First, let me say this. My posts on this subject have nothing to do with defending Stacy McCain or anything he’s said, other than in the most theoretical way. McCain can defend himself. And so when we see comments like this
Does the quote truly not disturb you?As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.
Did you ever imagine that you’d be defending a quote like that?
This does not seem like a hard question to me at all. Read that statement to 10 people on the street. Read the whole passage to them if you like. Or the whole debate.
It’s a racially prejudiced quote. It would make me uncomfortable to defend a statement like that. I’m surprised at how many people appear to be willing to defend that quote
… what we are watching is a type of rhetorical bullying, the upshot being that you are to feel shame for taking any position other than “this statement makes me feel uncomfortable.” It’s an attempt to curtail criticism of a position that is linguistically incoherent, at least so far as it has been presented to this point.
And so for my own sake, I’m going to try once again to explain the actual position some of us are taking, and why that position is important — regardless of the principals involved. This is a debate over principle, not principals, and it’s a debate I’ve had with a whole host of people on the left and right (though it’s now fashionable to pretend my interest here lies solely in defaming Patrick Frey) because I am committed to the idea that what we think we’re doing when we’re interpreting matters in ways most people haven’t bothered to examine with any rigor.
Roughly speaking, here’s how Frey’s “investigation” (we’ll be charitable here and term it such) and its subsequent conclusions have played out publicly:
1. Frey quotes a piece attributable to McCain.
2. Frey notes, “You can put as much context around that as you like. It still sounds like racism to me”.
3. Finally, Frey says, “I didn’t call [McCain] a racist. I very pointedly did not… Nor have I said that I believe [McCain] is not a racist. I just don’t know.”
Now, leaving aside the audacity it takes to do a series of public posts speculating on someone’s “racism” before eventually claiming you don’t know if he’s racist or not (I mean, who can POSSIBLY be hurt by such a thing, right?), the fact of the matter is, Frey called McCain a racist the moment he said that “it still sounds like racism to me.”
From the perspective of interpretation, such a move is narcissistic, naturally, in that it pays no attention to McCain’s intent (which, as he has explained it, clearly changes the context — suggesting that Frey knows less about what context entails than he should), but rather it concerns itself with how it makes Patrick Frey feel (in this case, we’re informed he found the statement “cringe worthy”). And so we have “racism” being defined as “how it made me feel.”
This, you might recall, is in keeping with Ms. Obama’s position on racism, which I discussed briefly in my Hot Air piece.
The fact of the matter is, and pace the assertion made by Frey, calling a statement racist and calling the speaker racist ARE the same thing, because language cannot exist in the absence of intent, and a statement can’t be racist if the intent behind it was not; which means if there’s no racist intent, there’s no racist statement. Conversely, if a statement is deemed racist, one must commit to the idea that it sprung from racist intent, and having racist intent is the very definition of being a racist. It simply makes no sense to call a statement “racist” without first attaching it to some locus of racism. And where that locus lies is at the heart of this ongoing “debate” over how language actually functions vs. how it can be made to function.
What Frey is doing when he says now that he doesn’t know if McCain is racist, is essentially admitting that he doesn’t know McCain’s intent; but in lieu of that, he’s privileged the fact that HE feels the statement is racist-sounding — to him — in order to declare the statement racist, while leaving the question of McCain’s culpability open.
In other words, Frey himself is supplying the intent — in that he intends to see the statement as racist, regardless of whether it was intended as such by McCain — and it is Frey’s intent to signify the marks in a certain way that provides the statement its “racist” component.
Linguistically speaking, you simply can’t have it both ways. Saying “the statement seems racist to me” and then attributing that racism to McCain (Frey says he’s on the fence about this) is odious — and is precisely the maneuver used by progressives to suggest that right wing speech is rife with hatred, even if that hatred is hidden in “code words,” and even if those engaging in said hate speech are unaware that they are doing so. Had Patrick learned anything more from our last exchange on these issues than how to ban me from his site, we might not be going over this argument yet again.
Quickly: Patrick has suggested that the statement he’s attributed to McCain is racist. And yet he wants the out of saying he never called the author of the statement racist as such.
It doesn’t work that way.
As for the statement itself, I don’t know all the particulars; but I do know that the venue and the purpose of the debate can change the strategy of how one goes about debating, and so can materially affect the content of the exchanges. For instance, for the sake of argument say I am anti-abortion. In a debate with a person I know to be strongly pro-choice, I might take a half-way position (say, pro-choice with limitations) in order to win a rhetorical hill in the landscape of the overall idealogical war — eg., getting my pro-choice opponent to agree that there should be certain limits on abortion, or that both parents should have some say in what happens to the fetus / child.
Unless you knew my intent, you could read / hear the entire argument as written / uttered, and claim that no context exists in which I can later make the claim I am anti-abortion (or at least, that I was anti-abortion at the time). Because all you are seeing or hearing is the text; and the marks as they can be “reasonably” understood by those not inside my head will not match my meaning. And that’s because meaning is created through intent.
In the above example, I produced a text for a specific rhetorical reason in a specific setting for a specific audience. And all that redounds to the idea of context. So when Frey says that he provided all the context to McCain’s article, he isn’t being accurate: because he has bracketed intent in favor of code (the marks, as we generally use them when we create a linguistic text in a particular society), he has missed an important element of the context, namely, that in this case, the speaker has been playing a role not immediately obvious to the listener / reader. Which is why when we interpret, we look at other things that may be useful in divining intent, like, eg, intertextuality. Does the author / utterer’s other texts match this one? If not, has there been a change in beliefs, or a change in rhetorical strategy?
And so on.
Once again: if you believe the original statement racist, you believe it was uttered by someone with racism in his heart. Otherwise, you would have no reason — and no grounds, other than how the statement made YOU feel — for calling it a racist statement (as opposed to, say, uttered out of ignorance). And if racism is now defined by how something makes us feel, and irrespective of the intent of the utterer, then we should all throw away our spades and hoes, and turn our gardens over to the language police, who are more than happy to tend to it for us.
****
More, from Dan Collins and Baldilocks.
****
See also, “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic”?
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 10:32 am #
Frey in the comments over at Little Miss Attila’s writes:
For the record, Frey made anti-semitic statements. I don’t know if he’s anti-semitic or not. Perhaps I’ll do several posts on the subject and just, you know, throw the idea out there and see what people think. In a search for truth!
IRONY BLIZZARD.
Comment by Pablo on 12/10 @ 10:38 am #
And by extension, how it ought to make YOU feel, unless there’s something wrong with you. Maybe. I just don’t know.
Comment by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 10:40 am #
Sort of off topic…
About the revulsion at interracial couples: it *is* natural to feel that way. Here’s the thing: natural feelings and instincts are not good most of the time. Many of them are self-serving and feed one’s insecurities. And those of us who are honest with ourselves about such things will do the work to rid ourselves of those natural feelings.
I don’t know if you believe in God but I do and I think one of the ways He made us different from the animals is our ability to transcend natural instincts and feelings.
Remember that the next time you’re waiting to get home to go to the bathroom.
It’s okay to say that such feelings exist. What counts is what’s done about it.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 10:43 am #
“…and so can change the materially affect the content of the exchanges.”
I’m bollixed by this sentence. Help?
Comment by DarthRove on 12/10 @ 10:53 am #
Is there some kind of intellectual transmogrification that occurs inside a law school that causes its graduates to act as if the entire world is a courtroom and functions as if current jurisprudence were the warp and woof of the fabric of the Universe?
Comment by TheGeezer on 12/10 @ 10:53 am #
Hey, Jeff, good to see you back commenting.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/10 @ 10:58 am #
There is no shortage of dishonest people who casually throw around the accusation, to be sure. That’s why I was careful to limit my language to the one statement that I am confident was indeed racist.
Confident, dry and secure. One statement is beyond a doubt racist. Surrounded by other statements that may or may not be racist. But it doesn’t matter.
Question 33: Number the following sentences from 1 to 4 where 1 is “Not Racist” and 4 is “I feel it’s Certainly Racist”. Reserve numbers 2 and 3 for “Probably Racist based on the existence of number 4″.
“I catered AME church picnic. Talk about a Par-tay! Lots of music and dancing. I couldn’t believe how much watermelon they went through.”
