You tell me.
In the business, we call this an objective correlative.
(h/t Kirk R)
****
See also, “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic”?
|
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage
December 10, 2009
Is there racism without intent?
88 Comments ::: Post a comment »RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=15601
Leave a commentIf you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. |
||
|
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 5:31 pm #
So. Little does he realize that in conceding his plate without a fight he has just assured that it will not go away but come again and again. Pity.
Comment by Jeff G on 12/10 @ 5:48 pm #
The state punished this guy because somebody was offended when she configured the LETTERS in such a way that she was allowed not only to supply intent, but the fucking vowels and spacing, to boot.
This is the endgame of “it’s racism when I feel it is”-type politics — though to her credit, at least this woman seems to believe the guy intended his plate as a racial slur. An intentionalist argument that is, though one that’s likely wrong.
The state, on the other hand, isn’t concerned with intent. They are just concerned that someone could be offended, regardless of intent. I mean shit, they may as well begin passing legislation against cloud formations. Because god knows what awful shit they might be suggesting.
And yet some people on the right champion the thinking necessary to allow things like this to pass the laugh test.
Some people on the right.
But hey, I know. We’re bored with this, Jeff. We hate friendly fire. Just let it go.
Because kicking the can down the road is only bad when it comes to concerns over social security funding, I guess.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 5:58 pm #
Michigan isn’t doing Tiffany any favors either, sad to say. On the other hand I’m so thick I still haven’t figured out altogether what Ms Gilmore is reading there. The “DY” bit is hanging me up.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 6:01 pm #
“DIE NIGGER.” Or perhaps, “Dye Nigger”.
I think Mr McCauley ran into the same problem as you did. Guess that happens when you’ve spent 7-years looking at it as short for Dyna Glider, and then attaching it to, like, your Dyna Glider.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 6:02 pm #
According to government agencies and private companies, you’re darn right there is. The Southwest Airlines “Eenie, meenia, miney, moe” incident and the finding of the symbol for allah on the lid of a fast-food soft-serve ice cream product are two examples, both of which I believe we have discussed in the past (I know the latter was covered, not sure about the former).
Comment by baxtrice on 12/10 @ 6:02 pm #
Jeff, you know what this reminds me of? When I talk to my friends about Free market Capitalism and Ayn Rand. Last year I got heavily into Ayn Rand’s writings, she gets slagged on her writing style and stuff, but her defense of free markets and individual freedom is so *on*. When Ayn Rand talked of Capitalism, she was talking of creating value. Capitalism today has been redefined to “greed”. It’s hard to explain to others that being a capitalist isn’t just about making money. It’s about making value, increasing personal freedom and choice. Some of our english words have been co-opted; it’s no longer about the definition, but the interpretation of that definition by the person encountering it. Relativism. What it means to me, doesn’t mean the same to you. It’s hard to have a solid foundation if we can “change” the meaning of words like that. We are a society of the perpetually outraged.
You’ve been writing about this for awhile, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve read here for so long. I’m not nearly as intelligent as the other commenters here, but I just wanted to say I learn something pretty much every time I visit.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 6:02 pm #
Ah, Die! See, I told you I’m thick.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 6:03 pm #
Of course, Patterico and others on the right who share his view of language would likely say something like this is crazy. Yet, it’s of a piece with how they interpret, and it follows an idea of language that they champion.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 6:04 pm #
Anyway, we’re all screwed. However, I don’t blame the guy for not fighting this. Only someone with lots of money would even attempt such a thing.
Justice is blind, deaf, and mute.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 6:05 pm #
Thanks, baxtrice.
What I learn is that I’m pretty widely reviled by just as many on the right as I am on the left, and that both sides find it easiest just to marginalize me.
Don’t know yet if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 6:08 pm #
The concession isn’t as simple as failing to pursue a court battle though cranky-d. Read what the man has to say about it.
Comment by baxtrice on 12/10 @ 6:13 pm #
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 6:05 pm #
You’re in good company, visionaries are usually walking in front of the pack, taking all the potshots. The good news is you get first dibs on the ice cream since you make it to the store before everyone else. ;)
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 6:15 pm #
In general: Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke. Or if they can’t handle the truth. Or if they can’t admit they are wrong when they are shown to be wrong. Or they prefer to take offense all the time.
sdferr: I read the whole thing, and I don’t see what you’re trying to tease out of me. Also, I’m not much for the Socratic method in general.
Comment by Lazarus Long on 12/10 @ 6:19 pm #
I’m getting sick and tired of “outraged” morons.
Fuck ‘em.
Sideways.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 6:22 pm #
I’m not trying to tease anything out of you, cranky-d. I just took this part of his statement as a concession too far is all: “I would like to apologize to this lady for offending her…” even though he still insists “…but that was not my intention.”
Comment by cranky-d on 12/10 @ 6:24 pm #
Ah. I see your point, sdferr. However, I think that tendency goes back to people still reacting very strongly to being called racist, though the charge is thrown around as much as it is. It’s hard to not do what he did, and I cannot say I wouldn’t do the same thing, though later I would be upset with myself for conceding intent to the accuser.
