fond of them, but I can't take the racism and sexism. They seem to forgive me for being occasionally a little too earnest.
120: See, that's kind of the point. "Haole" is a harmless descriptor. "Stupid fucking haole" used in earnest isn't. And, for that matter, it's something I'd use myself in speaking of a certain sort of over-entitled tourist.
Also, it's a good rule not to try ethnic humor when you can't spell the ethnic term you're trying to use. [Emoticon deleted]
Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one.
That's because all sensitivity training, ime, is completely banal. In-depth discussion of why photocopying porn on the office copier and commenting on the associate's ass is bad. Or secretaries being ordered to sleep with top executives for their jobs while wearing bad 80s suits. Most of them read like bad porn plots.
Of course, given that none of this is a terribly common phenomenon in the genial office we had, it's basically an excuse for everyone to wander around going "It's sexual harassment and I don't have to take it."
What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican.
The problem with this argument is that effective/ineffective is really hard to separate from other issues. If anything reduced crime in NY other than the national trend, it was probably the extra cops Dinkins put on the streets. But you don't see him getting credit for that. Freddy Ferrer got dissed as 'too inexperienced' to run NY -- really, is there any experience more relevant to running NYC than being an NYC borough president? He's been in city politics for decades.
The effective/ineffective metric looks objective, but it's often fairly badly supported by facts or evidence. What team someone is playing on is something you can know.
132 continued: But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
124: No, something JM said about racial remarks during the world cup led to an exchange where I was reminded of something Trilling said about American vs. British snobbery, in his introduction to Homage to Catalonia.
Somewhere in Europe, Silvana will be laughing at the syntax of that last sentence.
But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
This sort of party-switching seems to be really common, and I suspect on both sides of the aisle, too. How many states vote GOP in presidential elections but have significant local union Dem presence? Or vote GOP nationally but have Democratic governors? Small-town politics is just weird that way.
(I have a blogging friend who, although blogging little in recent times, has a history of doing this, and while I've reacted strongly on occasion, mostly I've just kept my mouth shut and not responded, because I'm sure I would have seemed as if I were over-reacting, but it still drives me crazy, and I'd really like to find a way to politely, and in friendly -- but firm! -- fashion, say "no, damnit, we're not all full of what you say are middle-class prejudices that every in group X shares about A, B, and C! My common reaction is the reverse of the one you claim we all "secretly" feel! Damnit!")
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect. Which ironically is Michael's point: my intent in saying, "Michael, that's a racist remark" matters less than the effect of that statement on him. What's so frustrating about the "don't call me racist/sexist/homophobic" argument is the presumption that the effect on *me* of being called names is more important than the effect of my casual remarks to someone else.
Then again, sure, people who are constantly on the search for something to be offended by are tiresome. But surely that's no reason to preemptively declare that it's simply not possible that one could ever say something offensive and that people shouldn't point it out if you do.
Speaking of calling people out, if anyone thinks I'm full of shit about ethnic humor being pretty much harmless once the stereotypes it's reinforcing become pretty much harmless, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I think that it's fair, but I also think the stereotype has to become harmless first -- I don't think making jokes about a still-malignant stereotype helps wear the edges off it. (That is, anyone who wants to tell Mick jokes at me can go ahead; in fact, I do have an extensive family history of alcoholism.)
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect.
I think they're connected. We've talked about jokey in-group insults; apo insults ogged's Guatemalan heritage whenever he can. But if someone seriously insulted ogged, we'd be angry with him even if he used the same words that apo does. (The n-word or "bitch" used as a term of familiarity rather than an insult certainly weighs intent and context heavily.)
And intent informs effect. I think there's a difference between the guy who won't hire blacks because he thinks they're all dirty thieves and the guy who doesn't hire blacks because none of them ever apply to his prestigious lily-white law firm. The effects, true, are largely similar. The second guy, assuming he's being honest, I can probably convince.
More to the point, I think the second guy does, too, and lumping him in with the open bigot under the term 'racist' hasn't lead to him reconsidering his opinions, but concluding that liberals are so out of touch that they wouldn't recognize a real problem if it was in their face and wiggling. This has been helped along by a sly Republican machine, but I don't think it's been created out of thin air.
151: I think that a person is a ninny if he calls something "offensive" despite not actually being offended by it. That inevitably leads to the offensive person saying "I can't seriously believe you were offended by that", and the ninny saying "No, but I think somebody could be, based on my stereotypes of the kind of people who tend to be offended by that."
But if you're actually offended by something I say, I would expect you to say "that's offensive". However, because of the attitude voiced in post #151, I would not recommend that you actually use the word "offensive". Say "I'm Jewish and I don't appreciate that" or something.
What I would like to see here is a post about people being unjustly accused of child abuse.
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people). Other words with that property would work just as well.
So much depends on the context, and what you know about the person making the remark, and what you hope to accomplish by correcting them. That said, I think my approach generally would be something like, "Ok, that's funny, but my inner ninny feels compelled to note that [insert here a fact, either about harms, or the way falseness of what's been said]."
I don't know if I've ever done this. The closest thing I can think of is making a lazy Mexican joke myself, and then noting that since I moved to California, I've realized that Mexicans work much harder than anyone else. You gotta establish your street cred first, you know?
"Who threw the overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder?"
Nobody answered so I shouted all the louder,
"It's a Irish trick it's true,
But I can lick the Mick who threw
The overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder."
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people).
I disagree; I think that in the last 20 or so years the "proudly non-P.C." demographic has come to receive exactly the same message from "That was offensive" that they receive from "That was racist".
The message that reaches their ears in both cases is "You, a well-meaning average Joe, accidentally said something that I, a nitpicking pantywaist, am now going to make a big deal out of."
I use 'dude' as a reproach all the time. I used to have a roommate who said 'dude' and it was hysterical in her thick hill accent, so I started saying 'dude!' to mock her. Now I too sound like some sort of crypto-Valley Girl.
I also agree with not reproaching people about things unless they actually bother you.
I still hear Ole and Lena jokes and Pat and Mike jokes around here. Roughly speaking, ethnic jokes become inoffensive shortly before they stop being funny.
You do have counteroffensive jokes, e.g. "Jewish jokes", told by the target population. It would be interesting to do a dual collection and find out if any anti-Semitic Jewish jokes were also told by Jews. My guess is that the two groups of jokes hardly overlap at all.
"Rabbi Lev was coming back from poisoning wells when he met Rabbi Schmuel with a Christian child for the Passover matzohs...."
Would any of the people who are criticizing my use of "offensive" care to propose a more suitably masculine term for the same purpose? Or do you disagree with 159 as well?
171: I can see your approach working in the right circumstances, but there's also something to be said for the pained silence/change the subject approach. It conveys disapproval without giving the person a chance to get self-righteous about being called out. The weakness is that you don't get the chance to explain why what was said was offensive, but in a lot of cases the explanation is going to get ignored anyway.
Just to return briefly to the point of partisan afiliation, I think Cala's 119 is generally true. It's ever more true if you aren't a doctrinaire partisan. There are people out there who hold views that do not map on absolutely to one party or another, but have a general partisan valence. These are the people who will try hardest to "vote competance" or to at least discern who is strongest on the issues that interest them most. This effect is magnified, I suspect in local elections, where 95% of the job is trying to optimize within a bunch of prior constraints. It's also the case that, in the Northeast at least, party affiliation is a less helpful guide to level of concordance with liberal social policy, and a more helpful guide to degree of closeness with public sector unions.
Also, I blame all you bastards for driving David Chapelle of the air.
What are some real-life examples of things people have said that y'all have wanted to "call out"? I'm not sure I can think of any: generally I find that people are either clearly joking, or beyond hope.
171: I think the problem is the one ogged describes in #160: context matters a lot. "Offensive" is going to be understood by some subset of the people to whom you are speaking as code for "racist," or "sexist," or whatever. Sometimes it's appropriate to be confrontational. Sometimes it's appropriate to just let it go. And sometimes you just file it away for future reference. Assuming you're working in a pretty supportive environment, most people are going to be reacting the same way that you are. It all adds up; it's not as if you're shouldering this burden alone.
153: My point was that people too often fall back on the defensive "well I didn't mean it that way" nonsense, when the point isn't what you meant, it's what you said. But yes, that said, intent obviously matters.
Re. ninnies and nitpicking pantywaists, I just don't think that there are nearly as may nitpicking ninnies as people act like there are. Yeah, one occasionally runs into some leftier-than-thou type, and such people are annoying. But what's annoying isn't their pcness; what's annoying is that they're smug assholes. If they weren't smug about pc whateveritis, they'd be smug about some other shit.
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
171, I don't think there's any way to tell somebody that they said something rude/offensive/racist/insensitive/objectionable that's any better than the alternatives.
Basically, if you tell somebody they did something wrong, he becomes defensive. He starts trying to convince himself that it's you who is wrong. In our society, everyone has heard of mythical examples of PC insanity, and therefore it's extremely easy for him to fit your objection into that frame, and respond by rolling his eyes and saying "I'm sorry, I guess. Whatever."
No matter how you phrase your objection to the offensive remark, I think the person will respond in either of two ways:
A: "Well I'm sorry if I wasn't PC enough for this granola-smoking tea party, but I call 'em like I see 'em. Don't mess with Texas. Please notice that I'm rolling my eyes in impatience. You are gay."
B: "Oh, I'm really sorry. I didn't realize that what I said could have been offensive."
Again, the way you phrase it doesn't matter. The only way you can actually get through to somebody who is likely to respond with A is to
1) actually be a member of the insulted group
2) actually be offended
3) somehow not give the impression that you have ever objected to anything before but this time he has really crosed the line.
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
176: The realtor in Boise who made some comment, now forgotten, about undesireable neighborhoods and not wanting to live near "those" people.
The woman in New Jersey who assumed that my Puerto Rican best friend carrying her baby was my nanny, and who spoke over her head to ask me how old the baby was. (My friend said, "he's MY baby!" and the woman fell all over herself explaining that she thought she was the nanny. What an asshole.)
The neighbor across the street, who is a really nice guy, who admires my cat because she "fights like a Mexican." (Parallels to Ogged cease here; apparently the cat does not have cancer. Whew!)
The new next-door neighbor who just moved in who said that rents in this town are too high "because of all the foreigners." I really wish I'd had the presence of mind to say, "like me?" but instead I was angrily thinking that the southeast Asian immigrants he was probably referring to mostly live up north in really cheap and nasty apartment complexes.
The students who complain about living up north in cheap and nasty apartment complexes by saying that they live in "the part of town with all the crack houses." If this town has a crack problem, I'm a monkey's uncle.
We may be talking about different situations. I'm not talking about the Proudly Anti-PC folks.
Oh, okay. Disregard much of 181, then.
I think "offensive" is still a stereotypically PC thing to say, even given that PC people do not actually exist. If we avoid stereotypical phrases, and if we act like it's not a big deal (in other words, begin by saying "By the way..."), we can get through to people.
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
Wondered how the hell one could make fun of the name, for one.
Like ogged, I can't think of many situations where someone jokes and its clearly offensive and the person is intending to offend and they're not beyond hope.
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
I think if you are actually talking to a racist asshole, there's no difference. The trick is to avoid talking to the racist asshole, and turn to some other person and say "Can you believe that guy? What a racist asshole". Now he's outnumbered. The majority of people think he's a racist asshole. Perhaps they're right!
Of course, the next step for him is to say "God damn it, I know I'm a racist asshole. Everyone is a racist asshole, I'm just honest enough to admit it." I have heard people say this.
185: Oh, I forgot one of my favorites. The customers at the restaurant my best girlfriend (she of the nanny story) worked at during summers who would ask her if she was taking classes at the local community college and who would laugh at her and say "yeah, right" when she said she was a student at Notre Dame.