Comment by Carin on 12/10 @ 10:58 am #
And if racism is now defined by how something makes us feel, and irrespective of the intent of the utterer,…
I fear racism has been defined this way for a while.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 12/10 @ 10:58 am #
is what I took it to mean, ie. a typo. But you would have to ask the author.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 10:58 am #
sdferr — typo. I didn’t proof the thing; I was busy responding to the next line of attack on me (ARE YOU PROMOTING APARTHEID or some such). Take out “change the”. The phrase should read, “…and so can materially affect the content of the exchanges.”
Fixed in the post.
Comment by narciso on 12/10 @ 10:58 am #
I don’t understand the pileup about a thirteen year old comment, I mean there’s nothing else really at stake, beside the nature of the republic, the war on terror, and the American economy. That being said
Stacy, really dug himself a hole, and gave them the shovel to beat him with it.
Comment by Dave C on 12/10 @ 10:59 am #
“Comment by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 10:40 am #
Sort of off topic…”
I would say your comment gets to the very heart of the issue of the dust up between Patt and RSM.
Comment by BJTex on 12/10 @ 11:08 am #
I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiments expressed by Dave C. So much clarity in so few words. Bravo, Juliette!
Imagine what that sentence would have looked like if McCain had added “cultural” in between “natural” and “revulsion.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/10 @ 11:09 am #
Question 34:
In a discussion of Racism, LMC wrote the word “watermelon” in a blog comment that could be perceived by some to be Racist. Based on how uncomfortable you felt reading the post, how racist was the statement:
a) what?
b) he should be more careful, some nut will think he’s racist
c) watermelon’s a code word, that’s racism right there
d) How can you let that racist post comments on your blog?
Comment by 11B40 on 12/10 @ 11:18 am #
Greetings:
Back in 1965, I took a required sociology course as a college freshmen. One of the concepts that I remember from that course was “ethnocentrism”. It referred to the tendency of people to behave and believe in their own cultural mores. This preference was thought to be value neutral, neither positive nor negative, just the way things are and were.
Ethnocentrism has basically been redefined as racism. Most white folks are drawn to other white folks. Same-same with blacks and all other cultures and sub-cultures. This is necessary for cultures to survive. This is not racism, this is non-sexual preference. Racism involves hate.
Comment by paul mitchell on 12/10 @ 11:30 am #
What in the Hell is the benefit for Patterico to keep getting in these pissing matches? Really, I simply cannot figure that out.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 11:31 am #
“..value neutral…”
Now that’s the way it’s done, lawyer people.
Just hold still as we squirt this truth into your veins. It’ll only tickle for a little while. Promise.
Ha!
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 11:32 am #
About the revulsion at interracial couples: it *is* natural to feel that way.
And a clue to RSM’s intent is whether he means “natural” as “good” or “without blame” (a contemporary prejudice) or whether he means “natural” as “tied into the limbic system.”
If it’s the latter, then RSM’s intent veers sharply away from racism and into questions of evo-psych, inborn tribalism, and other imponderables.
Did Pat delve into that possibility?
Comment by Pablo on 12/10 @ 11:33 am #
Why is there David Frum?
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 11:34 am #
For Patterico’s purposes dicentra, so far as we can see, why would he delve into that possibility (or any of many others, for that matter)?
Comment by Pablo on 12/10 @ 11:34 am #
Paging Dr. Garofalo…
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 11:36 am #
why would he delve into that possibility
To get to the TRVTH, of course!
What, he’s got something else going on?
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 11:38 am #
“What, he’s got something else going on?”
I’d say at this point we stand a good chance of finding out.
Comment by SteveG on 12/10 @ 11:38 am #
I wish McCain would defend himself here. I think it would be interesting to read a journalist who pushes the limits of language; a prosecutor who narrow defines terms in his favor; and Jeff hash it out.
There was an incomplete idea in my head yesterday about guest posting, but I realize now it was about having Jeff and rogue southern journalist exchange and see where it goes.Two very different people, views etc talking about sharing a common language rather than being segregated by it.
Mr. Frey really seems to use language to segregate, label, and develop prejudice. It’s his day job and I can see he brings his A game there and I am grateful for his intelligent hard work.
Maybe a little more collegiality around the blogs would be a nice though…. tear down at work, build out on the blogs?
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 11:39 am #
Precisely, dicentra. I haven’t commented on what I believe RS McCain’s intent was, because I’m not engaged in a debate over ethnocentric preferences and their potentiality as innate imperatives that either can be/should be controlled by cultural imperatives.
I tend to believe that McCain used the term in the evo-psych way you remind us of; and in addition, I tend to believe that McCain was taking a particular position in order to better manipulate the audience he was appealing to.
It’s unfortunate that we’re seeing questions of McCain’s potential “racism” being played out in public. It’s even more unfortunate that certain people on the right believe that they are doing the lord’s work here by “scrutinizing” these things publicly without first trying to probe intent.
Pingback by The Recent Unpleasantness (and happyfeet) on 12/10 @ 11:39 am #
[...] Jeff’s latest, Juliette sums it up, [...]
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 11:39 am #
it *is* natural to feel that way.
Though it depends on how you were raised, on whom you consider to be in your tribe and who not. If you had one white parent and one black (regardless of your actual ancectry, as in the case of adoption), you’d see both black and white people as part of your tribe and so no revulsion, natural or otherwise, is likely to result from seeing a mixed-race couple.
However, if you believe that only Scandis are in your tribe, a Swedish/Italian couple might get your dander up. I know it does mine. (KIDDING! I’m neither Scandi nor Italian.)
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 11:41 am #
SteveG –
In the past, I’ve had people like nishi, Jeralynn Merritt, and SEK all guest post here. I’m not afraid to entertain dissenting ideas.
Unfortunately, blogging is not about ideas any more. It’s about traffic and pecking order.
I’m not into that — I truly did like the exchange of ideas — which is why I don’t play that game. If the market will bear me, it will do so on my terms. If not, readers can enjoy what they enjoy.
Comment by chercast on 12/10 @ 11:43 am #
Sort of off topic,
As an political aside, I am interested to see if there is a line attempting to be drawn between people connected to Sarah Palin (RSM via Lynn Vincent Palin’s co-writer…and now Chuck Heath her dad…in the news in the last few days… ), on this similar type parsing of statements by others accusing or intimating racist views/leanings/”uncomfortableness”. And if so, who’s next?
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 11:47 am #
Though I don’t particularly desire to be the one to do what I’m about to suggest, still I thought I’d at least bring it up for people to play with — namely, that so far we’ve two alternatives on offer, first that the intent lies with the maker of a statement, and second, that the intent lies with the interpreter of a statement. There is however, a third alternative we might offer Patterico (and with him, his confreres who so choose) and that is the Magical Meaning Theory, which has the intent stuck to or inhering in the words themselves, carrying the racism, in this case, right along with them as they make their way from one mind to another. But like I said, I’m not really the one to fill the picture out.
Comment by LBascom on 12/10 @ 11:49 am #
“if so, who’s next?”
Why…why it could be ANY of us… *looks nervously around*
Comment by billhedrick on 12/10 @ 11:56 am #
Thinking about this statement. I have to make a distinction. People are under their veneers and conscious restraints subject to bad urges, desires and aversions. One of the deepest seated is xenophobia. The aversion/hatred/fear of the other, the different. When the Other intrudes on my space, my million year old reaction is to defend. Jake Smith, person of color, may be a wonderful person, but when confronted with the idea that he may become part of the family, the natural subconscious reaction is xenophobic. How we respond to our primal urges, whether we will attend to them and give them a place in our consciousness and our actions, THAT’s what makes us culpable and racist.
Whether that is what RSM was going for in the piece I don’t know. But the urgings of the heart are between a man and his God, the words and actions are society’s business.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 12:02 pm #
Correctimundo! But I horrified a fellow student in a college class decades ago when I pointed that out with regard to racism.
He was so devoted to the romantic ideal of nature as good that the idea something he despised being natural elicited an almost pathological denial episode.
The instructor changed the subject as quickly as she possibly could.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 12:04 pm #
Magical Meaning Theory
And now we come full circle. Anciently, scholars believed that Hebrew was the “natural language” that Adam used to name the animals, and therefore the Hebrew language became imbued with meaning that inhered to the symbol.
