Re: Child Rearing

1

How can you be sure you're not classing some Jewish guys as white guys? Some of us look just like anyone you might meet on the street, you know.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
2

This is not my method, but in the locker room, it's not such a tough call.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
3

In America it's not uncommon for goyim to be circumsized.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
4

Indeed, which is why I rely on the time-tested "looks Jewish" method.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
5

listen to them, reason with them, and generally treat them like human beings

Why is this good? I note that a robotic society is an efficient society, a productive society.

And I note that Ben's comment (#3) makes ogged's comment (#2) a TMI situation.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
6

Some Jews eat bacon, too!


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
7

Yup, that's some idiosyncratic usage (Jewish=non-white) you have going there.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
8

Some Jews eat bacon, too!

And their children are the true chosen ones.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
9

Tim, I don't understand why you needed 3 to make 2 TMI. What did you think I meant?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
10

Ch^Hummy locker-room conversation, of course.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
11

OK, fine, I didn't need #3. Mea culpa, B-Ogg.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
12

Do other people think of "white people" as including Jews?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
13

When I'm asked what I am on forms 'n' whatnot, there's no option for "Caucasian but Jewish so not really".


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
14

I get the feeling that black people do.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
15

10: That is an odd use of unix-geek praeteriteo. The text is "cummy" but the subtext is "chummy"?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
16

I treat my unruly robots like they were my children. However, *I* get the last slice of bacon or else.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
17

Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews. And I really have no idea what to check on forms that don't include a box for "Middle-Eastern."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
18

Yup. Wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone didn't. (I'm Irish/Welsh/German, for statistical purposes.)

Are there any other groups of Caucasians you don't think of as "white"? I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
19

circumsized.

I've never previously seen this word spelled with a z. My penis is circus-sized.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
20

10: That is an odd use of unix-geek praeteriteo. The text is "cummy" but the subtext is "chummy"?

Yeah, that's backwards. I originally wrote "cummy", meaning to type "chummy" but accidentally omitting the "h", and couldn't think of a better way to keep both at once, after having decided that I wanted to.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
21

ARG. Circumcised. I suck.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
22

apostropher reclaims the crown, with my apologies. (You had been scarce lately.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
23

Work has been busy busy busy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
24

LB, *you're* white. Everyone else has to fight for it.

Seriously, Iranians and Jews are the ones that come to mind right now that I think of as separate but Caucasian.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
25

Chris Rock: "Black people hate white peopleŚwe ain't got time to dice y'all into little groups."


Posted by: Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
26

I was also thrown by a contrast being drawn between jews and white people. Used to seeing one between jews and gentiles.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
27

Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews.

To the extent that this is true, I don't think it takes the form of considering Jews non-white; more of considering them particularly white -- really embodying "the Man".


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
28

I agree it's unusual. But we all know that Jews are Chinese.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
29

There is that Kosher Chinese place in Brookline, no?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
30

And the traditional Jewish Christmas dinner.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
31

really embodying "the Man".

Interesting if true. Another reason to lament something else I've been considering posting about: I don't think we have a single (other than Cobb, who has commented a few times) African-American commenter.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
32

I don't think I read a single African American blog.


Posted by: Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
33

Odd, no? Cobb is the only one on our blogroll.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
34

Hard to tell about that, though. (And I think 17 was a touch broad-brush.)


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
35

How would you know? I mean, seriously, sex shows up because people tend to pick gendered handles, and tend to correct misapprehensions. Race doesn't show up until the topic comes up (e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.).


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
36

The first paragraph here brings up the central issue of Jewish "whiteness." (Haven't read beyond that.)


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
37

Oh, boy. "Where are all the black bloggers?" in 5... 4... 3...

Should go check Pandagon now.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
38

No, Matt, I don't think anyone wonders that; people recognize that they exist.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
39

Jesse's black? I've even seen his picture.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
40

(e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.)

On looking at this, I realize that it may merely indicate that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the jar.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
41

wow, 36 really makes me want to scream at Lerner. "to take off your kippah, cut off your beard, hide your fringes; in other words, to reject your entire cultural and religious humanity." Dear me, maybe some Jews don't consider that to be part of our cultural or religious humanity. Reform Judaism started in Germany, you know.