That's a racist or sexist assumption, as opposed to being a classist asshole? (Disclosure: worked a summer during college in fast food. Heard more than once: "if you weren't so dumb you'd get my order right and wouldn't be in this dead end job?")
If you are talking to a racist asshole, the last thing that is going to help is a 'it's not your fault, we're all secretly racist." No, no, let's be clear. He's the asshole, we're not, and it's his damn fault he is. If it's not his fault, he's probably not an asshole.
The person in my department who thought it was a-okay to call trans people 'chicks with dicks' because that's what it says on the porn box.
The woman who thought that it was okay to make a joke about people with Down's Syndrome in a meeting.
The man who said all Muslims should be shipped off to a desert island and then the island should be nuked from the air.
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
The realtor who reassured me that there weren't many of 'those colored folks' in the apartment complex.
The lady who thought 'Chink' was an acceptable thing to call Asian people.
I could go on, and on, and on. Bigotry is part of the socially acceptable bonding mechanism here, at least if the number of times I've had to say 'hey! that is totally not okay' to people means anything.
Ok, those are good examples B, although you should have numbered them.
The realtor: if this person was going to be your regular realtor, then it would have been good to say something about "we're happy to live near those people." If not your regular realtor, oh well.
The woman/nanny thing sounds like it was handled.
Does he mean "fights like a Mexican" as in "fights dirty," or "fights well"? Big difference!
The neighbor thing all depends on what kind of relationship you want with your neighbor.
Dude, I know where you live, and I've heard about the crack houses there. Seriously.
197: My girlfriend is a very dark-skinned Puerto Rican with kinky hair. I'm a blonde gringa. When I waited tables and answered similar questions by saying where I went to college, no one argued with me.
A colleague and I once discovered that our grandmothers both referred to those long, brown nuts (Brazil nuts? Macadamia nuts?) that are often in nut mixes as 'n-- toes.'
We don't think our grandmothers are assholes, just beyond hope due to age and circumstance.
I did say that to the realtor, actually. But the point is (as my girlfriend likes to say) it's amazing what white people will say to other white people when they think no one is listening. It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
198: Maybe you're nicer than I am. All of those people I am comfortable with labelling as 'racist', 'asshole', and 'probably beyond the hope of help from a mild protest.' Doesn't mean I don't protest, just I don't think it's going to convince them that PC people aren't out to get them.
I do. It might only mean they don't talk that way in front of me, but if they realise that not everyone likes that kind of language it's at least a start.
The porn box woman was actually surprised when I explained that wasn't a nice thing to call people, which I think is kind of sad.
It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
Why isn't that still an "oh well"? Like she's going to stop if you say something?
197: Oh crap, yeah. My mom's family does that shit too. And they would just laugh at me when I was a girl and I objected.
Nowadays my uncle knows better, at least, to pull that crap when my son's around. Oddly, I really like my Limbaugh-loving racist asshole uncle. I do wish he wouldn't vote, though.
204 is 180% correct. I imagine other groups are the same way in their own ranks- I once had an African American friend tell me that she'd always been told white people smelled like dogs when they got wet, which I found kind of hilarious.
210: I have an uncle who seems to be convinced that there will be a Black on White war (this is why we needs the guns, you see) in the near future and he had my baby sister all worried when she was about ten or eleven and she and I went out to lunch because she had overheard his dumbass comments and her closest friend was dark-skinned (Indian, I think) and she wasn't sure if she'd have to fight her friend.
I at this point pitched a royal fit, or as royal as one can get in a booth at a crappy Mexican restaurant, and pretty much told her he was out of his mind and a racist asshole and she wasn't to listen to him. She giggled and understood (this was back in the days when big sisters were like unto goddesses). But he's beyond hope.
214, I don't think you should call someone a cracker slutbag unless she is actually holding hands with a hung ebony buck. You wouldn't draw attention to her race if she was surrounded by other white people, you'd just call her a naughty housewife or a barely legal fuck kitten.
Here's a more extended version of the example I gave in comments over at my blog. The guy in question was my honey's brother, also a Long Island, er, Mexican, and he kept inserting completely irrelevant and somewhat belligerent comments into the conversation, like "Black people would be into that!" or "It's a good thing there's aren't any Black people around!" (I can't remember any of the exact comments; they were pretty inane.) It seemed to be some sort of weird joke, so I ignored it.
Then, one evening when it was more frequent and starting to get on my nerves, I said a bit jokingly, and to be honest, probably a bit prissily, "You know, if you keep saying that, some people are going to think you're not joking." To which he replied something like "Oh, I know it's awful; my black friends and I say the most awful things to each other; anyone who said this sort of thing seriously would be such a racist asshole."
And I was left going, huh.
About a month later we discovered that he filed his CDs into three folders: black, white, and girls. That left us gasping with laughter, even if it's not so clear what the catagorization scheme proves, if anything.
221: Why would anyone arrange their music that way? It doesn't even make sense. Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
229: No, just the one who'd engaged the "what do you say when someone says something offensive" thing most recently.
(As a general rule, I think that circumstances in which white guys can get away with playing with stereotypes about black people are vanishly rare. But as I'm typing that, it occurs to me that I have no basis for assuming that Crypic Ned is a white guy, thus exposing my own subconscious racism. And, for that matter, I haven't spent nearly enough time with enough black people to have much of a clue what I'm talking about, so I may very well be trying too hard to be inoffensive and thus failing to connect. Also, the comment was beautifully structured and funny as hell, which counts for a lot.)
Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
No. IIRC, we were looking for Sinatra, and brother was saying, "No, no, no, he couldn't be in that folder; that's for black people's music. And that one's girls." It makes no sense, although it does remind me of going out clubbing in Germany to hear "Blackmusik," or however they spelled it, and wondering whether I was going to hear blues, soul, Motown, rap, drum-n'-bass, or what.
Ah, but my father-in-law's use of the word 'sand-nigger' was an ethnic slur. (I don't know if I actually called him out. I gave him the long, soulful, basset-hound-like stare, intended to convey "You know Buck married city people. Please don't make me object to this, you know I'm trying to lay low and not be difficult." And he got embarrassed and stopped saying it.)
235: I've heard sand-nigger, camel jockey, and rag/towelhead from my various horribly racist family members, and after years of fighting and arguing with them and just seeing them get happily worse, I think I can safely say they're beyond hope and always were. The weird thing about them is that side of the family is almost wholly Arabs, and they're not using those slurs in a friendly or affectionate "insider insult" way. They just really do hate Arabs in general, and the fact that they are Arabs has just never really sunk in.
238: I've got relatives like that, too (of the "very friendly and kind and just happen to have been raised in a backwards, racist universe" variety), but I probably have just as much that are either crazy or rotten.
I usually just mark people down as "must to avoid" rather than calling them out, but I remember when I was 17 at my summer job grilling hot dogs in a park, and one day the landscape crew was sitting at the picnic table where I was smoking, and one guy was going on and on and I wasn't really listening, but then I heard him say "blah, blah junglebunnies" and I said,"What's a junglebunny?" because I had never heard of such a bunny, and he got all huffy and said "you, know, a spearchucker" and I said "spearchucker?" because I had never heard of such a sport, and didn't see how a bunny could chuck a spear, and he got all huffy and left the table and the other guy said, "I really think it's cool how you called him out," and I said, "But what is a jungle bunny?"
See, I think the "they're beyond hope, so I won't call them out" cop-out is just that -- a lame, cowardly cop-out. If someone says something that offends you, and you don't call them out on it, then you're a ninny.
My wife was training her replacement for her job at Prestigious Ivy League University, and they got to talking about how they're both Red Sox fans, and the replacement started talking about how much she hates Derek Jeter (which is right and true) because "he's just a little faggot."
My wife, rightly, shook her head and told her firmly, "That is not acceptable."
Reading some of the earlier comments, I understand that calling someone "racist" or calling their comments "offensive" can put them on the defensive. Maybe this is a time for that cliched touchy-feely technique, the "I" statement.
"I find what you just said offensive." Or, even better, "I'm offended by that."
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation. You say that smeone's statement or practice is racist, and people will get defensive, yes, but there's more than that.
In semi-PC places, it's also an effective way to get people to shut up, because it's a cardinal sin. I can't really say that X is a sensible police practice, because I will be told hat 'm racist or sexist. When thoughtful people say these things, there might be a productive discussion, but too often, it just means that the real discussion happens elsewhere.
It's not exactly parallel, but have you ever participated in a discussion with someone who's been trained in leading discussions and dialogues? I'm sure that some of these facilitator typed are very good--I''ve even met one. Once--but all too often those techniques are used to manipulate a discussion.
People are told to say, "I hear you," but usually that feels like a technique culled from a set of dialogue management flashcards. Usually when people say that they aren't listening at all. The effect of that is that the conversation shuts down, at least the official one does. The real discussion occurs via underground channels in back corridor chats.
I think that when people who are not of the hard-racist type get told that they're being racist, they just keep those thoughts to themselves and air them at home. B's just going to get on my case, so I won't say Z in front of her. That sort of shaming is appropriate if your goalis to make it socially unacceptable to say the most egregious things, especially if everyone does it, but it won't change hearts and minds.
If I tell a KLan member to shut up, then other people watching may change their views, but he may be a hopeless case. The goal there is to make other people see that the racist's behavior is unacceptable and will make them social pariahs if they engage in it..If I want to get someone I know to reconsider his statements, calling them racist is unlikely to do much good.
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation.
Erm, I don't think I've said that it can't be -- I had a fellow associate once get huffy at me because she thought the manner in which I said I didn't think Seinfeld was all that funny was anti-Semitic, and I certainly thought her intent was to push me around. I just think that it behooves people to grow a spine about it -- having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
243: I think I acknowledged once or twice that there are indeed people who are leftier-than-thou (i.e., who use accusations of prejudice to shut down discussion and/or annoy), and that they are assholes.
having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
There are two separate issues here, though -- how and when do you call someone out, and how do you respond when called out. On the first, I'm fine with being gentle and tactful about it, so long as you aren't silently tolerating anything really problematic -- everything works better if you aren't an asshole about it. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns -- what, the PC police are going to come lock you up?; and if you're an American who grew up in the same society I did, it's fairly likely that you do, at least occasionally, say things that you oughtn't to in this regard, and you'd benefit from having your attention drawn to them.
I think the people who get deeply offended and all closed-off about it are the ones who are "overly sensitive" like they always accuse the offended parties of being. People have told me that I've said something that is/could be construed as racist on several occasions and my response has been either 1) oh, yeah, it kinda is, or 2) really? I don't think so, and then we have a discussion about it.
Actually, I just called someone out on having said something vaguely anti-Semitic yesterday, a young British lad who is going to New York next week, and I was like "dude, that's kind of offensive." He's like "No, I didn't mean any harm, I have loads of friends who are Jews." I told him that that didn't matter, people might construe it as offensive, and it doesn't matter what you actually meant, and he better be careful working in the NY office not to make an ass of himself, and better to err on the side of caution. He was like "ok." See? Not that hard.
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
I think I reject all of the premises here. Being told you've said something racist might make you feel resentful, but boo-fucking-hoo. You deserve to feel bad. (Obviously, if what you've said isn't objectively racist and/or your interlocutor is, as B puts it, leftier-than-thou, then you shouldn't feel bad and, chances are, you won't.)
It is really true that pointing out racism/sexist language has negative political consequences for liberals? If a liberal politician went around calling people out on their biases, I can see how that person might suffer politically, largely because they'd be a huge pain in the ass. (See above, re: leftier-than-thou.) But I'm not receptive to the argument that we should keep our mouths shut because we might make the Republicans feel bad.
And finally, I don't think that I believe in calling out racism simply because I'm attached to truth-telling, but rather because I think there's a greater societal harm in allowing this kind of thing to go on unchallenged.
. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns
I couldn't disagree more. And, were I Jewish and sanctioned by the Please-Don't-Help-Anymore Committee*, I'd have beaten the teeth out of the fellow associate you mentioned above.
(*Teo, feel free to correct to actual committee names.)
251: Do you want to talk about your disagreement in more detail (i.e., you've been abusively called out on imaginary racism, and we're all underestimating how bad it is, or what)?
Nobody is saying people are justified in resenting it, or that in some abstract sense people won't benefit by "having their attention drawn to it." We are saying that that is how people will most often react when "called out,"
certainly by people with whom they have no urgent need to remain cordial. The circle of people whom we might influence by handling ourselves properly is much wider than the circle who have to get along with us.
See 242. I don't think that pointing out offensive language or behavior is incompatible with "handling ourselves properly." One can be cordial and polite even when pointing out another's error.
The Republican Party enforces discipline very strictly, but in places where they could never win with an honest campaign they run stooges -- Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Bloomberg, Sen. Coleman in MN. These are allowed to wander off the reservation on specific issues, as long as they come through on a few key votes (especially but not only the vote for Speaker). Their independence is fake.
Chafee, Specter, Snowe, Collins are a somewhat different story -- survivors of the old moderate Republican wing. They're a pitiful, fraudulent bunch and play by the same rules -- Jeffords couldn't stand it any longer, but these guys have no shame.
Then you have three conservative Republicans in the Senate who aren't complete zombies: Lugar, Hagel, and McCain. Their independence is overrated too, but the comparison is with the 35-45 Republican Senators who are kneejerk wingers without a brain in their head or an ounce of self-respect.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 9:51 AM
I think you may have a point, John, except you know none of those people votes for Speaker. And I suspect there's lots less independence in the House for other structural reasons.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 9:58 AM
Granted -- I condensed a bit too much. The Speaker vote is the most important single vote in either house. There are about a dozen must-win votes every year in each House, and up until last year Rove was incredibly successful with almost all of them. The relative independence recently is impressive only in comparison to the immediately preceding period (or to the Democrats).
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:07 AM
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship? On the one hand, I know this is important in places like this, on the other, I can't remember not feeling more-or-less a partisan Democrat always.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:09 AM
It's a big deal in NYC politics. Guiliani and Bloomberg were both elected by partisan Democrats, because they were personally liberal and the candidates running against them were painted as self-evidently incompetent (an evaluation which I disagree with). I really want to hammer home that that's nonsense -- which team you say you're on has real consequences.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:13 AM
Whence the need we seem to feel to argue the legitimacy of partisanship?
I think there are two reasons.
1. There are lots of Democrats and independents in California who will vote this year for Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's acting like a non-crazy Republican now. (Same goes for New York and Pataki or Bloomberg.) It's probably a good idea to point out that the non-crazy Republicans (like our local friends, naming no names) enable the crazy Republicans to set crazy policy. (At least, one thinks it's a good idea because one hopes that maybe we'll change the minds of those voters. Though in the case of Schwarzenegger I doubt it.)
2. There are some people, me and SCMT at least included, who either actively identified as conservative or had some sympathy for conservatives a decade or so ago, who changed our minds as we became aware that the crazies were running the show. One hopes that more such will have similar revelations the more we remark on the problems cited above.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:14 AM
I do have a theory about seemingly-thoughtful Republicans.
I think that they're something of a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption. Considering that Republicans surpassed the Democrats in corruption (and set a new record which may never be matched) 5 or 10 years ago, I don't think that that's a valid reason any more.
Jimmy Hoffa is not only long dead, he was bipartisan.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:14 AM
a vestige or relic of bad experiences with union and Democratic machine corruption
I think you really have to include people who had an allergy to various forms of what, for lack of a better phrase, I'm going to call political correctness---who thought the Democratic Party and liberalism more generally went off the rails went it lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed.
I know I'm expressing that badly, but I think there's something there.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:16 AM
There are also seemingly-thoughtful Republicans who think that the Republicans do a better job with national security, though at this point you have to emphasize the 'seemingly'.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:22 AM
8: Hmm. At the risk of non-comity, I have to ask about this:
lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed
How much of this anti-pc thing is just race-baiting propaganda?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:26 AM
How much of this anti-pc thing is just race-baiting propaganda?
I think a lot of it is, or was, and I'll go you one further---it's also gender-baiting and gay-baiting and.... you name it. I think there's a substantial number of people who support the Republican Party today because they chafed under sexual harrassment and other sensitivity training, and when they heard some Republican pundit telling them in effect that it was okay to affirm a complete lack of responsibility for the black poor, that it was okay to regard women and gays as weak and Mexicans as lazy and so forth, they felt tremendous relief.
I don't pretend to complete knowledge of the psychology involved here, but you certainly hear lots of people talking this way. Well, I do.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:31 AM
In origin, or in practice? I think the anti-pc thing was probably largely racist and sexist in origin, but it successfully got sold to a number of people who aren't unusually racist or sexist themselves. I spent yesterday listening to my annoying downstairs neighbor be pissy about another neighbor for raising the issue at a community meeting that opposition to a new high school in the neighborhood might be somewhat racist. While the guy I was talking to is an ass, I know him well enough to know that he really isn't a noticably racist ass. But he was really offended and annoyed by the other guy bringing up the possibility of racism at the meeting. He was pissy because he's learned to hate what he thinks of as sanctimonious liberals, not because he's defensive about his personal racism.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:32 AM
To clarify -- I think he's wrong to be pissy, and the other guy was right to bring up the possibility.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:33 AM
I was going to say "lost its identification with the working class and seemed to become solicitous of every interest group that defined itself as attractively oppressed. = failed to cater to their racism/sexism/homophobia," but I see that's been covered. Yet I typed it, so here it is.
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests". Yet the interests of the minuscule percentage of families who are going to derive benefits in the billions from the inheritance-tax cut are not "special"?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:48 AM
LB, you sanctimonious liberal. This is why baa thinks I'll be a republican fundraiser in five years.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:48 AM
Re:8
Isn't the problem more that "racism" (and by extension sexism and homophobia) are somewhat overloaded to include both overt and more subtle societal forms of racism? This is what makes South Park style anti-PC'ness seem so simple and obvious to people; they don't have white hoods and nooses in the closet, so how the hell can they be racist?! It's bogus, but the defensiveness is really hard to get past.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:50 AM
Hey, I wasn't the one being sanctimonious. I was the one handing the ass a beer and listening to his woes. (Sally's birthday party. The kids had returned from bowling, and were eating cake, as the adults picking them up chatted.)
The other guy? He's the one bringing the Democrats down.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:51 AM
Jeezus, I'm so sick of hearing African American's and women's concerns described as "special interests".
I did say "seemed". I was not trying to support the position. I was trying to explain what certain people of my acquaintance see as the reason for their alienation from the Democratic Party or from liberalism, and to point out that it had nothing to do with union corruption.
This is very simply a politics of whose interest the party appears to be acting in, and a selfish calculation that the answer is "not mine". I don't say it's a correct calculation or a morally laudable one, but that it's a calculation I hear people make all the time.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:52 AM
I think our politics is distorted by widespread "grievance envy." People refuse guilt, by-and-large.
Christopher Lasch claimed, as what he called "The Spiritual Discipline Against Resentment," that MLK's great contribution was to merely claim the same rights as anybody else, without looking back or blaming.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:53 AM
I don't think you'll be raising funds in the traditional sense, Labs, but I can see you attending the conventions.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:54 AM
19 is teh right.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:54 AM
I think our politics is distorted by widespread "grievance envy." People refuse guilt, by-and-large.
To continue our standing riff on mid-century American thinkers: Did you read McLemee on Rieff, recently?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:55 AM
Yeah. They've been really successful in painting accusations of racism and sexism as magically offensive fighting-words -- you'd better not say anything about either unless you can back it up with proof that the person you're describing is a bad bad evil nasty horrible person.
This is idiotic, of course. I'm a serious feminist, and one that's prone to self-examination. And I think or say sexist stuff (that is, conventionally patriarchical anti-feminist stuff) all the blasted time. Pointing out racism or sexism should not be a huge deal -- perfectly normal, decent people suffer from both, and would benefit from having their attention drawn to it a little more so they could suffer from it less.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:56 AM
22: Yes. I. did.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:58 AM
(15 was a joke, at least about the sanctimonious part.)
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:58 AM
Slol, I'm not accusing you of taking the position you describe, my comment was more or less free-floating rant.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:59 AM
This is a discussion much worth having. I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up. Possible reasons (the first of which I see on preview Glenn has noted):
1. It's way past time to retire "racist" and "sexist" for all but obvious and overt instances. It makes people super defensive, which is another way of saying that institutional, not-quite-willfull racism and sexism just aren't what most people understand by the terms, and you stop the discussion before it even begins by using them. Think of some other way to talk about it. Ditto "discrimination" and synonyms. You can argue all you want that their use is justfied, but you're still going to lose politically.
2. This. Insofar as "liberal" politicians or "Democrats" are supposed to represent my interest or point of view, their cravenness rankles the more, and they've been plenty craven. Maybe that's going to change.
Unfortunately offline the rest of the day...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:59 AM
Yeah, I think the guilt thing is key. Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless. And the perception that anti-prejudicial arguments are about guilt feeds very nicely into the "weak liberal" meme.
Of course, I'm sure that a lot of the reason that crap is effective is because it does, in fact, hit home: after all, if speaking up for, say, Mexican immigrants = "not standing up for my interests," the underlying presumption is that there's some kind of either/or, zero-sum game going on. I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote. It's easy to think that other people are just whining if you don't know much about their realities, but I think it's in the nature of stories to solicit empathy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 10:59 AM
widespread "grievance envy."
I always liked the phrase, "misery poker." Not sure where it comes from.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:00 AM
Part of the problem has to be linguistic. "Racism" and "sexism" are pretty powerful accusations in todays world. For obvious reasons, that shouldn't be diluted. We need new words to describe the more subtle stuff, so discussion's can be held without people going "Holy shit, I'm getting called out."
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:01 AM
Oh lord. I agree with ogged.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:01 AM
But my feelings were hurt. And I've been otherized. Terribly, terribly otherized.
I would never otherize a crypto-facist Republican-in-waiting like you.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:01 AM
liberals ... should shut the fuck up.
Creating and maintaing this blog is a really counterintuitive way of acheiving that goal.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:02 AM
Creating and maintaing this blog is a really counterintuitive way of acheiving that goal.
But I think ogged's point (if I may speak for him) is that in that incredibly annoying sense, he is not a liberal.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:05 AM
my general reaction to liberals is that I hate them and they should shut the fuck up
Gold medal in the Self-Loathing Olympics goes to Ogged, representing the Mexican National Team.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:05 AM
I'm really suspicious of any argument that starts with 'we need to change the names for things, because the old names are too hurtful'. Where PC did that, it was about letting groups choose their own names -- e.g., enough people of East Asian heritage thought Oriental was offensive that we now say Asian instead. But I can't see a name-change for structural racism that won't get treated as "You conniving bastards of liberals, you're trying to insult me and call me a racist because you think I'm too stupid to know what [new term] really means. I hate you anyway."
I'd rather stick with the same words until people get over it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:07 AM
This voting bloc is the "NASCAR dad" of 2008:
I can't wait for reporters to show up to film me exchanging butt-focused insults with Ogged.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:08 AM
I'd rather not talk about that kind of thing at all. Otherizing isn't on a serious agenda. You got your heartbreaking divide between rich and poor; this makes people literally sick and weak. You got your terrorist-manufacturing foreign policy and your completely inept defense system. Isn't that enough to chew on?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:10 AM
D. H. Lawrence asserted, in "The White Novels of Fennimore Cooper," that the American character resolved into a pair of polar opposites: A few earnest, self-tortured people, and the rest a mass of escaped slaves, spiritually speaking.