Hence Kabbala and the teasing out of secret spiritual meaning by evaluating the numerological value of the letters. The Hebrew word for “zebra” would be the “true name” for the animal, so you could learn TRVTH about zebras by analyzing the Hebrew word. And by studying the name of JHWH, you could get some really deep stuff.
Similar “magical meaning” was attached to the Bible by medieval scholars (who also believed that Hebrew was God’s natural language). They identified four ways to interpret the Bible: literal (historical), allegorical (depictions of Christ), moral (the ethical lesson), and anagogical (mystical).
They figured that because the author of the Bible was God, the language of the Bible resonated on all four of those levels simultaneously. They also believed that it was possible to find out what the True Meaning was (though they weren’t averse to multiple true meanings for a single passage).
The modern philosophy of language, that all words are arbitrarily assigned to their meanings, contradicts utterly the ancient concept of language.
See? Who says my unfinished dissertation would be of no use to me in the future?
But it is certianly of no use to my current employer, so I better stop and give them their money’s worth.
Comment by billhedrick on 12/10 @ 12:07 pm #
dicentra: interesting post. The problem with the internet, is the problem with people in general, sloppy thinking. Whether it is re-assigning meanings (i.e., being concerned about illegal immigration means you hate all immigation) or trying to read minds, it’s all sloppy.
Comment by SporkLift Driver on 12/10 @ 12:08 pm #
Didn’t even finish reading the post yet much less the comments but it struck me, so I wanted to get it said before the thread goes cold. I’m supposed to disassociate myself from anyone who ever says anything that makes me uncomfortable? What a lonely existence that would be. No thanks, I’ll keep my friends and allies even though none of them are perfect.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 12:09 pm #
I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that the listener knows the intent of a statement rather than the speaker. That by itself strikes me as Magical.
If a speaker speaks in a forest and there is no one around to hear him, does his statement carry any meaning?
Patterico would say the answer is “No.”
Pingback by What Goldstein Said. | Little Miss Attila on 12/10 @ 12:10 pm #
[...] III: Morehere, here, and and [...]
Comment by chercast on 12/10 @ 12:12 pm #
@LBascom Why…why it could be ANY of us… *looks nervously around*
Why…why… just interested in how language is being used. Don’t mess with my evo-psych.
Comment by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 12:14 pm #
My (black but not that black) family freaked out when my mother brought my very black African father home. “Think of the children” my grandmother urged. She was right. Heh.
Many years later, everyone in my family except for my mom freaked out when my sister brought her now-husband home. (I was away in the Air Force.) White dude. “Think of the children” my step father’s family urged.
Too funny.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 12:15 pm #
“I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that the listener knows the intent of a statement rather than the speaker. That by itself strikes me as Magical.”
I’m with you there McGehee, yet that seems to be the upshot of Pat’s position (and DJR last night as well, so far as I can see).
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 12/10 @ 12:16 pm #
I am unsure that revulsion to interracial couples is natural, it doesn’t seem to bother me very much. But people do seem to react to them on an unconscious level. Things ethnically heterogenous tend to draw that double-take. What’s important to note is that the double-take is drawn from either side of the ethnic divide.
Too often what we call racism is simply ethnic prejudice; a preference for one’s own kind and corresponding minimal contact with others, leading to blanket statements of the “they are (insert adjective here)” variety. It is as old as Cain and Seth, and there is no one tribe that does this more than others.
Comment by Adriane on 12/10 @ 12:16 pm #
Before Enlightenment: Carry Water, Chop Wood.
After Enlightenment: Carry Water, Chop Wood.
What in the Hell is the benefit for Patterico to keep getting in these pissing matches? Really, I simply cannot figure that out.
Because they’re a damn sight more exciting than carrying water and leave less callouses than chopping wood.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 12:17 pm #
DRJ, I meant, sorry.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 12/10 @ 12:18 pm #
“black but not that black”…”very black African”
Forgive a honky: what precisely does this mean? Is it just a reference to relative skin hue, or…
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 12:23 pm #
By the way, one of Patterico’s readers believes you all to be insignificant mouth breathers not fit to exist in a universe wherein someone so significant as Patrick Frey should have to sense you biting at his ankles.
Like you aspire to reach his heights, I aspire one day to reach the lofty heights of Mount Patterico.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 12:26 pm #
I was thinking his bladder wound was giving him fits this morning Jeff, so dismissed his dismissive mouth breather comment as attributable to physical discomfort (and, y’know, seepage).
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 12:27 pm #
dicentra, sdferr? You can’t possibly be interested in language. Hogwash. Mouth breathers. You’re just out to sully the good name and honor of Patrick Frey!
You people with your fancy words. You’re so, like, stupid and shit. THIS SITE IS SO DUMB DUMB!
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 12:30 pm #
This would be a bad time to confess we’re really only here for the pie then, wouldn’t it?
So, I won’t.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 12:32 pm #
Pie? There’s pie to be had?
(Mouth-breather? Myself, I’m quite clearly slack-jawed.)
Comment by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 12:33 pm #
“Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 12/10 @ 12:18 pm #
“black but not that black”…”very black African”
what precisely does this mean? Is it just a reference to relative skin hue, or…’
That and my (American) family was part of the small black middle class which existed before the CRE. Many of those considered themselves better than their poorer and usually darker brethren. Long story.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 12:34 pm #
This new bit being trotted out by Patterico’s readership — that I’m not “significant” enough to debate him, or that I’m picking fights with him to up my readership — is remarkably disingenuous. Patterico’s site may now get more traffic than I do (I don’t really know, I don’t keep a site meter anymore and haven’t for almost 2 years), but it wasn’t always thus, and I’d venture to guess that I could turn that around again, were it my desire to do so.
Fortunately, I’m beyond judging my self worth by blog traffic. My blog worth, sure. But better still on that account is to see what the market bears.
Comment by psycho... on 12/10 @ 12:37 pm #
Since we’ve gone here anyway, and this is a good hook (thanks/apologies baldi) –
They are good, for nature (whatever its definitional bounds in the specific instance), or they’d be different. Varying degrees and kinds and understandings of resistance, or at least seeming resistance, to nature are natural, too, and good, for nature, or they wouldn’t exist, much. No one resists his heartbeat. Not enough.
I think much more of human behavior is on inexorable (but not determined, exactly) autopilot than almost anybody does. For example, there’s some very large amount of something that’s not well understood — understanding it is powerfully resisted — but is usually nowadays called “racism,” that goes on, no matter how or why it’s thwarted. And the thwartings are usually substitute “group selective” or analogous (or sublimated, or whatever) strategies that step in to do the malingering autopilot’s same “racist” work for him anyway.
For (sub-)example, white people air accusations of anti-black racism at white people as an appeal white people. Not always. But…always. If you drill into it a little. Is that what it always means, or means to mean? Well…it works like that. And there’s seldom any other reward for it that can’t be best understood as even-more-racist bamboozlin’. So? So.
Believing this (for example), having seen too much of it to believe otherwise, I resist postulating a God who’d have made us such crazy monsters, though the Old Testament one seems like a crazy monster Himself, so I do honor Him, just a little. Also because I’m a racist. He’s one of me, just a little.
Anyway, point:
I didn’t say anyone is a racist. I said everyone is. Too. God, even, maybe. Meta-omni-racist monster. TRVTH.
Comment by psycho... on 12/10 @ 12:38 pm #
to
Comment by LBascom on 12/10 @ 12:39 pm #
“If a speaker speaks in a forest and there is no one around to hear him, does his statement carry any meaning?
Patterico would say the answer is “No.””
I think what Patterico believes is, if he was walking though the forest and heard a voice from someone out of sight saying: “I voted for Obama, but I wouldn’t have if he was married to a white woman”, then a reasonable man could conclude that was a racist statement, without knowing any context other than the anonymous stand alone sentence.
This is actually true. a reasonable man could conclude that. What a reasonable man doesn’t do (if he is really reasonable that is) is climb up an a tree stump and start yelling “RACIST”, without making an effort to discover who said it and what they were talking about to whom.
A guy could look pretty stupid in retrospect if he yells racist without knowing the intent of the statement.
Comment by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 12:43 pm #
“Believing this (for example), having seen too much of it to believe otherwise, I resist postulating a God who’d have made us such crazy monsters, though the Old Testament one seems like a crazy monster Himself, so I do honor Him, just a little.”