And it's just a ridiculous spectacle for a Jewish leader playing Misery Poker about how mean people are denying him his right to be oppressed by calling him 'white'. I don't think I'm soft on anti-Semitism, but we're, what, 5x overrepresented in the U.S. Senate?

And then there's all that controlling the world that we do. That's worth something.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
42

How would you know?

No one objected when I said I didn't like big butts.

No? Maybe you're right; I assume it would have come up, but that's probably not the case.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
43

jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
44

Well, I think the link in 36 is helpful insofar as it really is an Us/Other distinction, more than anything (this is also at the root of the Italian issue LB brings up, I think).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
45

Oh, and of course Us/Other distinctions are fluid and contingent.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
46

No one objected when I said I didn't like big butts.

Didn't FL?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
47

I got mad hits like I was Rod Carew. sweet, lovely, sonorous words.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
48

I was surprised when I figured out Gilliard and Jessegon were black, but only because I blithely assume everybody is 36, white, male, living in NC, and on their second marriage with two sons until I hear otherwise (I managed to figure it out this one on my own). Oliver Willis, on the other hand, has pretty much always had his picture front and center, hasn't he?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
49

Didn't FL?

By quoting a black man, as I recall.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
50

It's an us-other distinction based on religion and culture, not on race.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
51

"...that's some idiosyncratic usage (Jewish=non-white) you have going there"

The argument has a considerably more invidious history than "idiosyncratic," but I'm quite sure Ogged is unaware of this, or he wouldn't have brought up the topic. I strongly suggest dropping "are Jews white?"" into Google, and perusing just a bit; I have no doubt Ogged had no idea what the history here is.

"I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews."

Um, this is ahistoric if put out there in a vacuum. The next topic for googling might be "Jews" + "civil rights movement" or "black-Jewish relations."

"I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me."

Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.

I can't say this without seeming, and perhaps without being, condescending, I'm afraid, but one might want to look a bit more into the history of "race," and racism in America, and, for instance, the history of both Italian and Irish immigrants. Here is one cut-to-the-chase piece. I commend it to all.

"My penis is circus-sized." Most circuses historically featured lots and lots of midgets, he observed.

(Anyone left for me to piss off?)


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
52

I think we're working off several different definitions. I'm not sure that, for example, "white" is equivalent as "Caucasian"; IIRC, Pakistanis and Indians are classified as Caucasian, but I don't know that they'd generally self-identify as such. Relatedly, I believe many Mexicans self-identify as white, but I don't know how many (other?) white folks would accept that classification.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
53

Ogged, it's definitely helpful for setting up the dispute. Didn't mean to criticize you about that. But I also think that we members of the tribe should recognize that if we're going to play Misery Poker in America with black people, we lose.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
54

on the whole, not that interesting in that race itself is blurry. If you want to define jewish people as non-white, fine, depending on the purpose. But what is gained or lost?


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
55

"There is that Kosher Chinese place in Brookline, no?"

Is there something special in Brookline that's different from the thousands of other kosher Chinese restaurants in America?


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
56

Following on Gary, from what I hear this book is germane and interesting.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
57

Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.

I knew there were historical issues, but I've had the impression they were obsolete on the level of Irish not being considered white. Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
58

Does Misery Poker require that one be hobbled? Because I think that would be a good reason to sit out the game.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
59

did not read 51 before posting -- yes, where invidious purposes, much can be lost.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
60

Gary, I'll damn myself by saying I do know about some of that history. I was thinking of the Irish and Italians when I wrote 45. And I do know that white supremacists insist that Jews aren't white, but I think we can have a discussion here without worrying about what they think.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
61

Is there something special in Brookline

Yes, baa (or close to, anyway).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
62

"jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one."

For your next trick, if you like (which you probably won't), explain how to distinguish "white" people from "non-white people," scientifically, and the good reasons for embarking on such "distinctions."


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
63

White men can't jump, Gary (except for that high-jumping Swede).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
64

Gary, I think "would be allowed to drink from white-only fountains, admitted to white-only country clubs," etc. etc. is not a bad way of drawing the distinction. It's of no scientific value, but a lot of value for understanding what goes on in the U.S. And Jews are definitely white by that criterion. (White Christian-only country clubs are a different matter.)