We run to the former, on this site, and fail dysmally when we expect others to feel as we do. A successful progressive politics is when the former — who else would care? — figure out how to appeal to the latter.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:10 AM
re: 36
It's not that we should change the name, it's that we should discriminate(heh) more finely between two very different phenomena. The first is one where we want to be hurtful, where we are calling the person an asshole. The second we don't.
That type of context will never be recogonized unless we formalize it. All the "but we're all racist, including me" in the world won't get past the fact that it's still the same word.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:11 AM
I think Ogged's 27.1 is something to think about, notwithstanding my insistence on identifying spades when I step on 'em and they whack me in the nose. I suspect that the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it (as LB's 23 says); in a classroom setting, it works pretty well to preempt defensiveness by offering examples of one's own unconscious bigotry and talking about the distinction between intent and effect, but that doesn't always work so well irl.
OTOH, I think that the other reason that the anti-pc thing has gained such traction is Ogged's #2, and renaming things in order to make them more palatable feeds into the weak meme. Which is one reason I'd just as soon fight this shit out. But it's a tougher problem than it seems at first glance.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:12 AM
identifying spades B is banned!
the problem with pointing out prejudice is that in implies that the pointer-outer is free of it
It's also that imputations of serious character flaws are pieces of heavy-duty conversational machinery which are often used to grab power. And saying, "oh, but we all are, me too!" turns into a self-criticism session.
38 seems right.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:18 AM
A publicist sent me a book for review (weird, I know) called The Trouble With Diversity, by Walter Benn Michaels, which hits a lot of this stuff. I've been trying to get around to writing a somewhat extended review for a week or so now, but work's been getting in the way.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:26 AM
But I think ogged's point (if I may speak for him) is that in that incredibly annoying sense, he is not a liberal.
Maybe I'm being dense, what what incredibly annoying sense? Pointing out racism and sexism is incredibly annoying?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:31 AM
Uh, first "what" should be "but."
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:32 AM
41 -- "spades" s/b "rakes".
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:32 AM
12: do think such opposition often has racist motives and effects. But how to say so, in the context of that community meeting, without giving legitimate offense to those in opposition?
Posted by Vance Maverick | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:37 AM
"do" s/b "I do"
Posted by Vance Maverick | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:37 AM
47: That's the problem with 'just not talking about it'. Racism may not be the biggest problem out there any more (I'd say economic inequality wins), but we can't make it taboo to talk about it where it's a real possibility just because it will piss people off.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:39 AM
we can't make it taboo
I don't propose making it taboo. I propose focusing on different problems. Making something central doesn't mean outlawing other concerns.
Pointing out racism and sexism is incredibly annoying?
No, of course not. But sanctimony is. And I stick by my earlier position that there are other problems, which strike me as both more important and more politically useful, around which to organize liberalism and Democrats.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:44 AM
Offtopic, but did anyone happen to see this: http://volokh.com/posts/1154326255.shtml
When did Volokh change from intelligent but often schmucky to total idiot?
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 11:54 AM
Sigh. I agree with the commenter on that thread who proposes the corollary to Godwin's Law that the first person who makes a WWII comparison to a modern conflict loses the argument.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:05 PM
Is there any point in noting that the Allies actually invaded Italy?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:15 PM
Of course, identifying prejudice isn't about guilt-tripping people, but people react to it that way nonetheless.
Right, then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it?
Accusing somone of racism or sexism is a hurtful, harmful thing to do. You can talk alll you want about how you think people should react, but that's not going to change things. So you have to follow the law of proportionality. Unless the racist/sexist action is serious enough to warrant real reprobation, you let it slide.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:23 PM
I don't like PC either, especially the nuances of PC having to do with micro-sexualities, but this whole argument seems to be situated in some imaginary universe.
We're actually living in the midst of what seems to be an attempted [authoritarian right-wing] takeover, by people who devoutly hope for World War III, World War IV, or best of all, Armageddon.
But we're whining about snotty people who are important only because they happen to belong to our own little social groups, and are furthermore incredibly annoying.
Point of fact: few Democrats are liberals any more. Most are centrists, and many are snots, but being a snot doesn't make you a liberal.
In short, there are a lot of people who should STFU.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:23 PM
this whole argument seems to be situated in some imaginary universe
Well, I think I was trying to say that, and I think ogged was too.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:25 PM
I honestly believe that the best way around this is through personal anecdote.
Everyone who can should get behind the firewall and read Judith Warner today. The-senator-who-represents-me, and not his awesome god, being a mensch again, while I find out that my older brother has learned from talk radio to refer to him as "Dick Turban."
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:34 PM
I had this whole long comment written, but it sucked, so let me just say that I'm with LB in 49. I'm wary of applying the "sanctimony" label with too broad a brush.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:47 PM
To me the anti-PC whine is much sillier than the PC whine, so we don't agree. PC is fluff, and anti-PC is meta-fluff.
The Democrats' real problem isn't mostly excessive PC, or issues of any kind. The problem is, above all, the absence of an all-year every-year message machine, which (combined with the abysmal media we've got) means that Democrats always face an uphill fight.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:50 PM
re: the "i do it too!" technique of racism/sexism accusations. I'm not sure if people get quiet after this because they accept the position or if they're just confused. (I suspect it has more to do with the latter.) Regardless, I think the proper response to this is not, "oh, that's ok then," but, "right, and I extended you the benefit of the doubt and the courtesy of letting it slide, why don't you do the same for me?"
I think I'm going with a categorical statement here: If there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 12:56 PM
re: 60
But there are cirumstances which, while not severe enough in a single instance to merit calling someone out, nonetheless have a cumulative effect that can be extremely damaging. Cf. the mommy wars.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:23 PM
Right. And if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big deal, then you can't call them out unless it's a really, really big deal -- the taboo area expands.
But mostly I'm with Emerson and slol on this. PCness should not be the center of liberal politics -- it's just that the people who get worked up about the horrible obnoxiousness of PC are several steps sillier than the overly PC themselves.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:28 PM
then why do you expect people to change their behavior, if you're not making them feel guilty or ashamed of it
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
if there is a situation of sexism/racism serious enough to merit it being called out, it's not going to be an "I do it too." situation.
I don't think this is true at all. Example: as an undergrad, I went to ask the only black professor in my department, whom I had never met, if he would be willing to supervise my honors thesis. I caught him just as he was leaving his office. Now, in my mind for some reason I had pictured him as older and formally dressed; the man shutting the door was young and wearing an REI-type rain shell. Thinking he was a graduate student, I asked if professor so-and-so were in the office; he said, "I'm he." I said, "oh, I'm sorry, I expected you to be older and more formally dressed." He gave me a long look and asked, "why do you think you expected that? Do your other professors dress more formally than I do?"
I submit that that wasn't, in and of itself, a serious instance of racism; arguably it wasn't racist at all. But the point is, from his point of view, it was a minor instance of you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you). I often use this anecdote to explain the importance of racism in a broad social sense and why the experience, intent and judgment of example white person (me) aren't necessarily the best indicators of what does and doesn't constitute "serious" breaches of etiquitte.
In any case, I was (properly, I think) mortified.
I realize this story proves Labs' point re. self-examination in 42 correct. Which is why I think that this sort of thing is really useful, actually, in a classroom setting. But I agree that it can seriously hijack political discussions.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:34 PM
I agree with slol more or less all the way through. And I think "unacceptable," in #62, is wrong. What controls is what's useful, not what is somehow ethically appropriate.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:44 PM
Precisely *because* I expect most people to think that racism/sexism is wrong?
Yet you don't expect shame/guilt to be the appropriate emotions at the recognition of a wrongful action?
and, regarding the tale of the black prof. The awkward part was where you told him what you expected him to look like. That's just awkward, and would have been even if he were white. But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
if you agree that it's unacceptable to 'call someone out' unless it's a big dea..
I don't think I'd go with the word "unacceptable." It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:55 PM
Re: 65
I think most people draw distinctions between behavior that is incorrect that doesn't reflect upon the persons character and behavior that is incorrect which makes us go "Wow, that guy's a schmuck." You should feel guilt if you do the latter, but certainly not if you do the former.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 1:58 PM
But, I don't get why you're putting this up as an examplum here: he handled it with grace, asking a rather calm question rather than turning on you sternly and going, "miss, that's a racist remark!" What he did, I think, was not just fine, but, I agree with you, an exemplary way to handle it.
Okay, I'd perceive that conversation as calling her out, and I'd think most people who get tense about liberals oppressing them would too. (I think it was justifies, and that he handled it well, but I can't read that as letting it go by.)
It's just that, as you admit, we all mess up, and our disagreement is over to handle that. Do we constantly police, and try to achieve perfection, or do we take a more tolerant approach?
Again, if you're calling what B.'s professor said the 'more tolerant approach', we haven't got anything to argue about. But I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:02 PM
I don't know about you people, but if in a social situation someone called me on a racist/sexist remark there is no way, none, that I wouldn't feel some combination of guilt and/or anger. And I would totally not like that person for the rest of the night, and maybe the next week, and maybe the next month, depending on context.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:06 PM
I'm halfway between LB and Michael on 63. As much as it troubles me, I'm closer to Michael here.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:07 PM
But I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
Meaning they'd respond that way themselves, or they'd expect him to?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:07 PM
I have the strong sense that most people who object to PCism would be telling that story as "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
I am totally surrounded by people who have an irrational hatred of what they perceive of as PCism, and I disagree.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:07 PM
we haven't got anything to argue about.
Probably not much. We may have both come off a little stronger than we meant to.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:11 PM
I think Emerson and mrh are missing my point. I'm not advocating anti-PC. I'm making three claims.
1. One of the things that has generated so much support for modern Republicanism is a precursor, if you like, of anti-PC, i.e., the perception that the Democrats had turned away from their focus on the working class per se and had begun to focus on sundry oppressed groups. This is not really anti-PC, and it predates PC; see Rieder's Canarsie, e.g.
2. I think organizing liberalism by responding to each of the sundry claims of oppression we generally categorize as PC is therefore a politically bad idea because it loses support that would otherwise accrue to a liberalism focused on working people.
3. I think organizing liberalism that way is also, given the present state of affairs in the country and the world, missing the point.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:11 PM
Also, "organizing liberalism"! Hah!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:12 PM
One other point about the origins of anti-PC sentiment: an awful lot of people's education on race and gender issues consists of (1) MLK and Susan B. Anthony, plus (2) training at work. MLK and Susan B. Anthony are a long time ago, and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural). So smart and well-meaning people can end up assuming that all that "PC stuff" is just more of the same dumb stuff that they were forced to sit through at work. Such people may just shut down when they think they're about to get more of what they've already heard from some earnest nitwit in "sensitivity training."
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:12 PM
68: This is a separate question from whether it's politically productive to call people on racist/sexist shit, but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that? Based purely on the 'everyone does it sometimes' rule rather than anything I've noticed about your tendencies toward either (which, to be clear, is nothing), you've probably made racist or sexist remarks without thinking about them. Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:13 PM
70: That they, the white student, were being oppressed by the touchiness of the black professor.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:15 PM
Then you're making B's point that for such people, their intent is all. If they don't think they intended to be racist, that's all there is to it.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:20 PM
you-don't-belong-hereism (which I've grown really used to myself now that I'm a young-looking woman professor, and it gets really old, let me tell you).