According to the OT, we made ourselves this way by listening to Lucifer. That freewill thing.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 12:43 pm #
Isn’t the reasonable man always code for the unreasonable man though?
Comment by Adriane on 12/10 @ 12:47 pm #
… If a speaker speaks in a forest and there is no one around to hear him, does his statement carry any meaning? …
If he’s screaming, Help! Help! and no body hears him, it means that he probably won’t get any help.
Better to scream: Look at all these naked women! or even: Can somebody help me eat this delicious pie? ’cause people hear that more easily…
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 12:54 pm #
JD lets me know that the person I labeled a Patterico regular is really an SEK regular.
I tend to believe the two overlap. What that says about either or both (if anything) is up to you to tease out.
But I do find it interesting that a regular at a progressivist activist site feels compelled to attempt to diminish me while simultaneously elevating Frey.
And by “find it interesting,” I mean of course, I don’t really find it interesting at all. I just find it.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 1:01 pm #
Ponce may have at least inadvertently, or possibly quite consciously, grasped the nub of (or one of) the motivation(s) underlying this business, namely that PF is noble and engaged in a noble enterprise putting away the bad guys. Don’t forget, he seems to want to say. As does PF.
Comment by BJTex on 12/10 @ 1:04 pm #
Huh, sdferr. To think that The Tea Party is accused of purging undesirables from the Right.
Like Jeff … not interesting just find.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/10 @ 1:15 pm #
Well, he’s right about me today. Bad head cold, nose really stuffy.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 1:20 pm #
I noticed how the reader in question called himself “Lord Cromwell III” or something equally puffy. I don’t feel like going back to check.
If he thinks we’re all stupid, you would think he would come here to demonstrate how our betters carry an argument. Such an action would be charity, for then we could go back to happily digging ditches or whatever he thinks we do to earn our thruppence.
Comment by LTC John on 12/10 @ 1:21 pm #
Jeff,
After reading this, and thinking a bit – I do not kow how you could make this any clearer. This post, by itself, is a very good read for those wanting an introduction to that which you have been trying for so very long to explain to people.
I do believe you have made a superb effort here at trying to explain why it is important to find out what someone meant (by looking at their past and present words, or , radically asking them what they meant!!) – rather than make a conclusion as to what they meant, by how it made you (the hearer) feel or such.
Why would Mr. Frey not ask Mr. McCain – “say, old chap, just what did you mean by that?” The answer would probably be most illuminating.
Comment by LTC John on 12/10 @ 1:23 pm #
cranky-d, you earn thrupence?! I simply long for the crumbs that drop from my betters’ tables, that sag with riches. They really do.
Comment by Big D on 12/10 @ 1:29 pm #
By the way, one of Patterico’s readers believes you all to be insignificant mouth breathers not fit to exist in a universe wherein someone so significant as Patrick Frey should have to sense you biting at his ankles.
Mouth breather? I am not a mouth breather! I am a clod kicking hillbilly!
Good Day Sir!
Comment by LTC John on 12/10 @ 1:30 pm #
Mouth-breather? Only in an M-17 series protective mask.
Comment by JD on 12/10 @ 1:32 pm #
Big D – Don’t sell yourself short ;-)
Comment by Squid on 12/10 @ 1:34 pm #
J. Lawrence Chamberlain
I got called a mouth-breather by some douche who goes by the nom-de-blog of J. Lawrence Chamberlain? Really? Is there any better way to come across as an overeducated and underintelligent wannabe-snob than to adopt the pretentious name with the even-more-pretentious leading initial? Are we supposed to be so dazzled by his intellect and his sneering tone that we see the error of our ways and flock to his congregation?
And seriously — Chamberlain? Does he think that none of us have studied history? Are we supposed to believe that he possesses the courage or leadership of the man who held Little Round Top? This bloviating, oblivious chatterer, this shining example of the anonymous coward, wouldn’t pick up a rifle in defense of his own (deeply ashamed and embarrassed) family, much less any higher cause. His insult to the good name he’s stolen is far worse than any insult he could hurl our way. I pity the poor souls who have to change his bedpan.
Apologies for sinking to his ad-hom level, but this kind of lack of self-awareness just drives me up the wall.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 1:35 pm #
“Only in an M-17 series protective mask.”
Yeah, but don’t try to sell us the story that there isn’t any drool inside there, m’kay?
Comment by Big D on 12/10 @ 1:36 pm #
Of course I won’t JD. I’m a tremendous slouch.
Comment by Kresh on 12/10 @ 1:37 pm #
If the table sags, are they really rich? I mean, they can’t afford a decent table. I’d say it’s a sign to get better masters.
Comment by Big D on 12/10 @ 1:46 pm #
This doesn’t have anything to do with this, but Jeff G gets a hat tip.
Comment by Les Nessman on 12/10 @ 1:46 pm #
psycho…
” ‘ Here’s the thing: natural feelings and instincts are not good most of the time.’
They are good, for nature (whatever its definitional bounds in the specific instance), or they’d be different. Varying degrees and kinds and understandings of resistance, or at least seeming resistance, to nature are natural, too, and good, for nature, or they wouldn’t exist, much. No one resists his heartbeat. Not enough. ”
-
I think some natural instincts WERE good and ARE STILL good (heartbeat) while some WERE good and now are less useful in a modern civilized society (tribalism).
Comment by baxtrice on 12/10 @ 1:48 pm #
The takeaway from all of this is of course; if we don’t like what we say, we’ll use it to shun you from normal company/suppression. It’s one step shy of thought crime. Jeff is very much familiar with this take. This seems to be the rage all of a sudden in the right blogosphere. “Why Stacy?” is what I’ve been asking, and how is Patterico profiting? Well I could hypothesize that Stacy is a target by his association to his fellow book partner, Ms. Vincent – who recently ghostwrote a book for someone high profile that evokes such intense emotions. What does this all mean?
who knows, I’m a redneck, not a mouth breather as previously slandered. big distinction there.
Comment by L. My Cookies III on 12/10 @ 1:48 pm #
Essentially and per se, while I am enamored of nasal respiration, I do occasionally prefer my oxygen ration come through my embouchement. per se.
Comment by Squid on 12/10 @ 1:49 pm #
Did ponce choose his name knowing the meaning? Is it supposed to ironically deflect insults about what a fucking ponce he is?
These intellectual betters, they can be so confusing.
Comment by Lazarus Long on 12/10 @ 1:54 pm #
“J. Lawrence Chamberlain
I got called a mouth-breather by some douche who goes by the nom-de-blog of J. Lawrence Chamberlain?”
The real Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the hero of the battle of Gettysburg, he led the 20th Maine and beat off the Reb flanking attack on Little Round Top. “For his gallantry at Gettysburg, he was awarded the Medal of Honor.”
The blog Chamberlain, not so much.
Comment by Neo on 12/10 @ 1:55 pm #
Jeff, if I’m adverse to having you as my Sister-in-Law, does that make me homophobic ?
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 1:55 pm #
I blush to admit that there is a huge difference between “J. Lawrence Chamberlain” and “Lord Cromwell III” but I would argue that the intent is similar.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 1:57 pm #
NOBODY EXPECTS THE PATTERICAN INQUISITION!
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 1:58 pm #
Neither J Lawrence Chamberlain nor ponce have once engaged me on the merits of my argument, though now they’re on to the business about me being unemployed and unstable and blah blah blah.
But remember: they only don’t defeat our arguments because in their minds they already have. Just by virtue of being not-us.
Nice work if you can get it.
Comment by DarthRove on 12/10 @ 1:58 pm #
Neo@79: Only if you have a natural revulsion to it. Some lawyer in Ellay gets to decide what “natural” means. Because he is the blogosphere’s Judge Judy, and you’re just some mouth-breathing homophobic faggot.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 1:59 pm #
I’m content to be not them as well, so there’s that.
Comment by B Moe on 12/10 @ 2:03 pm #
OT, but have you Julliette, or anyone you are aware of, blogged about the destruction of the Black business merchants and districts that integration wrought? I had an interesting talk about the once thriving Black business district in Athens with an older Black friend a few years back, it is a real good example of unintended consequences.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 2:05 pm #
We murder to dissect.
Comment by TheGeezer on 12/10 @ 2:06 pm #
Whatever happened to etymology?
Ah, post-Enlightenment-postmodernism. Absurdity gushes from it as it destroys all references to liberate humanity from limits.