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
65

GF -- exactly. see later posts. But so long as we are talking about the way people actually use language, "jewish" is not a racial distinction in the way that "black" is.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
66

Ok, I'm slightly annoyed. We don't really have to defend ourselves from accusations of latent racism, do we? This is starting to look like the sexism crap all over again.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
67

I'm not accusing you of latent racism, ogged, but overt racism, and sexism too. You bastard.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
68

The question, for those who've lost the thread, was: are white guys (generally speaking) bad parents because they can always fall back on bacon, or have they horded the bacon because they're bad parents?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
69

Gary-

We've gone around on this before (at Obsidian Wings). What bothers me about the 'radical colorblindness' argument you were making (my apologies for naming your position -- please reject the label and substitute whatever you think better sums it up) is that deciding that I'm not going to acknowledge racial categories is easy for me -- I'm, visually, pretty damn white, as in in-two-years-in-the-South-Pacific-I-couldn't-get-a-tan white. Race doesn't impinge itself on me at all unless I make an effort to pay attention. To the extent that my race affects how people treat me, it probalbly mostly imperceptibly smooths my path.

On the other hand, if you're black, or latino, or asian, race is a salient fact in your life -- it makes a real difference how people treat you, what strategies you need to adopt, etc. What I worry about is that, if all the non-racist-white-folks decide that we're going to be color-blind, and pretend that race isn't a socially important factor, then we end up simply blindly accepting white privilege, and not noticing that there's still racial oppression going on.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
70

Text, your eagerness to chase low-hanging fruit has always struck me as having a distinctily North African cast, and that's no compliment buddy.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
71

I think the way ogged is using white is pretty clear here, Gary - he seems to be referencing the undifferentiated muddle that is the median culture. That's a pretty well-understoo colloquial meaning.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
72

Jeebus. I so can't keep up with the speed of this conversation.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
73

See 68 for remedial assistance.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
74

Ditto LB's 69: pointing out the poverty of "race" as a scientific category is helpful only in the context of a project of confronting race as a social category.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
75

re(73): ogged grumpy. I meant that between the time I started writing a scant sentence and the time I posted said sentence, several comments had elapsed.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
76

"Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."

I'll ante into Misery Poker with the note that a lot of folks have the privilege of thinking that, say, a hundred years, or two hundred years, or more, is such a fantastically long time ago that it is now largely irrelevant, and that a lot of folks don't.

It's altogether impossible to understand common concerns of, dare I say, most Jews or "blacks" (and other ethnic groups, as well) in America without the sort of history many of us are either brought up soaked in, or find reason to do some soaking in when growing up, which most other folks are only fleetingly aware of; this tends to produce radically, if sometimes subtly (and sometimes not) different perceptions of contemporary political and social events/trends, it's been my observation all my life (but hardly mine alone).


For instance, most non-Jewish Americans (and folks in other countries) tend to think primarily of the Holocaust as being primarily responsible, in essence, for Jewish fear and paranoia, whereas in actually, if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality; it's the full context of the history of anti-Semitism, the history of at least the last three thousand/four thousand years, that does the job.

But most Americans don't, for some reason, tend to think of Babylon, say, or 1492, or the blood libel (quick, how familiar are you with its history?) as having "a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."

Yet it very very very very very very much does. Just for starters. For instance.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
77

70 -- don't get the reference. Frankly, if you say something stupid that can be misinterpreted, you can expect people to question you on it. I'm not sure what conversation you expected the comment to engender; this one is more interesting, my guess.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
78

if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality

Isn't this just false? Isn't it quite well-noted that many Jews in Germany were quite complacent because they believed that they were fully assimilated?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
79

Text, it was completely a joke. Sorry.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
80

"'...jewish' is not a racial distinction in the way that "black" is."

As I invited, feel free to explain the basis in science for this.

"...pretend that race isn't a socially important factor...."

LB, who is, or ever has, in blog thread discussions, argued in favor of that?

"The question, for those who've lost the thread, was...."

Good try, but, alas, people tend to comment as they wish, not as the poster of a blog entry wishes they would.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
81

You know, I can sing you a ballad about Little St. Hugh of Lincoln, and I know that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. That still doesn't change my impression that Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
82

LB, who is, or ever has, in blog thread discussions, argued in favor of that?

I recognize that you don't argue in favor of this -- I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?) is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
83

Ogged -- well taken. I should develop thicker skin.