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 6:27 pm #
you can’t say nigger, you can’t say niggardly, now you can’t say DYNGR “what’s the word an abbreviation?” if you’re white
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 6:30 pm #
“…I think that tendency goes back to people still reacting very strongly to being called racist…”
Yes. And also genuinely not wanting to offend or to be perceived to offend. He wants everyone to know “I meant her no harm. I meant no injustice to this woman.”
Yet, here he stands being unjustly put upon (even though in this minor affair, as he himself says, given the other major issues in our lives) and takes the slapdown with nary a hint of serious anger, that I can see.
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 6:31 pm #
wouldn’t this be phonetically dine- ger oh sorry forgot the the letters n i g e r are reseverd. thank god bill ayers is teaching the teachers of amerikkka
Comment by Mike LaRoche on 12/10 @ 6:35 pm #
This all reminds me of Bill Dana as Jose Jimenez with his “Fire Hose” (“Fire Jose”) joke. Of course, that was long before political correctness, when people were still allowed to have a sense of humor.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/10 @ 6:49 pm #
It is a fantastically wonderful thing, Jeff. Bravo and congratulations for the accomplishment.
Yeah, the guy is as much a part of the problem as the dumb shit woman. Well, maybe not as much a part of the problem, but to say that he was sorry for offending her, when he actually didn’t offend her was a capitulation in my mind. Sometimes I do think we are well and truly fucked as a society.
Comment by Big D on 12/10 @ 6:56 pm #
C’mon. There has to be more to the story. Did she witness the motorcycle calling its dog? ‘Cause that would explain it.
/
Comment by psycho... on 12/10 @ 6:57 pm #
I’m waiting for DirecTV to get sued for having programmed its boxes to truncate long titles based only on characters-from-start. Someday some asshole is going to see Tender is the Nig and (pretend to) shit himself all the way to the bank.
Do now.
Comment by No one you know on 12/10 @ 7:09 pm #
Well, when it comes to commentary, you are one of the few people I can actually stand, Jeff. Left or right, fuck ‘em, I sez.
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 7:11 pm #
Was he picked on racially or linguistically?
Comment by dicentra on 12/10 @ 7:20 pm #
Wait.
“believes the plate encouraged racism toward blacks.”
So she’s not accusing the dude of Being Racist but says the plate Encourages Racism.
I’d need to see some evidence on that, ma’am. Because if White People can’t make the connection, who’s being encouraged?
Also, anthropomorphization of metal.
Comment by McGehee on 12/10 @ 7:26 pm #
First the anthopomorphized guns. And because I had never seen a gun jump up by itself and shoot somebody, I laughed it off.
Then they came for the personalized license plates…
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 7:27 pm #
i hear she’s guest blogging @ patterico
Comment by SarahW on 12/10 @ 7:35 pm #
To the top post query: There is, but it’s like a headless chicken.
Nearby Helen keller who got too close to the Tiger Woods.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/10 @ 7:42 pm #
The plate reminds me of one of those optical illusions where once you see it you can’t unsee it. It took Jeff spelling it out for me to see it, but once I did, it seemed plain as day.
Our biker friend is probably lucky that all he got was a revocation of the license plate. If the wrong person deciphered the code incorrectly at a stop light it could have gone much worse for him.
Comment by JHo on 12/10 @ 7:48 pm #
Muskegon, huh? With Michigan being the most failed state in the Union, quite literally Muskegon has only its comparison to Detroit lend it a modicum of respectability. Just. I think.
Macaulay should have sacked up and fought this. Maybe he loves the HD image more than the principle many think they stand for.
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 7:55 pm #
“Tiffany Gilmore filed the complaint last month after seeing the motorcycle and plate in a Walmart parking lot. Gilmore, who is black, believes the plate encouraged racism toward blacks.”
can i say tiffany’s actions encourage me to think many blacks are idiots?
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 7:58 pm #
i don’t think tiffany is really an idiot but a fool who has bought into certain al/jesse narrative idiocy
Comment by geoffb on 12/10 @ 8:03 pm #
Just wait. In a few months he’ll get a nice new big parking ticket from the Detroit PD. The license plate number will be DYNGR. Welcome to the machine, Mr. Macaulay.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 8:05 pm #
When did the theory of Government’s purpose begin to include raining uncalled for, indeed, gratuitous injustice on its constituents? It’s just an odd thing, no matter how minor an instance in this case.
There are of course ten-hundred thousand other such minor instances and many major instances besides. When, we may wonder, will people simply tire of suffering such things at the hands of their ostensible servants and revolt, whatever shape that revolt may take?
Comment by JHo on 12/10 @ 8:09 pm #
When did defending against same constitute the lion’s share of political discourse? I mean when we’re not having the House demand colleges conduct their basketball tournys in certain ways deemed acceptable to our leaders.