The intellectual fashionability that applies relativism to nearly everything has infected even the “hard” sciences, I think. Much to the dismay of, especially, priestly climatologists.
By the by, I need a full mask for my CPAP, which makes makes me a diagnosed mouth-breather, at least while I am asleep. Do I get a special, victimological award or something?
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 2:07 pm #
“We murder to dissect.”
Francis Bacon
;-)
Comment by Uphill Both ways on 12/10 @ 2:17 pm #
“Unfortunately, blogging is not about ideas any more. It’s about traffic and pecking order. ”
Oh the wonderful old days…
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 2:24 pm #
I read the piece you quoted. It says nothing about the beliefs of McCain. The quoted material references how other people may feel in a particular circumstance – nowhere does it say “I feel this” or “I believe this”. If someone is using that quoted piece as proof that McCain is a racist then that person is, in my opinion, committing defamation.
Comment by slackjawedyokel on 12/10 @ 2:25 pm #
Did somebody call for a mouthbreather? Sorry I’m late.
Comment by LBascom on 12/10 @ 2:25 pm #
“OT, but have you Julliette, or anyone you are aware of, blogged about the destruction of the Black business merchants and districts that integration wrought?”
BMoe, Thomas Sowell has essays, maybe even a book (or chapter, I don’t know) on the topic.
Browse here and you could find some good stuff.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 2:26 pm #
Oh, he’s not saying McCain is a racist, Mike. He’s just publicly entertaining the idea, over several days in a series of posts. In the service of truth.
According to him.
Me, I’m arguing that he has called McCain a racist, even while he maintains that he hasn’t. Which is beside the point. While itself being the point.
Comment by Yes, I know I am. on 12/10 @ 2:36 pm #
I have tried to be interested in this subject, but after 89 posts I have come to the conclusion that tedium can be defined as the amount of time invested in wondering if Patterico (or anyone else for that matter) is a racist. I swear that I cannot think of a less productive discourse.
I know I have a somewhat one-track mind, but there are people on Capitol Hill right now feverishly working to subvert the Constitution, they sincerely wish to remake America in the usual socialist fashion. Meanwhile, some of the sharpest minds in the blogospere (that’s you guys) are conducting another exercise in racial navel-gazing.
Priorities, men, priorities. You too dicentra.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 2:36 pm #
By the way, one of Patterico’s readers believes you all to be insignificant mouth breathers
I’m forced to use IE 6 here at work, so the left side of comments at LMA’s disappears, never to be seen again.
I also lose double-digit comment numbers at PW.
All of which means that I don’t have to respond to accusations that I can’t read.
Though I guess in the spirit of the thread I could go ahead and fill in the blanks my own self and then accuse the writer of unspeakable (as well as unspoken) things.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 2:38 pm #
“…exercise in racial navel-gazing.”
So, you really weren’t paying attention, huh? No surprise there.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 2:47 pm #
I do occasionally prefer my oxygen ration come through my embouchement.
ROTFL! Consider it stolen.
Whatever happened to etymology?
Etymology can help you understand the linguistic roots of a word and how it came to take the form and meaning it has today.
But meaning comes through usage, not etymology. Even when you trace a word back to its ancient roots, you can’t say that the original Latin word for something is “truer” than the Chinese word for it.
Language is truly an arbitrary system of signs; otherwise, there would be no such thing as a foreign language.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 2:50 pm #
Priorities, men, priorities. You too dicentra.
Multitasking, YIKIA, multitasking. We can expound on minutiae here and also fax nastygrams to congress.
It’s fun!
Comment by Yes, I know I am. on 12/10 @ 2:53 pm #
Discussions of race and racists passed their use-by date the instant we elected Barack. I had hoped that with that line crossed, we would have the luxury of being able to talk about ideas instaed of pigments.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 2:54 pm #
That’s not at all what’s being discussed.
Actually, how do you think these people you speak of who wish to subvert the Constitution have made the inroads in our institutions to peddle the wares necessary to gather the right kind of support for such an undertaking?
I know the answer, because that’s what I’ve been writing about. Here. In this very post.
My priorities are to root out the disease. You can spend your time barking at the symptoms if that’s what you think it takes. But we each have our strengths.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 2:58 pm #
If you read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I’m talking solely about ideas. Race in this instance is just the prompt.
Comment by LTC John on 12/10 @ 3:01 pm #
Yes – you might, just maybe, be missing the point of this post. Think “Intentionalism” and language (as in what is happening to it).
Comment by billhedrick on 12/10 @ 3:08 pm #
dicentra, I get a little wheezy with your point because it leans to post-modernism, the ultimate in solipsistic masturbatory fantasies.
Comment by bruce on 12/10 @ 3:09 pm #
This entire exchange has become really stupid.
Patterico is writing stuff that is stupid, so now Jeff is writing stuff that is stupid. And much of what McCain has written on this is stupid.
Does this mean that they are stupid people? No! I didn’t say they were stupid people – just that they are writing stupid things! I’m not going to say “I don’t know if they are not stupid” and I’m not going to wonder “Is he stupid in his heart?” because to do that would be really stupid. And I’m not going to post what they’ve written and ask you “Do you think this is stupid?”. I’ll just say it – this exchange is stupid – and I shouldn’t have to qualify that by saying they’re not stupid people.
The problem is that none of them know when to shut up.
Comment by Pontius' Pilot on 12/10 @ 3:09 pm #
You can put me in the “don’t give a shit” column.
Comment by DarthRove on 12/10 @ 3:14 pm #
I think that’s two more opt-outs for the subscription model.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 3:16 pm #
I’m pruning, DarthRove.
I’ll admit, though, I never thought mojo would be one of the guys to jump ship.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 3:19 pm #
bruce –
Not particularly helpful. What’s stupid about what I’m writing? I’m all ears.
Comment by John Bradley on 12/10 @ 3:23 pm #
You can put me in the “don’t give a shit” column.
Well, it’s just a ding-danged shame that this is the only blog on the internet, then, isn’t it?
The ideas being discussed here (which have nothing to do with racism, a point that seems to elude many of the drive-by’s) are of great interest to the proprietor of this blog, and most of the regular readers.
Would you go on some “American Idol” blog and say “I don’t care about American Idol, let’s talk about the new 2010 Ford Mustang.”?
I mean, what’s the point of the comment, beyond effectively saying “your antics (for which I’ve paid nothing) don’t amuse me, dancing internet monkey. Do a different dance!”
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 3:28 pm #
dicentra, I get a little wheezy with your point because it leans to post-modernism
The stuff about an arbitrary assignment between word and meaning? Can’t get around it, I’m afraid. It’s an actual fact. One of the few in the Hooomanities.
The problem started when they decided to abandon the attempt to understand what the author was saying and just assign random meaning to the texts.
I take that back; it wasn’t random. It was all Marxism, all the time. The project was and is to turn every text into a Marxist treatise that you can use to bludgeon the general culture into submission with.
See how I got back to IKWIA’s objection?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 3:39 pm #
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 2:26 pm #
True, Jeff. He isn’t saying that McCain is a racist. He is merely saying that a man who puts forth an argument speculating that other people may have a certain reaction has said something racist. And that is based, apparently, on the fact that McCain has made a particular argument based on the speculated reactions of others and therefore must have racist thoughts. How else could McCain be able to speculate on the motivations of others if he never shared those motivations?
I guess the admonition to ‘walk a mile in another’s shoes’ before judging is utterly gone.
Comment by billhedrick on 12/10 @ 3:47 pm #
The stuff about an arbitrary assignment between word and meaning? Agreed. I guess the issue I have is the extension that PM does. “Water” may be “aqua” but the thing signified does not change because of the way we label it. PM would have us shape reality by our labels rather than find the most apt label to describe a discrete objective reality.
Comment by Makewi on 12/10 @ 3:50 pm #
I just learned that providing a definition from Princeton is an appeal to authority. I must weep because I AM WEBSTERS BITCH!
Comment by ThomasD on 12/10 @ 3:58 pm #
I am unsure that revulsion to interracial couples is natural…
That is one line of consideration.
Another is whether revulsion is the natural reaction of some people. Natural in the sense that the reaction is innate, that it is not contrived, or arrived at through dispassionate consideration of external factors, but instead flows freely without effort. As opposed to others, where the disdain is manufactured for specific intent.