GF -- as I explained, it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one. When we talk about race, we aren't talking about things like whether or not someone is jewish. Perhaps you would like to change that. But for the very reason that there isn't an adequate scientific basis for racial distinctions at all, I question any reason for doing so.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
84

"Isn't this just false?"

It's observable that my point may not be falsifiable, since it's arguably dependent upon mass mind-reading; I have no social study on the topic to cite. So if you want to disbelieve me, I am unlikely to be able to refute you in an inarguable fashion. I'm not sure that's the reaction that will lead to the best perspective, wisdom, and knowledge, on the issue, though. (Fair question, of course.) I kinda think if you read enough histories of anti-Semitism, though, or talked about it with enough Jews, you wouldn't be asking. But I could be wrong (on what you'd ask).


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
85

the reason racial distinctions are at all important is that we have treated them as such for thousands of years, with no adequate scientific reason for doing so. But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had. So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
86

I feel like we're being contentious for the sake of it, and all pretty much agree on this. So ends the era of good feelings.


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
87

This book is actually pretty good, but its title really should be "How the Irish in Pre-Civil War Philadelphia Followed Their Economic Interests And Joined the Democratic Party Rather than the Republican Party"


Posted by: joe o | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
88

Gary, I'm aware of the history of anti-semitism, but I think your sentence that I quoted was hyperbolic, for the reason I gave. Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
89

and all pretty much agree on this

Precisely why I'm annoyed.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
90

LB, is this the thread?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
91

I have to say, every Jewish-American I've ever discussed this with has always told me that one of the things to be learned from Holocaust is that you should not trust that you can be more American than Jewish; that was the mistake the German Jews made.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
92

Based on my prior conversation with Gary at ObWi, I'm pretty sure that he's got what he considers to be a point important enough to be contentious about, and I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Basically, we agreed on the biggies:

(1) Racial prejudice is a bad thing.

(2) Race is a biologically/scientifically incoherent concept.

(3) Nonetheless, "race" as socially conceived of is still an important social factor.

And then I couldn't quite figure out what we were disagreeing about, except that Gary disapproved of my usage of words naming racial groups. (Gary -- all the respect in the world, I just don't follow you on this.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
93

When I read ogged's post I expected the comments would turn into a warm bath of harmless philosemitism, and possibly relate the quality which makes Jewish men good dads with the qualities that make Jewish women* irrisistable to Malcolm Gladwell.

Instead, Italians are being lynched in the comments. How did it ever come to this?



Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
94

"Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice."

Probably not-so-much, but lacking Italian-Americanss in my pocket, I couldn't really say.

"I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?)"

I hope you will forgive me that I'm uninterested in trying.

"...is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category."

I'm afraid I completely don't see why. The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.

I'm not arguing for "colorblindness," in the plain sense of the word (although the plain sense of discussing the "color" of people as distinguishing them by "race" is as connected to reality as discussing the problems involved in landing Apollo 11 on that huge hunk of cheese), nor in many common usages of that term (a term which I don't recall ever using in any context, incidentally). I'm arguing that most people in today's American society commonly think of people as "white" or "black," and that these are "two races," and that this is nonsense. There is no rational basis in fact for asserting that there are "two" "races" or five, or seven, or twelve. Passing familiarity with the history of "race" and racism puts this almost (but not quite) beyond dispute. Genetic clusterings are not "races," any more than "tall people" or "short people" or "thin people" or "red-haired people" or "pimply people" constitute a separate "race" from those who aren't in those categories. If, say, the theory that fat people were a "race" became a commonly accepted "scientific" theory in society, and fat people were, say, enslaved, that would create a social reality, but, you know, they still wouldn't actually be scientifically distinguishable as a "race," no matter how commonly people thought they were.

But freeing the fat people might still actually be worthwhile, anyway.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
95

I expected the comments would turn into a warm bath of harmless philosemitism

Indeed. Maybe this blog would be better without comments.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
96

baa -

I am reminded of the SNL skit in which there was an attempt at conciliation between some rabbis and some rappers over some anti-semitic comments (it had to be the "got me on a cross like Jesus" thing). IIRC, the end result was a new song: The Italians Did It! The Italians Did It!


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
97

Are you coming back to that asterisk, baa?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
98

The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.

