Subject:
|
Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:42:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Greg Perry writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Skip Robinson writes:
> > > My daughter was "made in China" we adopted her from there and she is
> > > perfect..please do not be racist..OK
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > To quote Nero Wolfe "Phooey!"
> >
> > Once again, I challenge you and all the other people who are so absolutely
> > and stunningly eager to hurl charges of racism (can ANYONE explain this
> > phenomena?)
>
> c/phenomena/phenomenon (sorry, the editor gene asserted itself)
Once again Lindsay I thank you for your input to this discussion. I'm also
probably one of the few people in this forum who appreciates being set
straight on the misuse of particular words, so THANKS. I wonder if you'd be
willing to circle back around to another part of this discussion thread and
explain to another poster why "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less"
are not statements with the same meaning (I started to but I figured all I
would get for my trouble was another petulant outburst of name-calling).
> What's weirdest to me is that the cry "racism" is used so very
> *incorrectly* a large part of the time. For example, the charge
> of essentialization (which one might feasibly level against Greg)
> is a matter of generalization that may or may not be connected
> to racist or racialist views. (Quick note: racist = superior
> and different; racialist in the Paul Gordon Laurel sense = equal
> but identifying race as a category. The difference is small
> enough to be semantic for most purposes.) I think it's a case of
> poor subset parsing--all racists will essentialize (they must!),
> but essentialization is not necessarily racist. In our hyper-
> sensitized Moon Madness state, folks seem to be forgetting that.
I think you've "hit the nail on the head" with these comments. It appears
that many people reading my initial post did take it to be racist simply
because some of the thoughts I expressed are often the same ones spouted by
racists. To me this would be similar to denouncing anyone who says they're
a Christian as a racist simply because there are many white supremacy groups
who shroud their misguided, evil intents in a veil of Christianity. I
imagine it's even harder to inject rationality into your interpretation of
what someone is saying if your emotions are overwrought because you think
that person is attacking your child.
I also appreciate you bringing up the distinction between a "racist" and a
"racialist" - this difference however is I'm sure lost on many of the
readers of this thread because their emotions don't allow them to actually
think about what's being said.
> I know I've written this before. It must be that eyeball-biting
> monkey [1] again! eep eep
>
> > So, Mr. Robinson I would turn your request back on you and ask you to please
> > not be someone who, in his desire to protect his daughter from perceived
> > racism, is himself turned into a close-minded bigot.
>
> I've got to turn your other charge around now. I'm not sure you've
> used "bigot" correctly. (Unless the group you're referring to is
> "people who go out seeking racism," I suppose. ;) )
In this case I purposely chose the word "bigot" to use because of the hope
that it would carry more weight in its impact. I would argue that its
definition could be stretched (but only slightly) to cover this situation in
that I am referring to a bigot as someone who is absolutely convinced of the
correctness of their ideas even when evidence to the contrary exists. This
would seem to be the case with those who have leveled charges of racism
against me. They've decided that they are RIGHT(eous) and I am WRONG and
therefore they are in no way obligated to substantiate their accusations.
Nothing that could be said or demonstrated to these people will convince
them that their original perspective on my posting was inaccurate. They are
RIGHT, I am WRONG.
I think that what this whole discussion thread has taught me is that while I
might not be a racist I'm definitely developing sentiments that are turning
me into an Intelligencist or an IQ-ist. I'm becoming completely intolerant
of those who I consider to be just plain dumb (ooooohhh - I used the D-word!).
Thanks again for the comments LFB.
Greg
> [1] (tm 2001 Richard Noeckel. I still get a kick out of that visual.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
| (...) Actually quite a number of us like to be corrected. It's the only way to get better. That said, this is the first of multiple attacks against your readership in general that I think signals some kind of communications failure. I think you are (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
| (...) c/phenomena/phenomenon (sorry, the editor gene asserted itself) What's weirdest to me is that the cry "racism" is used so very *incorrectly* a large part of the time. For example, the charge of essentialization (which one might feasibly level (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
103 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