Comment by Froggy on 12/10 @ 3:58 pm #
Jeff,
You need to raise the rent on leasing space in your brain by others. Your honor is not at stake here. Let it go.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 4:02 pm #
My honor isn’t what I’m defending.
And letting it go just means it comes up again. See, for instance, these last few days of posting.
Comment by Matt Knowles on 12/10 @ 4:11 pm #
“spades and hoes” lol
Comment by Squid on 12/10 @ 4:49 pm #
I think there’s something that newcomers may be missing: Jeff has been explaining, discussing, and defending his arguments regarding hermeneutics and its importance for several years now, highlights from which are easily found by clicking the “language / intentionalism” category in the left sidebar.
To those commenters asserting that this exercise is stupid and/or unimportant, I ask sincerely that you click that link and read up on what Jeff’s been fighting for lo these many years. The separation of meaning from intent is at the core of the current dust-up, and to expect Jeff to just walk away from this fight is to ignore the lessons he’s been preaching since he started this site.
This isn’t about Frey or McCain. This isn’t about racism. This is about whether words mean what the speaker intends, or whether words mean what the receiver wants them to. Walking away from the argument cedes the argument, and allows those who would argue in bad faith to steal our words and twist them to their own ends. It’s also about good-faith argument in general, which means pushing back when a prominent figure begs the question to put his target du jour into a corner from the get-go, and pointing out the rhetorical tricks being used.
On a personal note: I will not watch my every word, nor walk on rhetorical eggshells, just because I fear somebody may misunderstand me (intentionally or not) and take offense (real or feigned) not at what I said, but at what they understand me to have said. I used to worry about this; I was well-conditioned by my University to believe that diversity is the ultimate virtue, and that a protected identity class was around every corner just waiting to be offended whether I intended it or not. I no longer speak so guardedly, and as a result, I believe I speak much more forcefully and clearly. To that end, I believe that the hijacking of intention has caused and continues to cause great inefficiency in people’s communication, as we’re encouraged to water down our ideas into the most inoffensive pablum we can arrange, lest we find ourselves unfairly put on trial defending a message we never intended and have no rational means of defending.
My awakening began on my own after I entered the real world, but it was Jeff’s arguments that crystallized my thinking and made me realize just what was going on; for that, he has my eternal admiration and gratitude. If that makes me a mouth-breathing sycophant, so be it, but I gotta tell those of you who call this battle silly or pointless or stupid or personal that you couldn’t be more wrong, and you’re missing the point by a wide margin.
These are my words, and they carry my intent. I will not let others steal their meaning, and I will not turn a blind eye when another’s intent is hijacked for somebody’s political gain.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 4:55 pm #
I grew up in diverse neighborhoods and attended schools with diverse populations. We had next-door neighbors who were black, until we moved and had over-the-back-fence neighbors who were black (and who were my main playmates for several years). I’m pretty sure the interracial neighbors on “The Jeffersons” were not the first I ever saw.
How typical could that have been among my age group, even in California — let alone anywhere else?
I have no problem entertaining the argument that my experiences at that very impressionable age might have overwritten something natural that otherwise would have found expression as I got older and began losing that near-universal trust that all young children have. If I don’t feel revulsion at the sight of an interracial couple, what makes me justified in assuming that my reaction is natural, while that of others who had a more typical upbringing in those days, is not?
I should add that the introduction of “the other” to my world when I was that young, was not a deliberate choice by my parents, but a consequence of financial mistakes they made that caused us to live in subsidized housing for a number of years. It also helped that neither my parents, nor the others in the neighborhood, ever seemed to make race an issue one way or the other, at least in front of us little kids.
I don’t know. If, for the sake of argument, Robert Stacy McCain does struggle with “revulsion” at the sight of interracial couples, I’m pretty sure it’s better than if he gives in to that revulsion without a fight.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 4:56 pm #
From “ponce,” at Joy’s site, after she reprimanded him for attacking me as an unemployed nobody who so fears the mighty lights of the right wing blogosphere that he waits until they go out to serve the state to plot his insidious attacks:
And yet, though he’s posted a half-dozen or so times, he hasn’t once challenged, engaged, or even acknowledged a single one of my arguments.
And he holds himself out as a modern, thinking conservative.
Amazing.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 4:59 pm #
NOBODY EXPECTS THE — oh wait, I already did that one.
I don’t know what’s “not very sporting” about expecting a lawyer to be willing to, like, read.
Trackback by South Texian on 12/10 @ 5:01 pm #
The McCain Mutiny…
As you can see from the updates to yesterday’s entry – “The McCain Defamation” – the imbroglio between Robert Stacy McCain and Patrick “Patterico” Frey has resulted in most conservative bloggers siding with McCain and questioning Patterico’s inte…
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 5:02 pm #
Comment by Squid on 12/10 @ 4:49 pm #
Or in other words – Jeff backs Alice, not Humpty-Dumpty.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
“They’ve a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they’re the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:03 pm #
and what we see from you,darlin’ JeffieG, is throwing chaff.
The GOP is all white, all christian, and nearly all evangelical. McCain is a member of the League of the South, which has been designated a white supremicist organization (just like the Klann) by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 58% of the GOP are birthers….and those are just the closet racists that won’t openly admit their racism.
In the 21st century, it is a social taboo to be racist.
Why not just say it is wrong, and try to drag your base into the 21st century instead of trying to enable their racism by pretending they aren’t?
via Cole
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 5:05 pm #
Thinking is often hard, unpleasant at times and frustrating too. I long ago quit expecting it to pop up very frequently but when it does, it’s a great wonder to behold.
A rumor passes. Someone is thinking! And people who know rush to see.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 5:05 pm #
Well said, Squid. And thanks.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 5:06 pm #
Sorry to go off topic:
sdferr, I’ve read “EMPIRICISM AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND” now. http://www.ditext.com/sellars/epm.html
To be honest, with just one reading, it’s such a different way of thinking about those issues that I’m left somewhat confused. As it was given in 1956, it seems unsporting to give it a modified Chomsky critique (the Myth of the Given, very loosely taken, is triumphant with Universal Grammar), let alone a neurological view (as in: sense is when this part of the brain lights up, then this area lights up, then Broca’s area lights up; nothing else, no analogies, just mechanics). And, as I’m only a mildly informed layperson with those viewpoints, while they feel right, I’m not sure those are entirely valid critiques.
/ mouth breather off
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 5:07 pm #
I think, between the sender and the receiver, words should be neutral – if neither the sender nor the receiver can agree on the meaning of the words, then there really isn’t any communication, and then – why bother trying to communicate with words?
Why not then express meaning through direct, applied action?
Eh – it could be the lawyer in me just getting on top for a bit.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 5:07 pm #
“To those commenters asserting that this exercise is stupid and/or unimportant, I ask sincerely that you click that link and read up on what Jeff’s been fighting for lo these many years.”
Seconded.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 5:09 pm #
You’ve become a one-trick pony, nishi, and it saddens me, it really does.
There’s nothing in what I said that has a party identification tied to it. What the GOP is or isn’t is irrelevant. If you want to vote for socialism because you fear it less than evangelical Christianity, that’s your choice. But I’m not interested in that.
Nor am I interested in little bumper sticker proclamations that pretend to identify racists by their political affiliations.
It’s unseemly, and the people who do it find comfort and rationalizations in cults and one another because somewhere deep inside they recognize just how ugly their thinking has become.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 5:11 pm #
Go away, Kate Mengele. This topic is bit too advanced for you; based on the record of your comments.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 5:12 pm #
Heck – it may be too advanced for me. But I am willing to listen, and consider.
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:27 pm #
Little Miss Attila should be ashamed.
What would Our Beloved Stuttering Bear (Jeff Percifeld) say about the Modern Racist Homophobic GOP?
You are on the wrong side kiddo.
It’s that simple.
Comment by JD on 12/10 @ 5:28 pm #
Any attempt to deconstruct nishit’s utterings will make your head assplode.
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:30 pm #
You are on the wrong side of history, JeffieG, and it saddens me, relly it does.
You should represent!
You should be claimin’ and signifyin’ and writing your book…… but instead you are here hangin’ wid the WECs and usin’ hermaneutics to justify subliminated racism.
i haz a sad.
:(
Comment by Mike LaRoche on 12/10 @ 5:32 pm #
Is nishi a real person or just a leftist spambot? I see nothing but the recycling of age-old memes in her comments.