Okay, but Gary, I think everyone commenting here agrees with you about the pseudo-science. To the extent anyone doesn't you should smack them around, and I'll help. The conversation has been about race as socially constructed category, not biology. What are you disagreeing with?

(And ogged -- that's the thread I was thinking of. Why do I always remember comment thread debates as more coherent than they turn out to be in retrospect?)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
99

Oh good! Let's talk about race!

Next let's dissect the patriarchy, and maybe after that we can talk about the oppression of the working class and whose pappy grew up the poorest. After that, let's rehash people's attitudes about Southerners and Yankees, and then I'd like to see if we can't work up to a discussion of whether gay people are an evolutionary dead end.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
100

Why do I always remember comment thread debates as more coherent than they turn out to be in retrospect?

It's your orderly mind, LB. Not a bad thing.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
101

If my mind is orderly, it's clearly sucked up all the available order in my office, leaving none for my desk.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
102

Paper is the devil.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
103

"But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had."

Obviously (although apparently not; what I don't get is why this is so frequently brought up when more or less no one but a stone (if perhaps completely unconscious) racist, or someone quite unfamiliar with our culture, would argue otherwise).

"So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language."

I wouldn't say it's "silly." I'd say it's not a "racial" distinction. It's, obviously, a pseudo-"racial" distinction; it's a social distinction. That people have them confused is the point. That people shouldn't have them confused, and we're never going to get very far if people aren't unconfused first, is the point. One has a lot of trouble discussing an issue if one uses language that accepts, you know, false things. It would be like, say, before discussing the validity of evolution, accepting the term "anti-God" as the common, acceptable, term for believing in evolution. Having to say, for instance, "we anti-Godists maintain that evolution is actully punctuated" would not actually contribute to rational discussion of evolution. Accepting false terms because they're currently socially common is never helpful to rational discussion.

"Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?"

Plenty of German Jews were complacent, yes, but plenty weren't. Notice also that I live in America, not Israel.

Contentious? Moi? How out of character!

:-)

But, yes, I think dealing with this is a terribly important point: "...it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one." It damages discourse when language doesn't map reality. That's the important point (though hardly the only important point, of course; just an important point).

I've tried a number of phrasings, but if I'm unable to communicate this point, LB, put it down to my poor communication skills, perhaps. On my part, I, as I've said, don't have a clue why discussing the science of a subject, and the social realities of it, are "incompatible" in the slightest.

I do again highly recommend reading this piece, by the way: http://interracialvoice.com/powell11.html


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
104

"Maybe this blog would be better without comments."

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. I recommend gruntling.

"What are you disagreeing with....?" I don't know: what am I disagreeing with? I suggested, in 51, that it's helpful to have some familiarity with the history of the "are Jews/Italians/Irish 'white'? question" as more than useful to discussing the "question." Although I acknowledged the flammatory nature of the subject, I didn't, you know, introduce the topic, or somehow swerve, through my mighty powers of rhetoric, discussion away from some other topic. If I've said anything offensive to anyone, please feel free to point it out to me.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
105

Okay, I think I finally get your point enough to disagree with you. 'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin." "Races" exist -- they are socially created categories. To the extent that someone says that "races" provide a biologically meaningful way of dividing up the human species, I can respond: "No, you're factually in error as to what races are. They're social, rather than biological, groupings."

What I now understand you to be saying is that to reject the idea that 'race' is a word that truly refers to biologically distinct groups of people, I have to stop using the word 'race' to refer to the social groups that exist and that were previously thought to be biologically distinct. Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns -- and I don't see that it has much of a use in clarifying people's thinking.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
106

Fair enough summary, LB. The thing is that when you say "'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin,"" while I don't, of course, contend that that is what it means to you (or to many other folk) is that not only is that not what many other folks mean by it, it's a completely ahistoric usage. I don't know how to over-state that point. To use it that way is to effectively linguistically deny how these concepts were invented and how they were used, because the entire history of "race" and the terminology of it was claiming it was science. Right up through Ashley Montagu, et al. We wouldn't have any "race" problems if not for the invention of the "science" of "race," and the subsequent events the belief in this false "science" led to. So to continue to use terminology that is contiguous with this history is to continue to mask the assumptions many people continue to have that there is still some scientific basis for eyeballing people and thinking of them as belong to one "race" or another. The inevitable result of people continuing to think that way is that they continue to perpetuate, well, a false idea.