My sister had a funny story of one month as a surgical resident where she was on a team with a black guy and a Latino guy. First, they immediately began calling themselves the Mod Squad. Second, none of them could get recognized as doctors -- they were respectively a nurse, an orderly, and a janitor.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:21 PM
I seriously bring up the example of blind auditions for symphony orchestras once every week or two in making the point that I'm about to discuss unintentional discrimination.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:23 PM
I'm really not interested in calling anyone out in a social situation, but I do care that a good chunk of the electorate can be led to vote against their own interest by anyone who cares to push their racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist buttons. Mexicans taking my job? Swarthy terrorists? Let me give you some of these civil rights; I wasn't using them anyway. Homosexuals wanna get married? Bring the Armageddon, if you want, just protect marriage from the gay cooties. Are liberals somehow responsible for this?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:24 PM
Wouldn't you be better off having someone point them out to you, so you'd be less likely to look like an ass in future?
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith. Moreover, I'm inclined to think that various minority issues are better served if "racism," at a minimum, remains a serious charge that people are careful about over-deploying.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:24 PM
you-don't-belong-hereism ... gets really old
I have been asked, pointedly, by library staff, "Are you sure this is your id?" Even though it has my PICTURE ON IT.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:25 PM
but don't you think you'd be better off working on getting over that?
goodness no. After an internal audit of my own policy (arranged by and conducted by myself) I have come out totally in favor of and in support of my own position.
More seriously, I had a really good friend who was very proper (a much better word than PC, b/c it refers to a different motivator) who did help me perceive that I did make inappropriate comments. But always in situations between ourselves or another close friend. And if I do say somethine inappropriate these days, I'm going to feel bad afterwards when I realize it, regardless of whether someone calls me on it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:26 PM
After an internal audit of my own policy (arranged by and conducted by myself) I have come out totally in favor of and in support of my own position.
Okay, this was good, and I was verging on the sanctimonious. (Or had toppled over completely into it.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:30 PM
and training at work generally sucks (anything that's done on a broad scale is generally done badly, and that's going to be especially true about anything cultural).
The place I work settled a discrimination lawsuit shortly after I started there (the official line is that while the suit was meritless, fighting it in court would cost more than settling, so that's what we did.) One of the conditions of the settlement was that the entire staff would participate in a diversity training session. Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one. The funny thing is, it turned out to be about the opposite of what we expected: instead of some sort of liberal guilt trip, we received a talk from a lawyer on how to harass someone right up to the point the law allowed, and no further.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:30 PM
Id be pleased if Racism, a name whose very form suggests an ideology, were reserved for intentional acts and expressions. Something like "unconscious racial prejudice" would be fine for the other.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:30 PM
Are liberals somehow responsible for this?
No, but candidates who want to win elections have to run political campaigns in that country, the country we actually live in. I think liberals ought to want to win elections, so they can implement policy that improves the country in a liberal way. So I think liberalism ought to focus on those issues that will make this possible.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:30 PM
It's not always clear that (a) the accusers are correct, or (b) the accusers are acting in good faith.
Right, I want to emphasize this b/c it's important. Calling someone out is a sign of dislike, another reason to dislike the caller. Secondly, it's a stormy topic, and if the occurance in question isn't clear (and, really, when is anything clear to everyone?) either a) an unwanted discussion ensues or b) the callee lets it slide, and he and his friends resent the caller.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:30 PM
83 -- I was asked the same question, in a rather incredulous tone, by my psychoanalyst.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:32 PM
22: Yes. I. did.
Oh. Good, wasn't it?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:33 PM
I tend to be humorless about sexist/racist language, to the point where they mock me at work for calling people on it. I try to be nice about it, but I don't stay quiet, and I expect to be called on it, too. Racism and sexism are ingrained in our culture in some very ugly ways and if no one ever says 'Do you realise that's not right?' no one will ever realise that no, it's not right to call people offensive names/perpetuate dumb stereotypes. It's irritating and embarrassing to get called out for racism or sexism, but I can't think it's more irritating or embarrassing than being someone who is hurt by ugly names, so it's something to cope with and hopefully learn from.
To me the whole PC debate is basically a way for rude people to stomp on civilized behavior. It's a triumph of the petty lazy side of human nature that people complain about not being allowed to refer to groups of people in ways that are hurtful.
There are people who use politeness to shut down discussion- I know people I can't have conversations with because they can spend all day parsing language for insults to the most obscure groups, but I am willing to bet that most of the people who complain about 'PC' are not dealing with the whole hir/shim/whatever crowd, but people like me who patiently reminds her coworkers that calling trans people 'she-males' is not a way to win friends and influence people.
This has been my one serious comment for the whole year, I promise.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:35 PM
Calling someone out is a sign of dislike,
No. Really no. I called Ogged out on something he said to L. (is she still reading? If so, hi!) in the thread where she delurked. He made a joke about harassing her, and I pointed out that even though he was clearly and absolutely kidding, that the joke reinforced the norm that if you're a teenage girl, you're sexual prey. If you run into people who will treat you like something other as prey, you got lucky, but you shouldn't count on it.
And I really like Ogged. He's why I started hanging out here so much -- the comments section hadn't yet coalesced into the bizarre entity it has become, so back then the blogger's personality was a much bigger part of the site. Calling someone out really needn't be hostile, or indicative of generalized dislike, or meaning anything more than "I wish you wouldn't do that anymore."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:38 PM
91: It was great. Understanding "the best that has been thought and said in the world" as of my growing up about 1970, and realizing that to a certain extent a great period was ending right about that time, has been a pre-occupation of mine, as you can tell just from the way I mention it.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:40 PM
Thinking about what I was go with instead of "inappropriate" from upthread. Basically, I think we all can agree that there are ways to disapprove without making it explicit. Shifting your attention away from someone, or changing the way you address them. Or, like B's prof, ask a question which doesn't specifically allude to race, but has it in its undertones. These methods are strong clues that behavior is disapproved of, but without the negative effects of explicitly calling someone out.
Certainly, some types will brand even this mild behavior as "being too PC." But it's also the case that a lot of people who think of themselves as anti-PC will approve of these tactics.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:41 PM
a great period was ending right about that time
I think this is true and not, to my knowledge, adequately analyzed.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:41 PM
instead of "inappropriate"
How about "tacky"? I find this to be a powerful standard for what not to do. If it's tacky, don't do it.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:42 PM
92: Re stereotypes and such, I think it's actually kind of cool to live in a place where ethnic humor and playing around with stereotypes are alive but mostly harmless. I may be wrong, but I tend to think the goal is to get to a world where calling Ogged a lazy Mexican is harmless, not unthinkable. But, as I say, I could be wrong, and even if I'm not, it's something that has to be treated with a whole lot of caution by us pale types.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:44 PM
93. I should have been more precise. My friend's calling me out was not a sign of dislike, either. But if someone is an acquaintance, or peripheral friend, then, generally, can we agree that they'll be lenient towards you if they like you, and intolerant of you if they don't?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:44 PM
"Your Racist Friend"
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:46 PM
Heh. I love that album.
"Minimum Wage! HieeeYah!!!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:47 PM
If it's tacky, don't do it.
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:47 PM
I love that album.
Indeed. Although, the opening track now makes me stoop with age: "A brand new record, for 1990..." Aiee!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:49 PM
88: I agree, but it's not liberals who keep these issues at center stage, it's the right. So if right wing candidate X accuses liberal candidate Y of supporting gay marriage and abortion, what is Y supposed to say? What I think he should say is: yes I do, and X wants to make sure that if you go bankrupt you'll lose your house. If Y says: oh uh, no, I only support abortion in the case of rape or incest, he's lost my vote, because I expect when he gets to congress he'll cave on every other issue.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:49 PM
99: Okay, but that's a characteristic of criticism generally, not a reason that criticism for thoughtless racism or sexism, as Winna says, should be particularly out of line.
(And I don't call people out all the time, of course. It just really bothers me that bringing up racism is treated by lots of people as as offensive, or more offensive, than actually saying something racist.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:50 PM
I think context is important, certainly. But the problem with playing with stereotypes is that even playing with them tends to reinforce them. I don't directly call people on the marginal things, because otherwise I'd be at it all day, and I try to make it as neutral an observation as possible, because it is embarrassing to have someone tell you that you're out of line.
I stopped someone once from making Asian jokes by calling them 'roundeye'. Sometimes fighting fire with fire can work, too.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:51 PM
Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
Yes. Hate it. Deal with it by embracing my uncoolness and doing a wide-eyed, "Oh, that was a joke. I'm sorry, I wasn't following." "Was that another joke?" which at least breaks up the rhythm of it, and makes it less fun for everyone.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:52 PM
In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious?
mea culpa. sorry, j-mo.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:53 PM
yes I do, and X wants to make sure that if you go bankrupt you'll lose your house
Here we agree. The rhetoric wants refined, as our Pittsburgher friends would say, but that's the message, I think.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:53 PM
86:
"we received a talk from a lawyer on how to harass someone right up to the point the law allowed, and no further."
They were being ironic, right? Right?
Posted by Miss Emily | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:55 PM
102: I tend to avoid commenting here on serious things for that exact reason- I'm never certain if comments are intended to be an ironic hipster joke which is obvious to everyone but me. Being as humorless as I am about some things, it's really easy to fall into that trap.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:55 PM
I'm not sure of the scope of PC. It seems powerful in academia, non-profits, parts of government, and perhaps some big for-profit organizations. Sometimes it's motivated by fear of lawsuits, and other times by reforming impulses.
I've spent a moderate amount of time in (A) venues where open racism-sexism-homophobia is still OK, more in (B) places where the racism-sexism-homophobia has to be veiled, but is still a big factor, and some in (C) places where PC rules. [I suppose I should add (D), places where none of this is a big factor because it's all been hashed out.]
What I'd say myself depends on which venue is being discussed, but in the public discussion a lot of A/B people whine as though they were in C, and a lot of C people pretend that they're in A.
The PC issue can be confused thith the Dem strategy of zeroing in on sexual and racial minorities based on their stereotype issues. It's related, but different.
I agree with slol 73 that, to the extent that the Dems really are identified with PC, that's bad. I tend to encounter the issue as oral-tradition whining.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:56 PM
106: I guess I'm less worried about stereotypes per se, since a lot of them really do have something to do with real cultures that really shape real people, and more about how stereotypes get used to define some people as outside the "normal" culture.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:56 PM
This leads perfectly into the question I wanted to ask before refreshing. Have any of you guys run into the phenomenon that I'm going to call "hipsterish ironic racism"? In which offhandedly racist comments are intended to be edgily self-aware, and the person who challenges them is made to feel stupid for presuming that the hipster is serious? Squirm.
This is related to the exchange you and I had before, isn't it, where I said Trilling was onto this special American style?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:56 PM
Don't let it stop you. Really don't.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:56 PM
bad time to share my new "Sexism is Sexy!" t-shirt?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:58 PM
115 to 111. And to 110, I'm sure it's not a joke. I can completely imagine a talk on what sorts of being mean to people are actionable harassment, and what is just good clean all-American fun.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 2:58 PM
Re "hipsterish ironic racism," if the intended reaction is a challenge that can then be mocked, it's an asshole move and a clear sign that whatever was said is not something that can be said in a humorous way by someone of the speaker's race and gender at that time and place.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:01 PM
Things I think are true:
1) It is true that all else being equal, a socially liberal Republican is still a Republican and will support broadly Republican goals. What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican. I get the sense that LB was speaking to the generally-die-hard-but-recent-mayoral-Republican converts, but I did want to point out that as far as appealing to undecideds, this argument won't carry a lot of weight.
2) The problem with the PC battle isn't just that it's been successfully framed as a bunch of whiny rich kids finding oity causes to feel bad about, though I think that's most of it. It's also that there seems to be a gap between what I except to happen if I call someone 'racist' in the common usage sense and what happens if I call them a 'racist' in the academic, liberal sense. If I call someone racist in the normal sense, I'm harshly condemning their behavior and maybe their character, and I'm holding them responsible for it and pressuring them to change.