Comment by JD on 12/10 @ 5:33 pm #
The GOP is all white, all christian, and nearly all evangelical.
An objective lie. Not even trying any more. Better Half is not white, an atheist, and certainly not evangelical. But, given your doubling down, it is not surprising that you continue to run with Nishi Memes #’s 1-7.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 5:37 pm #
My favorite nishi moment was when she told Jeff to be fresh and cool and then broke into Guys and Dolls lyrics.
Comment by JD on 12/10 @ 5:40 pm #
My favorite nishi moment is when the orderlies jam that needle into her IV and she becomes sedated.
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:41 pm #
lol @ JD
outlier or fantasy, you choose.
2 old 2 white 2 win
Comment by baxtrice on 12/10 @ 5:41 pm #
Hey stereotypes! Woo-hoo! Because putting people in categories and not talking to them individually about what they really think is so last centruy! Because if we can stereotype certain people, then we can make up their *intents* and not listen to what they’re really saying.. hmmm ….
Comment by Jeff G on 12/10 @ 5:41 pm #
The wrong side of history can never be the side where individual freedom is championed.
I’m comfortable where I am. You’ve adopted friends who want the government to wipe their asses — which the government is happy to do, for a big enough tax.
Comment by Jeff G on 12/10 @ 5:43 pm #
Your politics is a fucking Benetton commercial, nishi. Think about that.
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:43 pm #
umm bh…..that was Westside Story.
;)
I was Maria in hy high school musical.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 12/10 @ 5:44 pm #
*chortle*
That’s quite the logical hairball he’s gotten himself into.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 12/10 @ 5:44 pm #
She phonetexted “I Feel Pretty”. Everyone LOLed.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 5:45 pm #
Sorry, nishi, I’m not nearly old or white enough to differentiate between your lame old musicals.
Comment by Starcaller Nishi on 12/10 @ 5:49 pm #
hahahaha! oww make it stop….would that be….the individual freedom of WECs to force religious doctrine into law?
Or…are homosexuals somehow not individuals deserving of freedom? And women are undeserving of autonomy over their bodies?
But I guess blacks weren’t either, lol.
Lee Atwater–
THERE’S your hermaneutics, JeffieG.
lol
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 5:50 pm #
My favorite Nishi moment was when she promised to leave and not come back. It didn’t last too long, of course, but there you are.
I wonder if she’ll cough up the money to go behind the paywall. If so, I hope SBP makes TrollHammer work with the new site.
Comment by JD on 12/10 @ 5:54 pm #
Take your meds, nishit.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 5:58 pm #
What are you talking about?
Do you see me championing anything that would “force religious doctrine into law?”
Do you see me agitating for a repeal of the EOEA?
Do you see me anywhere suggesting that women don’t deserve autonomy over their bodies?
And, what, now just mentioning Blacks is supposed to be enough to make me feel shame?
My hermeneutics? That makes no sense at all.
And are you seriously arguing that great society programs have been a boon to Blacks — and that every aspect of fiscal conservatism is really just a thinly veiled way to keep a brother down?
Because that’s some crazy ass shit, nish.
Comment by B Moe on 12/10 @ 5:59 pm #
Slart wins the thread.
Comment by Carin on 12/10 @ 6:04 pm #
Your politics is a fucking Benetton commercial, nishi. Think about that.
That right there is why I keep coming back here.
What are you talking about?
Do you see me championing anything that would “force religious doctrine into law?”
She does see you do just such a thing. When she doesn’t take her meds.
Comment by Carin on 12/10 @ 6:07 pm #
What would Our Beloved Stuttering Bear (Jeff Percifeld) say about the Modern Racist Homophobic GOP?
I dunno. And prolly neither do you.
Comment by Carin on 12/10 @ 6:09 pm #
And are you seriously arguing that great society programs have been a boon to Blacks — and that every aspect of fiscal conservatism is really just a thinly veiled way to keep a brother down?
You know, us conservatives are SO FUCKING SNEAKY we can bring destruction upon Detroit w/o holding any power in the city. Kids test as well as if they’ve never attended school! Despite all those AWESOME LIBERAL ideologies, somehow we still manage to keep ‘em poor and stupid.
We are so dope.
Comment by Rusty on 12/10 @ 6:12 pm #
Wasn’t it J.D. Salinger that said,”When I wrote it(Catcher in the Rye),god and I knew what I meant. Now god only knows.”
#132
Word
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 6:13 pm #
What happened to Percifield?
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 6:17 pm #
I hope she just means that Beautiful Atrocities is obviously kaput. I haven’t heard anything negative about his health or anything on any blog I’ve read.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 6:41 pm #
Nishi’s big thing was eugenics – manipulating evoltuion (or breeding) to create superior humans (superior to the run-of-the-mill types like nishi). And this has to do with language – how?
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/10 @ 7:21 pm #
Ruh-ro. Somebody got computer privileges. Silly orderlies.
I love the whole racist GOP bit, too. Like Jeff, I hold no quarter for the GOP, but when a eugenist sociopath, who once claimed fiscal conservatism, but who is so obviously controlled by her vagina rather than her brain, starts the whole republicans are racist bullshit, I realize just how unserious the little twit really is.
Comment by Makewi on 12/10 @ 7:31 pm #
I always thought nishi was pretty smart. A bit deranged and most definitely rude, but still smart. So why she needs to reduce things down to their basest, most idiotic arguments I have no idea.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 7:38 pm #
Because she’s evolving into a leftist, Makewi.
Next thing to go is the sense of humor.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/10 @ 7:55 pm #
Jeff – dictatorial types -whether left or right – never have a sense of humor. Nishi (Matoko, Kate, whatever) is just a powerless example.
Comment by Darleen on 12/10 @ 8:12 pm #
OI
obviously controlled by her vagina rather than her brain
She renounced her vagina long ago. Adult relationships scare her.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 8:16 pm #
Wrong side of history?
WTF does that even mean?
The Kulaks were on the wrong side of history for decades, weren’t they? I mean until they were all dead and heaped into mass graves.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 8:18 pm #
Looks like Patterico is going to come after me. Again.
You know, for “attacking” him. Which nowadays means taking apart his argument.
Accuse the Jew of making false accusations of anti-semitism. People eat that shit up.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 8:20 pm #
Jeff:
You have EVERYTHING to do with the RACISM of the GOP, because you’re Not Nishi.
Which by default puts you into Any Horrid Category that exists, including Manichean, black-and-white thinker, ignoramus, and h8r.
You DESERVE to be buried regularly in Nishi’s slag heap o’ adjectives. Pity you can’t see that.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 8:27 pm #
dicentra. I’ve already done it, but if you wouldn’t mind, let me see how you’d parse Frey’s latest foray into linguistics.
He writes:
If you have the time, I mean.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 8:45 pm #
Quick addendum: there’s an important difference between ignorance and flouting social mores. And as I’ve reminded Frey on numerous occasions, he hasn’t understood the basis of my argument, because he doesn’t understand intent. Intent is an imperative. It is what turns language into language. Whether consciously acknowledged or not, it nevertheless emanates from some agency, and so there is no difference, for my purposes, between “unconscious” or conscious intent.
In the update here, you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 8:48 pm #
“Accuse the Jew of making false accusations of anti-semitism. People eat that shit up.”
Well, if it’s in reference to the thread I’m thinking, it’d be dishonest to ignore the context of a) the hypotheticals (that we all must answer!) wherein a Rush Limbaugh quote was converted to a kid calling a black guy a boy, and b) a blog where JOOOOOOOS is a running joke.
In regards to a) I’m not sure exactly how someone wouldn’t immediately recognize the rhetorical reversal. If that black guy could hear boy, is it any sillier to hear JOOOOOS in all the devious behavior being attributed to Jeff? In regards to b) I’m not sure how to explain how JOOOOOS is kinda funny simply because it’s actually a nicer thing to say than the running stream of personal attacks on Jeff (uses his wife for security, is an unstable, unemployeable person, etc). Sadly, it was.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 8:54 pm #
Goody. I’d forgotten you were there. You can help provide context. Because I’m not to be believed. I’m now being called a “liar” and a “martyr.”
Sorry. But if there’s anything I am it’s honest.
Meantime, you want to take a shot at parsing the Frey bit @168? From the point of view of intentionalism, and you understand it from me?