If I believed for one second that most people who give no thought before thinking "oh, he's 'black,' she's 'white" were simply thinking "oh, he's someone who has probably been lumped into a social category with a history of oppression," I'd see no problem whatever. I simply don't see much evidence that that's the case with the majority of folks. Instead what I typically see is that most people seem to think that "racism is a bad thing, which is why I shall treat that person of another 'race' as equally as I possibly can," while continuing to assume that there is an actual "valid" way to "racially" categorize" everyone. And the typical response for an awful lot of people if this issue is brought up is that they get very very upset and defensive, because, after all, belief in biological race isn't racist. If I had a penny for every time I've gone through that discussion with someone....

As I said, if most people were thinking what you say above, no problem, no harm, no foul. But where's the evidence that that's what they're thinking?


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
107

Italics in 106 should have been closed after "everyone." Apologies.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
108

Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence; like text said, I don't think anyone here disagrees, so it seems needlessly didactic to rehearse it all. In any case, now it's done...


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
109

In a moment of synchronicity, Steve Gilliard's top post hits some of these points.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:39 PM
horizontal rule
110

Incidentally: "Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns...."

A not unfair POV, but plenty of people thought plenty of things weren't historically practical, whether it was ending slavery or ending racism. The first endeavor is still ongoing in the world (and in tiny ways, in this country, if we count imported illegals in some circumstances) and the second is still ongoing everywhere. My point about people continuing to use the same racist terms as in the past, just fewer of them (that it's still acceptable to categorize people as "white/black/other" rather than to carefully, for instance, characterize people as "octaroon," quadroon, etc.) is that they're still using language in a way that doesn't map reality. It's as if we still insisted on referring to fire as "phlogiston," or "here on our flat earth," even though some of us knew better. It's just hard to think correctly using language that continues to make distinctions that don't exist.

Perhaps it might be helpful if I noted that I found the basics of General Semantics and Korzybski sensible at a very early age. (And got an "A+" from my wizened professor when I took a senior-level seminar in it at the age of 16 before I dropped out of college.) So now you can throw the term "pseudo-science" at me, if you like. :-)


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
111

"Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence;"

I'm not at all clear what you're "sure" is agreeing with, Ogged, but assuming the "this" refers to the whole language point, I didn't bring it up until 62, in response to "text." And wouldn't have said anything more except that LB brought it up, and I responded to her puzzlement.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:47 PM
horizontal rule
112

Regarding Gilliard's post, and this: "...Rabb said Zuniga 'looked at me like I was crazy. He had no interest in the world to help me. He never extended himself; that speaks volumes.'"

I'd just like to say that Kos has never lifted a finger to help me, or blogroll me, either. And neither has Atrios!

I blame anti-Semitism.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
113

"Sure" to your 106. Insistent at 51.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
114

They listen to them, reason with them, and generally treat them like human beings.

You have clearly never met my second husband.

WASPs don't treat their sons like robots; they ignore them whilst the lads are off at boarding school, then get them into Harvard or Yale, a couple of clubs and the right tailor. Noticing them as small children would be perilously close to acknowledging the mechanics of fatherhood and we wouldn't want to talk about that, would we??


Posted by: DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
115

What did I say that was "insistent" in 51?


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:57 PM
horizontal rule
116

Erm -- you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed. It's the kind of thing which tends to make people believe that you disagree with them with a certain amount of vehemence.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
117

"Insistent" was a poor choice, I apologize. I read your comments in this thread as intended to instruct the ignorant, and I didn't think people were all that ignorant. Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
118

"...you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed."

And:

"Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me."

Ah. Fair enough. I'll resist the slight urge to respond defensively or in detail on that, and just accept the criticism. (Save that I did think, perhaps wrongly, that I was fairly low-key in 51.)


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
119

Well, now that you're being gracious...Farber is banned!


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
120

It's one of those tone-not-coming-across-well-in-casual-writing things; no bones broken on either side, I hope.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
121

"It's one of those tone-not-coming-across-well-in-casual-writing things...."

Alas, that on a blog, no one can see how much my eyes are truly bulging out of my head, as, in my maddened state, I wave my torch. But the crowd of peasants behind me: they see!

I blame all you racists.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
122

I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story.