If I call someone a racist in the academic liberal sense, I'm not calling them a bad person, nosirree. In fact, they may be racist without thinking about it or really, doing anything at all. And while I agree intellectually that it's a real problem, it's a very hard one to sell because 'racist' is a term that also rightly applies to lots of horrible individual decisions.
'You're racist!' cries the strawliberal, "because your firm doesn't have an affirmative action policy. But we don't mean that you're bad, or even that you know you're racist, or that you mean to be racist. We just mean that your firm isn't actualizing a progressive future. But we don't mean to blame you! It's just a structure"
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
And I think there's a strong presumption that if it's not a problem that can be solved by pointing fingers or expecting people to change their individual behavior, it's probably a manufactured, made-up problem.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:01 PM
98: Fuck off, haouli.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:02 PM
"Can" s/b "should"
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:02 PM
IDP, did you quote the wrong text in 114?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:02 PM
Hip Ironic Sexism
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:04 PM
114--Not directly, but I'm willing to give you and Trilling credit for any intelligent point in my earlier comment.
111--It can be tricky for me too, since I tend towards the "humorless" end of the Unfoggedariat spectrum. It gets me differently when I hear such jokes out loud, though; I read crazy shit on the internet all the time, and perhaps falsely presume that people are kinder and saner in person.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:04 PM
113: That is true, and that's when I try to intervene. It's a lot of what I do at work, because I live in a Southern Suburban Nexus of Ordinary and people are nice, but have a big cultural push toward othering. I am fond of them, but I can't take the racism and sexism. They seem to forgive me for being occasionally a little too earnest.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:05 PM
120: Were you trying to come up with the word haole? You've got to work on accuracy of slurring.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:05 PM
120: See, that's kind of the point. "Haole" is a harmless descriptor. "Stupid fucking haole" used in earnest isn't. And, for that matter, it's something I'd use myself in speaking of a certain sort of over-entitled tourist.
Also, it's a good rule not to try ethnic humor when you can't spell the ethnic term you're trying to use. [Emoticon deleted]
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:06 PM
Is there an ethnic slur for bad spellers?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:06 PM
Although almost everyone who works there could be described as liberal to far left, there were a lot of eyes rolled at that one.
That's because all sensitivity training, ime, is completely banal. In-depth discussion of why photocopying porn on the office copier and commenting on the associate's ass is bad. Or secretaries being ordered to sleep with top executives for their jobs while wearing bad 80s suits. Most of them read like bad porn plots.
Of course, given that none of this is a terribly common phenomenon in the genial office we had, it's basically an excuse for everyone to wander around going "It's sexual harassment and I don't have to take it."
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:09 PM
We call them stupid fucking haoles.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:09 PM
130 to 128.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:09 PM
What doesn't follow from that, unless I am a diehard Democrat, is that I should vote for a less capable Democrat. Presumably an ineffective Democratic mayor is worse on issues I care about than an effective social liberal Republican.
The problem with this argument is that effective/ineffective is really hard to separate from other issues. If anything reduced crime in NY other than the national trend, it was probably the extra cops Dinkins put on the streets. But you don't see him getting credit for that. Freddy Ferrer got dissed as 'too inexperienced' to run NY -- really, is there any experience more relevant to running NYC than being an NYC borough president? He's been in city politics for decades.
The effective/ineffective metric looks objective, but it's often fairly badly supported by facts or evidence. What team someone is playing on is something you can know.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:11 PM
128: Spelers.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:11 PM
132 continued: But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:13 PM
126, 127: I knew I should have looked it up.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:14 PM
He's been in city politics for decades.
And he sounded really tired of it, frankly.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:14 PM
124: No, something JM said about racial remarks during the world cup led to an exchange where I was reminded of something Trilling said about American vs. British snobbery, in his introduction to Homage to Catalonia.
Somewhere in Europe, Silvana will be laughing at the syntax of that last sentence.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:15 PM
But really I was talking mostly to people who would have their fingernails pulled out rather than vote for a Republican for President or Congress (most of NYC) but somehow think that parties don't matter in local politics.
This sort of party-switching seems to be really common, and I suspect on both sides of the aisle, too. How many states vote GOP in presidential elections but have significant local union Dem presence? Or vote GOP nationally but have Democratic governors? Small-town politics is just weird that way.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:21 PM
Aha. IDP is talking about the comments to this post; I discover that I repeat myself (repeat myself), and that his memory is better than mine.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:25 PM
Santayana, when he visited England, quite gave up the common notion that Dickens' characters are caricatures.
True. Also, Lewis Carroll? Hyper-realism.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:27 PM
the comments to this post
Gary Farber said...
(I have a blogging friend who, although blogging little in recent times, has a history of doing this, and while I've reacted strongly on occasion, mostly I've just kept my mouth shut and not responded, because I'm sure I would have seemed as if I were over-reacting, but it still drives me crazy, and I'd really like to find a way to politely, and in friendly -- but firm! -- fashion, say "no, damnit, we're not all full of what you say are middle-class prejudices that every in group X shares about A, B, and C! My common reaction is the reverse of the one you claim we all "secretly" feel! Damnit!")
Farber, you sneaky Jew...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:49 PM
Oh, that's funny. I saw that and wondered who he was talking about.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 3:52 PM
I was trying really hard not to enquire into that.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:01 PM
When did the Mormons stop sucking snake venom? You sort of glossed over that part.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:16 PM
really Emerson, it's not like you to miss such an obvious euphamism.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:20 PM
I honestly think it's the unwillingness to blame anyone that makes people roll their eyes and think that racism isn't a problem. It's a problem. We're calling it racism, which is what we used to call the Jim Crow laws. But it's not anyone fault. Heck I'm racist too! We are all racist! But we're OK!
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect. Which ironically is Michael's point: my intent in saying, "Michael, that's a racist remark" matters less than the effect of that statement on him. What's so frustrating about the "don't call me racist/sexist/homophobic" argument is the presumption that the effect on *me* of being called names is more important than the effect of my casual remarks to someone else.
Then again, sure, people who are constantly on the search for something to be offended by are tiresome. But surely that's no reason to preemptively declare that it's simply not possible that one could ever say something offensive and that people shouldn't point it out if you do.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:22 PM
144--When dowsing proved so much more profitable. Duh.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:24 PM
I think the key question here is not whether to call people out, but how. Example:
"What you just said was racist." "What? I'm not racist! You're just oversensitive and PC." BAD
"Dude, that was kind of offensive." "Really? How?" GOOD
See?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:27 PM
I'm the only one humming "Everybody's a little bit racist" from Avenue Q to myself, right?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:30 PM
Speaking of calling people out, if anyone thinks I'm full of shit about ethnic humor being pretty much harmless once the stereotypes it's reinforcing become pretty much harmless, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:33 PM
Teo, I'd still think you were a ninny if you called stuff "offensive."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:35 PM
I think that it's fair, but I also think the stereotype has to become harmless first -- I don't think making jokes about a still-malignant stereotype helps wear the edges off it. (That is, anyone who wants to tell Mick jokes at me can go ahead; in fact, I do have an extensive family history of alcoholism.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:36 PM
But the entire point is that the question of fault and intention matters a lot less than the question of effect.
I think they're connected. We've talked about jokey in-group insults; apo insults ogged's Guatemalan heritage whenever he can. But if someone seriously insulted ogged, we'd be angry with him even if he used the same words that apo does. (The n-word or "bitch" used as a term of familiarity rather than an insult certainly weighs intent and context heavily.)
And intent informs effect. I think there's a difference between the guy who won't hire blacks because he thinks they're all dirty thieves and the guy who doesn't hire blacks because none of them ever apply to his prestigious lily-white law firm. The effects, true, are largely similar. The second guy, assuming he's being honest, I can probably convince.
More to the point, I think the second guy does, too, and lumping him in with the open bigot under the term 'racist' hasn't lead to him reconsidering his opinions, but concluding that liberals are so out of touch that they wouldn't recognize a real problem if it was in their face and wiggling. This has been helped along by a sly Republican machine, but I don't think it's been created out of thin air.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:36 PM
151: How's "Dude, that was such bullshit. Like, way, way, uncool, man." To which the reply could be "[questioningly] Dude? [thoughtfully] Duuuude."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:38 PM
LB gets it.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:40 PM
151: I think that a person is a ninny if he calls something "offensive" despite not actually being offended by it. That inevitably leads to the offensive person saying "I can't seriously believe you were offended by that", and the ninny saying "No, but I think somebody could be, based on my stereotypes of the kind of people who tend to be offended by that."
But if you're actually offended by something I say, I would expect you to say "that's offensive". However, because of the attitude voiced in post #151, I would not recommend that you actually use the word "offensive". Say "I'm Jewish and I don't appreciate that" or something.
What I would like to see here is a post about people being unjustly accused of child abuse.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:41 PM
I'm for it. Keeps the rest of us on our toes.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:42 PM
148, etc.: It's a wonder we've made any progress at all. If someone says something offensive, you give him a dirty look, and then you key his car.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:44 PM
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people). Other words with that property would work just as well.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:44 PM
So much depends on the context, and what you know about the person making the remark, and what you hope to accomplish by correcting them. That said, I think my approach generally would be something like, "Ok, that's funny, but my inner ninny feels compelled to note that [insert here a fact, either about harms, or the way falseness of what's been said]."
I don't know if I've ever done this. The closest thing I can think of is making a lazy Mexican joke myself, and then noting that since I moved to California, I've realized that Mexicans work much harder than anyone else. You gotta establish your street cred first, you know?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:46 PM
152:
"Who threw the overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder?"
Nobody answered so I shouted all the louder,
"It's a Irish trick it's true,
But I can lick the Mick who threw
The overalls in Mrs. Murphy's chowder."
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:46 PM
The problem with "offensive" is that people who get offended (as opposed to "even" or "pissed off") are ninnies.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:47 PM
The point of using "offensive" is that, unlike "racist," it gets the point across without implying anything bad about the person's character (because it's not generally used to describe people).
I disagree; I think that in the last 20 or so years the "proudly non-P.C." demographic has come to receive exactly the same message from "That was offensive" that they receive from "That was racist".
The message that reaches their ears in both cases is "You, a well-meaning average Joe, accidentally said something that I, a nitpicking pantywaist, am now going to make a big deal out of."
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:48 PM
I use 'dude' as a reproach all the time. I used to have a roommate who said 'dude' and it was hysterical in her thick hill accent, so I started saying 'dude!' to mock her. Now I too sound like some sort of crypto-Valley Girl.
I also agree with not reproaching people about things unless they actually bother you.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:48 PM
I still hear Ole and Lena jokes and Pat and Mike jokes around here. Roughly speaking, ethnic jokes become inoffensive shortly before they stop being funny.
You do have counteroffensive jokes, e.g. "Jewish jokes", told by the target population. It would be interesting to do a dual collection and find out if any anti-Semitic Jewish jokes were also told by Jews. My guess is that the two groups of jokes hardly overlap at all.
"Rabbi Lev was coming back from poisoning wells when he met Rabbi Schmuel with a Christian child for the Passover matzohs...."
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:48 PM
It's a wonder we've made any progress at all. If someone says something offensive, you give him a dirty look, and then you key his car.
SCMT gets it.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:48 PM
I had a coach who once blamed my i(nfamously) short temper on my being Irish.
I'm not Irish.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:49 PM
152: Agreed. There's also the matter of stereotypes that are still malignant in some places/times/groups but not malignant in others.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:50 PM
I'm not Irish.
You had a duty to respond by telling him that, to see if he would reply with "I beg to differ."