It’s like a test, only it’s one in which I get to see how well I’ve been teaching this stuff.
Comment by Darleen on 12/10 @ 9:03 pm #
oh good lord
I’m sure any Southern bigot standing in the doorway of a school yelling “niggers go home!” would tell you don’t intend racism. Few will cop to that.
The thing I get and I’m not at all trained in linguistics, just common sense, is there are a lot of assumptions in those two sentences (self-serving ones at that). The first one is that Patt sticks his thumb on the scales when he says the “niggers go home” is coming from the mouth of a Southern bigot.
If Pat were blindfolded then flown about the country so he had no idea where he was and he heard “niggers go home” … HOW COULD HE KNOW if the statement was racist or not? All the clues towards intent are not there.
Rather than a Southern Bigot, what if it was a black gangbanger in Crenshaw yelling at rival blank gangbangers?
Comment by happyfeet on 12/10 @ 9:05 pm #
You have to perceive someone’s intent, Mr. Goldstein. It’s like active listening, really, except more sincere.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 9:12 pm #
Yes, you have to perceive intent. Which involves recognizing that it’s there. Where you get into trouble is when you substitute your own intent for the intent of the person you claim to be interpreting.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 9:13 pm #
Darn, pop quiz. On the plus side, I immediately recognize (and now know the proper term for) the authorial fallacy displayed in the last paragraph.
Perhaps this can be reduced to “Do you have to intend rudeness to be rude?”. That seems fair as it gets o the meat. I’d answer no. Or rude doesn’t mean rude. As A must equal A, we have to say that rude does in fact equal rude. So, at this point we take the meaning of rude. Imagine some non-sentient device is created to make random marks, like the monkeys and Shakespeare, and it eventually creates “Shut up and poor my coffee, you slattern!” Is that non-sentient device, or the marks it had randomly created rude? Of course not. The rudeness requires agency (or locus as that might be the proper term).
Then, of course, as I said, the authorial fallacy in the last paragraph. The answer there would be clues, context, and cues. The notion that encoding and decoding meaning can be perfected is silly. There are problems. Always will be. With all things. Just because in some situations, like in the law, an answer is required, doesn’t mean there is always a particularly good one to be found.
I’m hoping for a solid C, by the way. But I’m willing to go pass fail if necessary.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 9:23 pm #
poor = pour
Okay, C-.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 9:25 pm #
I know you didn’t ask me, but here it goes:
In Frey’s hypothetical, whether or not the utterer consciously realized (Frey’s definition of intent) that he was making a racist statement is completely beside the point. The person is defined as being “racially prejudiced,” however Frey parses that (does that mean he’s racist or prejudiced or what?), and has said a racist thing (why it matters that a minority is present is also odd), so the statement can probably be reasonably interpreted as racist in intent. We have an utterance which is racist, and we have a history/backstory of the utterer being racist. Nothing more is necessary.
The rest of the example is pure distraction. The presence of the target minority has no bearing on whether the statement is racist, and in fact colors (oops!) the argument unnecessarily. The person saying the words could deny that he was being racist, but we apparently have a backstory that this person is racist, so his denial of “intent” (as defined by Frey) has little bearing on our interpretation of his intent (the way it’s defined around these parts).
Furthermore, I think that true racists have no trouble sharing their veiwpoint, so that non-sequitor is also unhelpful.
In short, we have someone who is defined to be racist, and who makes a statement that appears racist. It doesn’t take any work (after much teaching on intentionalism here at PW) to see that the intent of the statement was racist.
Finally, I hope the comment window is bigger in the next iteration of the site.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 9:32 pm #
Woops! “I’d answer no” = “I’d answer yes”. As in, yes, you have to intend to be rude in order to be rude. Otherwise rude simply means thoughtless or something like that.
Geez. Okay, I’m asking for pass fail now just on the typos.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 9:33 pm #
Watching the etiquette instructors at work, it always seemed to me that this was precisely the lesson they had in mind: that YOU were rude without intending to be so at all, because YOU were so quick to speak without parsing every conceivable iteration of your speech for meanings your interlocutor could append beyond YOUR ignorant measly originary intent. In short, they instructed in the art of anti-intentionalism.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 9:44 pm #
My initial answer was posted here.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 9:44 pm #
That said, may I ask, why is Max Boot always so eager to pucker-up to kiss Obama’s ass? It’s just, ……… unseemly.
Comment by geoffb on 12/10 @ 9:47 pm #
The work involved to determine that the statement “the speaker is racially prejudiced” is the work involved to determine the intent of the speaker.
If the “racially prejudiced speaker” did not intend the speech to be racist then the complete burden of proof of that intention falls on the speaker in a form a lawyer would call “beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”, if not higher.
Comment by geoffb on 12/10 @ 9:48 pm #
The work involved to determine that the statement “the speaker is racially prejudiced” is true
it should read
Comment by Darleen on 12/10 @ 10:28 pm #
one of the reasons I don’t believe the “rudeness” example is applicable is because a great deal of “rudeness” means “breaking of accepted protocol”.
If one KNOWS the protocol, then when one is rude then intent is there. Innocence of the protocol renders the rudeness as “ignorance”, nothing more. At that point, the person who detects the rudeness of the ignorant wrench can either take them aside and clue them in or stand in middle of the floor and loudly declaim them “how DARE you! Good day, SIR!”
Comment by SDN on 12/10 @ 11:43 pm #
Obviously Pat hasn’t traveled to South Boston to get their take on integrating the schools in the 70s. Hint: George Wallace wondered how they got away with it…. literally (I was in the same high school class as his daughter Lee at the time).
Comment by MlR on 12/11 @ 1:42 am #
Good stuff.
We could have used about 100 doses of this stuff in pill form at Ace’s place over the last two days.
Comment by MlR on 12/11 @ 1:54 am #
That said, may I ask, why is Max Boot always so eager to pucker-up to kiss Obama’s ass? It’s just, ……… unseemly.
Because Max Boot, like a lot of foreign policy-centered Republicans, is willing to sacrifice -a lot- domestically and politically so long as whatever he gets is attached to an interventionist, muscular foreign policy. Well, assuming they actually have strong principles on domestic policy – a guy like Frum, for instance, is moreorless twisting in the wind according to what is politically acceptable at this point.
Which I think explains a good deal, though of course not all, about how we’ve gotten where we are today.
Comment by MlR on 12/11 @ 1:56 am #
For some of them, the U.S. is simply the tool they wish to use abroad. Nearly whatever it takes to keep that ‘bi-partisan’ foreign policy consensus together, they’ll pay.
Comment by Rusty on 12/11 @ 6:45 am #
slag heap o’ adjectives.
I’m stealin’ that.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 12/11 @ 7:07 am #
nishi, you have no idea what Atwater was talking about, nor do 99+% of the people quoting that bit.
As a side issue, you have no idea whether Atwater really said that, as that quote never got attributed to him while he was alive, and was attributed to him by some obscure history professor who hasn’t really published anything of note that doesn’t have that passage in it. But the point stands that you have read that passage and completely failed to understand what it’s saying.
Oh, and “hermaneutics”. Jesus, learn to spell. Idiot.
Pingback by Losing my religion [Darleen Click] on 12/11 @ 8:59 am #
[...] At this point it occured to me that the struggle over authority in science is very much the struggle we’ve see over language in l’affaire RSM and intent. [...]
Comment by Dotcoman on 12/11 @ 1:49 pm #
Oh but Darleen, a Politically Correct linguist can tell the difference!
It’s in the spelling of the N-Word, ie, the white southern bigot, clearly the racist in the mind of the PC set would use an “er” where as the black gangbanger in Crenshaw naturally would be using “ar” and thus the N-word wouldn’t be racist at all cause well obviously he’s black, and clearly it was used as a cultural, term of endearment.
Least that’s how it was explained to me once in University English Lit class by a sawed-off militant mullet sporting, mulatto lesbian sort-a-tallish midget troll. Honestly, darn near the end of the term and I didn’t even know the miserable white man-hating little troll was even in there.
When I hear race merchants like Jackson, Sharpton Right, Felger,Calypso Louie, Spike Lee etc, use the N-word I can’t tell the difference between an er or an ar. But clearly to a PC and the racial epithet aficionado there is?
Comment by Patterico on 12/18 @ 10:59 pm #
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.