Come to think of it, I think two of those guys were Unf and Magik Johnson.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
123

Well, it's been instructive watching this Very Special Episode of Dawson's Creek, but can we get back to the issue at hand? How do we identify the Jews?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
124

I have a sharply hooked nose and have been issued two shekels which I am rub together as a nervous tic.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:50 PM
horizontal rule
125

You know, most Jews do look Jewish.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
126

Say what you will about race being a social construct, all I know is those CMH haplotype positive guys sure are good with money!

SCMT -- that is one of the best SNL skits of all time!

For two thousand years we've heard the news

That Christ was killed by the Jews

But now we're hear to tell the real truths... The Italians did it!

Ogged, the asterix was when I was thinking I should really make my parallelism between Jewish men and Jewish girls with the express purpose of provoking an angry discussion of sexism. Then I realized that would be wrong.



Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
127

The horns are a dead tip off.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
128

Tautology alert!


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
129

Thank you, thank you, thank you. After about a minute of waiting for further comments, I was scratching at my screen while shrieking, "Please don't let that be the last comment! Please don't let that be the last comment!"


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
130

And you were powerless to do anything about it!


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
131

My step-father is Jewish and I was traumatized by the introduction of his open, sharing parenting style into my home. Before his arrival on the scene, I was raised to keep up appearances at all times, never complain, address issues only indirectly, and hold grudges. I wanted no truck with this "healthy" crap.


Posted by: ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
132

I swear to you, that never occured to me. Or not directly, anyway.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
133

Just do what I do: make up some shit about the pluperfect and sign it "ben w-lfs-n."


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:07 PM
horizontal rule
134

I am legion.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
135

I see I'm alone in my admittedly belated attempt to address the subject of the post.


Posted by: ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
136

No ac, I responded to you, but deleted it because I didn't want to take attention away from baa's awesome 133.

I said something like: I probably won't be a Jewish-style daddy, because I think a bit of severity is good for a kid.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
137

Ok, baa, I actually laughed out loud on that one.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
138

"I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story."

Wouldn't you have had to, you know, asked three times (or at least twice), not once?

On the "original topic," it's a good thing Jewish dads are so great; that must be why we have no examples of Jews writing about their crap family environments/history or their resulting neuroses. Good to know.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
139

Gary, if you weren't already on the brink of death, I'd be very much interested in kicking your ass.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
140

"Gary, if you weren't already on the brink of death, I'd be very much interested in kicking your ass."

See, who could tell what tone this is said in?

Whereas obviously the devilish glint in my eye is as pellucid as is my friendly and affectionate, even loving, sarcasm.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
141

In my experience Jewish people rush to tell you they're Jewish, and ascribe perfectly normal crazy things to specifically Jewish categories, like having overly protective mothers or having very physical touchy-feely families.

This is probably because I offer all my new acquaintances a greasy side of bacon* when I first meet them, but I offer my anecdote all the same.

*Also Muslims are keen to share knowledge of their religion with me!+

+These anecdotes may be totally made up. At least the side-of-bacon part.


Posted by: winna | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
142

Jewish stories of neurosis tend to involve an excess of attention, as opposed to the cold, wintry, apache-warriorlike childhoods of my kind.


Posted by: ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
143

Mmm, bacon. Also, shrimp, pork ribs, crab, lobster, and babies boiled in milk.

Okay, maybe not the last one. Unless, of course, it's foamed and dehydrated.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
144

You must carry a lot of rancid fat around, winna.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
145

Is it just me, or did you just derive a judgment? Try that shit again, I dare you. I have your inferential faculties bound up in studded leather straps, bitch, so how about you show some respect?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
146

bridge, either you've got his pollens, or you don't. My tollens tells me that he used his pollens in 144, and you must be a liar.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
147

Tertium non datur!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
148

There's more where that came from.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
149

That's "ponens", o. SB can have my pollen up his ass.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
150

Ponens, right right.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
151

Somehow they gave me a philosophy degree with just one quarter of freshman logic.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
152

In case I need to offer it (140 was my way of fishing, but no joy), Ogged, if I actually offended you, I apologize.


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
153

Actually, I deduced it using modus tollens:

If winna doesn't carry a lot of rancid fat around her, she must carry an adequate refrigeration system around with her.

She doesn't carry an adequate, etc.