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:50 PM
There was an anti-Semitic cartoon contest a few months ago, John. Does that count? I can't remember if it was posted here or not.
here
The 'don't forget to control the media' one cracks me up.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:52 PM
Would any of the people who are criticizing my use of "offensive" care to propose a more suitably masculine term for the same purpose? Or do you disagree with 159 as well?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:53 PM
Ned's 163 is the better criticism of "offensive."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:56 PM
171: I can see your approach working in the right circumstances, but there's also something to be said for the pained silence/change the subject approach. It conveys disapproval without giving the person a chance to get self-righteous about being called out. The weakness is that you don't get the chance to explain why what was said was offensive, but in a lot of cases the explanation is going to get ignored anyway.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 4:58 PM
Just to return briefly to the point of partisan afiliation, I think Cala's 119 is generally true. It's ever more true if you aren't a doctrinaire partisan. There are people out there who hold views that do not map on absolutely to one party or another, but have a general partisan valence. These are the people who will try hardest to "vote competance" or to at least discern who is strongest on the issues that interest them most. This effect is magnified, I suspect in local elections, where 95% of the job is trying to optimize within a bunch of prior constraints. It's also the case that, in the Northeast at least, party affiliation is a less helpful guide to level of concordance with liberal social policy, and a more helpful guide to degree of closeness with public sector unions.
Also, I blame all you bastards for driving David Chapelle of the air.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:00 PM
We may be talking about different situations. I'm not talking about the Proudly Anti-PC folks.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:00 PM
What are some real-life examples of things people have said that y'all have wanted to "call out"? I'm not sure I can think of any: generally I find that people are either clearly joking, or beyond hope.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:01 PM
171: I think the problem is the one ogged describes in #160: context matters a lot. "Offensive" is going to be understood by some subset of the people to whom you are speaking as code for "racist," or "sexist," or whatever. Sometimes it's appropriate to be confrontational. Sometimes it's appropriate to just let it go. And sometimes you just file it away for future reference. Assuming you're working in a pretty supportive environment, most people are going to be reacting the same way that you are. It all adds up; it's not as if you're shouldering this burden alone.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:02 PM
153: My point was that people too often fall back on the defensive "well I didn't mean it that way" nonsense, when the point isn't what you meant, it's what you said. But yes, that said, intent obviously matters.
Re. ninnies and nitpicking pantywaists, I just don't think that there are nearly as may nitpicking ninnies as people act like there are. Yeah, one occasionally runs into some leftier-than-thou type, and such people are annoying. But what's annoying isn't their pcness; what's annoying is that they're smug assholes. If they weren't smug about pc whateveritis, they'd be smug about some other shit.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:02 PM
That is, anyone who wants to tell Mick jokes at me can go ahead
LB, this is the squarest sense of ethnic humor evar.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:04 PM
Okay, real-life example:
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:05 PM
171, I don't think there's any way to tell somebody that they said something rude/offensive/racist/insensitive/objectionable that's any better than the alternatives.
Basically, if you tell somebody they did something wrong, he becomes defensive. He starts trying to convince himself that it's you who is wrong. In our society, everyone has heard of mythical examples of PC insanity, and therefore it's extremely easy for him to fit your objection into that frame, and respond by rolling his eyes and saying "I'm sorry, I guess. Whatever."
No matter how you phrase your objection to the offensive remark, I think the person will respond in either of two ways:
A: "Well I'm sorry if I wasn't PC enough for this granola-smoking tea party, but I call 'em like I see 'em. Don't mess with Texas. Please notice that I'm rolling my eyes in impatience. You are gay."
B: "Oh, I'm really sorry. I didn't realize that what I said could have been offensive."
Again, the way you phrase it doesn't matter. The only way you can actually get through to somebody who is likely to respond with A is to
1) actually be a member of the insulted group
2) actually be offended
3) somehow not give the impression that you have ever objected to anything before but this time he has really crosed the line.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:06 PM
Again, the way you phrase it doesn't matter.
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:08 PM
Moms don't count, Teo! Moms say crazy shit, and the only way to respond is by pitching a fit.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:08 PM
Does anyone have a non-mom example for ogged?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:09 PM
176: The realtor in Boise who made some comment, now forgotten, about undesireable neighborhoods and not wanting to live near "those" people.
The woman in New Jersey who assumed that my Puerto Rican best friend carrying her baby was my nanny, and who spoke over her head to ask me how old the baby was. (My friend said, "he's MY baby!" and the woman fell all over herself explaining that she thought she was the nanny. What an asshole.)
The neighbor across the street, who is a really nice guy, who admires my cat because she "fights like a Mexican." (Parallels to Ogged cease here; apparently the cat does not have cancer. Whew!)
The new next-door neighbor who just moved in who said that rents in this town are too high "because of all the foreigners." I really wish I'd had the presence of mind to say, "like me?" but instead I was angrily thinking that the southeast Asian immigrants he was probably referring to mostly live up north in really cheap and nasty apartment complexes.
The students who complain about living up north in cheap and nasty apartment complexes by saying that they live in "the part of town with all the crack houses." If this town has a crack problem, I'm a monkey's uncle.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:09 PM
What is the name of the Columbia Engineering School. I googled, and it wasn't immediately apparent.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:10 PM
We may be talking about different situations. I'm not talking about the Proudly Anti-PC folks.
Oh, okay. Disregard much of 181, then.
I think "offensive" is still a stereotypically PC thing to say, even given that PC people do not actually exist. If we avoid stereotypical phrases, and if we act like it's not a big deal (in other words, begin by saying "By the way..."), we can get through to people.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:11 PM
Oh god no, Ned, "by the way" is really tiresome. Much better to just address it head on: "what do you mean, she fights like a Mexican?"
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:12 PM
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School, and when I said that that was kind of racist she got offended. What would you have done?
Wondered how the hell one could make fun of the name, for one.
Like ogged, I can't think of many situations where someone jokes and its clearly offensive and the person is intending to offend and they're not beyond hope.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:13 PM
"Ok, that's funny, but my inner ninny feels compelled to note that...
Ogged, when did you become Dave Chapelle imitating a white person?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:13 PM
Bullshit. There's a world of difference between "You are a racist asshole" and "Could you try to not say stuff like that?" no matter who you're talking to.
I think if you are actually talking to a racist asshole, there's no difference. The trick is to avoid talking to the racist asshole, and turn to some other person and say "Can you believe that guy? What a racist asshole". Now he's outnumbered. The majority of people think he's a racist asshole. Perhaps they're right!
Of course, the next step for him is to say "God damn it, I know I'm a racist asshole. Everyone is a racist asshole, I'm just honest enough to admit it." I have heard people say this.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:13 PM
There was a guy I know who made anti-Arab comments, and toned them down when asked to stop.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:14 PM
185: Oh, I forgot one of my favorites. The customers at the restaurant my best girlfriend (she of the nanny story) worked at during summers who would ask her if she was taking classes at the local community college and who would laugh at her and say "yeah, right" when she said she was a student at Notre Dame.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:14 PM
186: The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:15 PM
Would any of the people who are criticizing my use of "offensive" care to propose a more suitably masculine term for the same purpose?
Nigga, that's some [racist/sexist] bull-shit!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:15 PM
191: See, I'm not talking about actual racist assholes. I'm talking about well-meaning people who don't realize the implications of what they say.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:16 PM
That's a racist or sexist assumption, as opposed to being a classist asshole? (Disclosure: worked a summer during college in fast food. Heard more than once: "if you weren't so dumb you'd get my order right and wouldn't be in this dead end job?")
If you are talking to a racist asshole, the last thing that is going to help is a 'it's not your fault, we're all secretly racist." No, no, let's be clear. He's the asshole, we're not, and it's his damn fault he is. If it's not his fault, he's probably not an asshole.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:18 PM
The person in my department who thought it was a-okay to call trans people 'chicks with dicks' because that's what it says on the porn box.
The woman who thought that it was okay to make a joke about people with Down's Syndrome in a meeting.
The man who said all Muslims should be shipped off to a desert island and then the island should be nuked from the air.
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
The realtor who reassured me that there weren't many of 'those colored folks' in the apartment complex.
The lady who thought 'Chink' was an acceptable thing to call Asian people.
I could go on, and on, and on. Bigotry is part of the socially acceptable bonding mechanism here, at least if the number of times I've had to say 'hey! that is totally not okay' to people means anything.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:19 PM
Ok, those are good examples B, although you should have numbered them.
The realtor: if this person was going to be your regular realtor, then it would have been good to say something about "we're happy to live near those people." If not your regular realtor, oh well.
The woman/nanny thing sounds like it was handled.
Does he mean "fights like a Mexican" as in "fights dirty," or "fights well"? Big difference!
The neighbor thing all depends on what kind of relationship you want with your neighbor.
Dude, I know where you live, and I've heard about the crack houses there. Seriously.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:19 PM
197: My girlfriend is a very dark-skinned Puerto Rican with kinky hair. I'm a blonde gringa. When I waited tables and answered similar questions by saying where I went to college, no one argued with me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:19 PM
A colleague and I once discovered that our grandmothers both referred to those long, brown nuts (Brazil nuts? Macadamia nuts?) that are often in nut mixes as 'n-- toes.'
We don't think our grandmothers are assholes, just beyond hope due to age and circumstance.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:20 PM
Winna, most of those people would seem to me to be in the "beyond help" category. Do you really engage them?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:21 PM
There was a guy I know who made anti-Arab comments, and toned them down when asked to stop.
When he loves Arabs in his heart, baa, then your job will be done.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:22 PM
I did say that to the realtor, actually. But the point is (as my girlfriend likes to say) it's amazing what white people will say to other white people when they think no one is listening. It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:23 PM
198: Maybe you're nicer than I am. All of those people I am comfortable with labelling as 'racist', 'asshole', and 'probably beyond the hope of help from a mild protest.' Doesn't mean I don't protest, just I don't think it's going to convince them that PC people aren't out to get them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:23 PM
I do. It might only mean they don't talk that way in front of me, but if they realise that not everyone likes that kind of language it's at least a start.
The porn box woman was actually surprised when I explained that wasn't a nice thing to call people, which I think is kind of sad.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:23 PM
My mom was once making fun of the name of the Columbia Engineering School
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:23 PM
It isn't an oh well if she's not my regular realtor, because it suggests that she actively steers people into segregated neighborhoods, which is illegal.
Why isn't that still an "oh well"? Like she's going to stop if you say something?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:24 PM
The porn box woman was actually surprised when I explained that wasn't a nice thing to call people
Well, men don't mind being called "men with dicks", so what's the problem?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:24 PM
197: Oh crap, yeah. My mom's family does that shit too. And they would just laugh at me when I was a girl and I objected.
Nowadays my uncle knows better, at least, to pull that crap when my son's around. Oddly, I really like my Limbaugh-loving racist asshole uncle. I do wish he wouldn't vote, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:25 PM
204 is 180% correct. I imagine other groups are the same way in their own ranks- I once had an African American friend tell me that she'd always been told white people smelled like dogs when they got wet, which I found kind of hilarious.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:25 PM
Living near crack houses can be okay.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:25 PM
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
Now this is one of those responses that can be made to pretty much any comment.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:25 PM
Ned, if we learned what to call people based on porn box titles the world would be a strange place.
'Don't call that woman white! She's a cracker slutbag! Don't you have any manners?'
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:28 PM
208: No, probably not just from me saying something. But if more of her white clients objected when she pulled that kind of crap, she might, yeah.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:30 PM
Heard more than once: "if you weren't so dumb you'd get my order right and wouldn't be in this dead end job?")
The correct response is to get them a replacement.
"Sorry about that, this time I gave your order extra special attention. Enjoy every bite."
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:32 PM
210: I have an uncle who seems to be convinced that there will be a Black on White war (this is why we needs the guns, you see) in the near future and he had my baby sister all worried when she was about ten or eleven and she and I went out to lunch because she had overheard his dumbass comments and her closest friend was dark-skinned (Indian, I think) and she wasn't sure if she'd have to fight her friend.