---

Therefore: she doesn't not carry a lot of rancid, etc.

Therefore: she carries a lot of rancid fat around with her.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
154

[redacted]


Posted by: [redacted] | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
155

Gary, no worries.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
156

I had THE WORST intro logic class. (I had a much better intermediate logic class.) For two years—the year I took it, and the year after—it was taught, not by Ted Cohen, who used a textbook by Quine, had the class meet at either 8 or 7am, three times a week, used at least half the time for telling jokes, and under whose leadership it was reputed to be the hardest undergraduate course offered at Chicago, but rather by someone else, and it blew. Blew, blew, blew.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
157

And Gary, re: 51, if one's penis is the same size as a midget, that's still probably touching the floor.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
158

First it's bridge using "bitch" as an insult, then w-lfs-n using "blew" as a pejorative; what's with you logic people? "Blew donkeys" is still acceptable.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
159

I do indeed carry around lots of rancid fat.

It makes me popular on fishing trips, but that's about it.


Posted by: winna | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
160

What's funny about Ted Cohen is that he isn't that funny.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
161

My logic course (the only one I took, it was neither the lowest nor highest level available, but didn't require logic pre-reqs, so I'm not sure if I should call it intermediate or beginner) was taught by this guy using this book, except that mine has a different colored cover. Both the prof and the book are recommended.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
162

Ugh, I indulge in some rhetorical aggression and out pops the sexist language. I suppose it's no excuse that I was channeling Allyson Hannigan in American Pie.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
163

Well, I do like Allyson Hannigan.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
164

Re 149 and others: If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
165

Looks like 153 resolves the question raised over here. It also demonstrates that my gotcha!-gland is overacting.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
166

If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.

Not to mention Greek articles!

What's funny about Ted Cohen is that he isn't that funny.

I think he's funny, as long as you only hear the same jokes a certain number of times. (Whether he's as funny as he or this guy seem to think he is, is another question.)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
167

The interesting thing about Italian Americans is that they have higher drop out rates than other Euro/Caucasion/Ethnic non racial socially/historically constructed (hedging as much as possible in picking typology of folks to avoid trouble with Gary) groups of people. If I recall correctly there are other social indicators that don't scan so highly for this group as well. Is it a function of assimilation? i.e. these were the last white people off the boat? Is it a function of culture? (I'd blame Goodfellas). Or is it something to do with pancetta?


Posted by: betnon | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
168

I blame this.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
169

Confluence. Just got off the phone with the ex, whose WASP mom married her Jewish dad, as you'll recall. Ex says that her WASP grandmother said to Ex's mom, "I know why you want to marry him. I've heard that the Orientals are good lovers."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
170

Quoting from 168:

"The team found that Italian men had a lot to shout about, with average flaccid penis length of 9cm."

Now that is a sizable amount of pancetta, but apostropher, is it to blame because it is too much or because it is yet not enough?

I'm in awe of your circus sized data collection skills


Posted by: benton | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
171

I thought we agreed that there is no scientific basis for the so-called flaccid penis length. That we speak of a "flaccid length" is a pernicious linguistic artifact that hinders rational penismetrics.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
172

I like Alyson Hannigan even better than this "Allyson Hannigan" you guys know. (I would have liked to have seen her in "When Harry Met Sally" in London; although only prurient types would check out these pictures.)


Posted by: Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:38 AM
horizontal rule
173

what we agreed was that stretching did not adequately predict potential growth. And it was glorious.

GF -- why put my handle in quotations? Is my existence dubious? Should I refer to you as "Gary Farber?"


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
174

I would guess to distinguish the poster from the text of the post.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
175

Wait. Gary called you Allyson Hannigan? Is this a switch? If so, clear your cache.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
176

I think he called me Alllyson Hannigan, then posted several lewd pictures thereof.

Is there a poster apart from the text of the post, or is the poster "dead" with regard to interpretation?


Posted by: text | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
177

The author is dead, man.

The author is banned!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
178

White men can't jump, Gary (except for that high-jumping Swede).

Can anyone identify (before clicking) who mouthed the following quote?

When I was playing basketball, I was reasonably athletic--I mean, a six-foot tall white guy who can dunk, give it up y'all . . .


Posted by: Itch Ills | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
179

Somebody has a lot to answer for.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:35 PM
horizontal rule