I at this point pitched a royal fit, or as royal as one can get in a booth at a crappy Mexican restaurant, and pretty much told her he was out of his mind and a racist asshole and she wasn't to listen to him. She giggled and understood (this was back in the days when big sisters were like unto goddesses). But he's beyond hope.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:32 PM
When he loves Arabs in his heart, baa, then your job will be done.
I'm trying to get him started on the Iron Sheik.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:32 PM
214, I don't think you should call someone a cracker slutbag unless she is actually holding hands with a hung ebony buck. You wouldn't draw attention to her race if she was surrounded by other white people, you'd just call her a naughty housewife or a barely legal fuck kitten.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:33 PM
Paging Teo....
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:35 PM
Here's a more extended version of the example I gave in comments over at my blog. The guy in question was my honey's brother, also a Long Island, er, Mexican, and he kept inserting completely irrelevant and somewhat belligerent comments into the conversation, like "Black people would be into that!" or "It's a good thing there's aren't any Black people around!" (I can't remember any of the exact comments; they were pretty inane.) It seemed to be some sort of weird joke, so I ignored it.
Then, one evening when it was more frequent and starting to get on my nerves, I said a bit jokingly, and to be honest, probably a bit prissily, "You know, if you keep saying that, some people are going to think you're not joking." To which he replied something like "Oh, I know it's awful; my black friends and I say the most awful things to each other; anyone who said this sort of thing seriously would be such a racist asshole."
And I was left going, huh.
About a month later we discovered that he filed his CDs into three folders: black, white, and girls. That left us gasping with laughter, even if it's not so clear what the catagorization scheme proves, if anything.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:35 PM
I googled the Iron Sheik, and he is pretty darn cute.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:35 PM
219- I stand corrected!
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:37 PM
Why am I being paged?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:39 PM
224: 219. At which I laughed while suspecting that I shouldn't.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:43 PM
221: Why would anyone arrange their music that way? It doesn't even make sense. Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:47 PM
JM, your response seems just right, and the dude clearly has issues.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:48 PM
I'm trying to get him started on the Iron Sheik.
Iranians: the gateway crush to Arabs.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:49 PM
225: I laughed too. Am I now the resident ninny?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:50 PM
Iranians: the gateway crush to Arabs.
This situation cannot be properly evaluated until we see pictures of your mom.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:51 PM
222 refers to the Palestinian rapper. I was bewildered by the reference to Iranians until I googled further.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 5:54 PM
229: No, just the one who'd engaged the "what do you say when someone says something offensive" thing most recently.
(As a general rule, I think that circumstances in which white guys can get away with playing with stereotypes about black people are vanishly rare. But as I'm typing that, it occurs to me that I have no basis for assuming that Crypic Ned is a white guy, thus exposing my own subconscious racism. And, for that matter, I haven't spent nearly enough time with enough black people to have much of a clue what I'm talking about, so I may very well be trying too hard to be inoffensive and thus failing to connect. Also, the comment was beautifully structured and funny as hell, which counts for a lot.)
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 6:01 PM
Was it based on traditionally ethnic forms of music, like jazz or country, or what?
No. IIRC, we were looking for Sinatra, and brother was saying, "No, no, no, he couldn't be in that folder; that's for black people's music. And that one's girls." It makes no sense, although it does remind me of going out clubbing in Germany to hear "Blackmusik," or however they spelled it, and wondering whether I was going to hear blues, soul, Motown, rap, drum-n'-bass, or what.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 6:01 PM
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
Mickey Kaus has taught me this is not bad because it is not an ethnic slur.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 6:31 PM
Ah, but my father-in-law's use of the word 'sand-nigger' was an ethnic slur. (I don't know if I actually called him out. I gave him the long, soulful, basset-hound-like stare, intended to convey "You know Buck married city people. Please don't make me object to this, you know I'm trying to lay low and not be difficult." And he got embarrassed and stopped saying it.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 6:52 PM
235: I've heard sand-nigger, camel jockey, and rag/towelhead from my various horribly racist family members, and after years of fighting and arguing with them and just seeing them get happily worse, I think I can safely say they're beyond hope and always were. The weird thing about them is that side of the family is almost wholly Arabs, and they're not using those slurs in a friendly or affectionate "insider insult" way. They just really do hate Arabs in general, and the fact that they are Arabs has just never really sunk in.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:06 PM
236: I'm slowly coming to feel that way about American white people. Present company excepted, of course.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:08 PM
Buck Sr. really isn't a bad guy. He's just lived a life very, very removed from any PC influence.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:09 PM
238: I've got relatives like that, too (of the "very friendly and kind and just happen to have been raised in a backwards, racist universe" variety), but I probably have just as much that are either crazy or rotten.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:15 PM
I usually just mark people down as "must to avoid" rather than calling them out, but I remember when I was 17 at my summer job grilling hot dogs in a park, and one day the landscape crew was sitting at the picnic table where I was smoking, and one guy was going on and on and I wasn't really listening, but then I heard him say "blah, blah junglebunnies" and I said,"What's a junglebunny?" because I had never heard of such a bunny, and he got all huffy and said "you, know, a spearchucker" and I said "spearchucker?" because I had never heard of such a sport, and didn't see how a bunny could chuck a spear, and he got all huffy and left the table and the other guy said, "I really think it's cool how you called him out," and I said, "But what is a jungle bunny?"
You can consider this a blonde joke.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:18 PM
I missed yesterday's Groening reference, so let me try to atone by saying:
"Stupid like a Fox!"
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07-31-06 7:20 PM
See, I think the "they're beyond hope, so I won't call them out" cop-out is just that -- a lame, cowardly cop-out. If someone says something that offends you, and you don't call them out on it, then you're a ninny.
My wife was training her replacement for her job at Prestigious Ivy League University, and they got to talking about how they're both Red Sox fans, and the replacement started talking about how much she hates Derek Jeter (which is right and true) because "he's just a little faggot."
My wife, rightly, shook her head and told her firmly, "That is not acceptable."
Reading some of the earlier comments, I understand that calling someone "racist" or calling their comments "offensive" can put them on the defensive. Maybe this is a time for that cliched touchy-feely technique, the "I" statement.
"I find what you just said offensive." Or, even better, "I'm offended by that."
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 6:52 AM
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation. You say that smeone's statement or practice is racist, and people will get defensive, yes, but there's more than that.
In semi-PC places, it's also an effective way to get people to shut up, because it's a cardinal sin. I can't really say that X is a sensible police practice, because I will be told hat 'm racist or sexist. When thoughtful people say these things, there might be a productive discussion, but too often, it just means that the real discussion happens elsewhere.
It's not exactly parallel, but have you ever participated in a discussion with someone who's been trained in leading discussions and dialogues? I'm sure that some of these facilitator typed are very good--I''ve even met one. Once--but all too often those techniques are used to manipulate a discussion.
People are told to say, "I hear you," but usually that feels like a technique culled from a set of dialogue management flashcards. Usually when people say that they aren't listening at all. The effect of that is that the conversation shuts down, at least the official one does. The real discussion occurs via underground channels in back corridor chats.
I think that when people who are not of the hard-racist type get told that they're being racist, they just keep those thoughts to themselves and air them at home. B's just going to get on my case, so I won't say Z in front of her. That sort of shaming is appropriate if your goalis to make it socially unacceptable to say the most egregious things, especially if everyone does it, but it won't change hearts and minds.
If I tell a KLan member to shut up, then other people watching may change their views, but he may be a hopeless case. The goal there is to make other people see that the racist's behavior is unacceptable and will make them social pariahs if they engage in it..If I want to get someone I know to reconsider his statements, calling them racist is unlikely to do much good.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 7:18 AM
I don't understand how B and LizardBreath don'ts see that calling someone a racist isn't often used to shut down discussion and take control of a conversation.
Erm, I don't think I've said that it can't be -- I had a fellow associate once get huffy at me because she thought the manner in which I said I didn't think Seinfeld was all that funny was anti-Semitic, and I certainly thought her intent was to push me around. I just think that it behooves people to grow a spine about it -- having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 7:41 AM
243: I think I acknowledged once or twice that there are indeed people who are leftier-than-thou (i.e., who use accusations of prejudice to shut down discussion and/or annoy), and that they are assholes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:00 AM
having someone say that you've said something racist, even if your intent was good, even if they're really offbase, and even if they're being malicious, isn't going to kill you.
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:04 AM
The guy who called Muslims 'towelheads'.
Mickey Kaus has taught me this is not bad because it is not an ethnic slur.
I think I just fell a little bit in love with you, sj.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:05 AM
There are two separate issues here, though -- how and when do you call someone out, and how do you respond when called out. On the first, I'm fine with being gentle and tactful about it, so long as you aren't silently tolerating anything really problematic -- everything works better if you aren't an asshole about it. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns -- what, the PC police are going to come lock you up?; and if you're an American who grew up in the same society I did, it's fairly likely that you do, at least occasionally, say things that you oughtn't to in this regard, and you'd benefit from having your attention drawn to them.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:12 AM
I think the people who get deeply offended and all closed-off about it are the ones who are "overly sensitive" like they always accuse the offended parties of being. People have told me that I've said something that is/could be construed as racist on several occasions and my response has been either 1) oh, yeah, it kinda is, or 2) really? I don't think so, and then we have a discussion about it.
Actually, I just called someone out on having said something vaguely anti-Semitic yesterday, a young British lad who is going to New York next week, and I was like "dude, that's kind of offensive." He's like "No, I didn't mean any harm, I have loads of friends who are Jews." I told him that that didn't matter, people might construe it as offensive, and it doesn't matter what you actually meant, and he better be careful working in the NY office not to make an ass of himself, and better to err on the side of caution. He was like "ok." See? Not that hard.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:17 AM
We're saying as many as nine people out of ten will resent it deeply, with consequences that may be dire in the political aggragate. I hear people saying you're too attached to this kind of truth-telling to acknowledge that this might usually be counter-productive.
I think I reject all of the premises here. Being told you've said something racist might make you feel resentful, but boo-fucking-hoo. You deserve to feel bad. (Obviously, if what you've said isn't objectively racist and/or your interlocutor is, as B puts it, leftier-than-thou, then you shouldn't feel bad and, chances are, you won't.)
It is really true that pointing out racism/sexist language has negative political consequences for liberals? If a liberal politician went around calling people out on their biases, I can see how that person might suffer politically, largely because they'd be a huge pain in the ass. (See above, re: leftier-than-thou.) But I'm not receptive to the argument that we should keep our mouths shut because we might make the Republicans feel bad.
And finally, I don't think that I believe in calling out racism simply because I'm attached to truth-telling, but rather because I think there's a greater societal harm in allowing this kind of thing to go on unchallenged.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:18 AM
. On the second, though, I do think that people who feel justified to fervently resent any impugning of their non-racist/sexist credentials are being silly and wrong. It's not an insult that will kill you; if someone calls you a racist, and you think they're wrong, you have the option of sticking to your guns
I couldn't disagree more. And, were I Jewish and sanctioned by the Please-Don't-Help-Anymore Committee*, I'd have beaten the teeth out of the fellow associate you mentioned above.
(*Teo, feel free to correct to actual committee names.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:19 AM
251: Do you want to talk about your disagreement in more detail (i.e., you've been abusively called out on imaginary racism, and we're all underestimating how bad it is, or what)?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:22 AM
Nobody is saying people are justified in resenting it, or that in some abstract sense people won't benefit by "having their attention drawn to it." We are saying that that is how people will most often react when "called out,"
certainly by people with whom they have no urgent need to remain cordial. The circle of people whom we might influence by handling ourselves properly is much wider than the circle who have to get along with us.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 1-06 8:25 AM
See 242. I don't think that pointing out offensive language or behavior is incompatible with "handling ourselves properly." One can be cordial and polite even when pointing out another's error.
Posted by