Comment by alppuccino on 12/10 @ 8:20 pm #
I just got a letter about my license plate:
SSN8BO
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 8:22 pm #
Patterico is a-comin’! And he’s a-steamed at Jeff!*
He’s gonna teach me what happens when you dare challenge a Patterico argument, by gum. FOR TRUTH!
Me, I’m gonna watch football and drink a Guinness. Because I don’t give a fuck.
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 8:38 pm #
“you dare challenge a Patterico argument”
fuck gov’t bureaucrats
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 8:39 pm #
fuck gov’t lawyers
Comment by Pablo on 12/10 @ 9:10 pm #
Oh, she’s a lying traitor bitch, that one. I feel her pain.
Comment by sdferr on 12/10 @ 9:12 pm #
I got the business for publishing an e-mail from him without getting his permission first. Most unpleasant. To be an evil wrong-doer I mean.
Comment by Pablo on 12/10 @ 9:17 pm #
I got that business without having done it, sdferr. But I’m just a minion, so what do I know?
Comment by newrouter on 12/10 @ 9:18 pm #
hey does our man patterico ever look into acorn in his bailiwick or does he just hit low level minorities?
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/10 @ 9:31 pm #
This is the state using the “reasonable man” standard. Only instead of a reasonable man it happens to be an unreasonable woman. The reasonable man in this case was the guy who had no clue.
In my work we can’t use the made-up words or jargon that most technical guys can because we might be accused playing with a stacked deck, or worse. So instead of building brand awareness on our new “powerpenetrator 6000″ with “Prostate warming health balls”, I have to say our new electrically heated, vibrating ass dildo with the latex ridges is better than the other guy’s and at least once we’ve had people go nuts over the fact that we weren’t using the “generally accepted definition” of a certain word when we, of course, were and the “generally accepted definition” was, in reality, not really much more than slang usage of a term that had had its original meaning stripped or reversed. Outside of commerce, this kind of thing happens all the time, especially with words like “privlege” and “right”. Once the meaning of those words changes to whatever the prevailing opinion may be we’re all fucked. Same is true with intent, so a monument to war dead becomes a monument to genocide, a golf tournament becomes a mass demonstration against women’s rights, and a children’s book becomes a racist tract.
Comment by B Moe on 12/10 @ 9:37 pm #
I’ll bet he mixes a daiquiri first.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/10 @ 9:50 pm #
Thankfully, bh was around and witnessed that whole thing.
Comment by bh on 12/10 @ 10:09 pm #
For the record, I don’t think, in any way, that Patterico is anti-semitic. As it’s a fairly silly thing on its face you might guess, correctly, that it had to do with the little boy/black guy/dog hypothetical and the obvious correlation to the actually offensive things being said about Jeff.
Again, Patterico is not anti-semitic. Full stop.
And you can’t actually threaten anyone by hanging yourself. Not even figuratively. Full stop.
Comment by Joe on 12/10 @ 10:21 pm #
You can’t make this stuff up, he is a parody of himself.
Comment by h0mi on 12/10 @ 11:36 pm #
If the day after thanksgiving, aka “African American Friday” is racist, anything is racist.
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden on 12/11 @ 12:59 am #
Tiffany Gilmore? Then why do I immediately see Pussy Galore if that’s not her real name? You’d think she could learn how to spell her own name, right?
Comment by MlR on 12/11 @ 1:00 am #
Really good to see you back, for however long.
Ace of Spades, for instance, is a decent substitute, but not nearly comparable. Particularly on the matter of intentionalism.
Comment by SteveG on 12/11 @ 1:10 am #
Is there ignorance without intent?
Anyway, I thought it was an homage to Suge Knight from Tupacs ghost… I mean once the woman pointed it out.
Comment by Mr. B on 12/11 @ 1:33 am #
New speak “racism” is not an exercise in epistemology. Fix the academy = fix the culture = destruction of the left’s hold on the language. End of arguments on the subject.
Comment by Bill M on 12/11 @ 5:23 am #
Tiffany Gilmore is a race-baiting bigot. Because of, you know, the INTENT.
Comment by Danger on 12/11 @ 5:48 am #
“But hey, I know. We’re bored with this, Jeff. We hate friendly fire. Just let it go.”
FWIW Jeff,
What you are doing is redirecting errant fires and pointing out the collateral damage they are causing. Your style is direct but honest. If some people think it is too critical, I could speak in a Seargent Major’s voice making yours seem like a kindergarten teacher.
IRT the Frey/McCain battle, the scripture “Judge ye not lest ye be judged” comes to mind. The scripture was not a commandment against making judgements it was guidance to be careful about the standard we apply in making a judgement about someone.
It matters of determining the intention of a statement it is best to apply a charitable interpretation, especially if you do not have all of the information (context, history, etc) available to make a reasonably certain decision about the statement.
Pat could have e-mailed RSM privately and shared his concerns about the statement thus allowing him to explain his intention but he decided to make it into a big public debate. Am I to apply a charitable interpretation of his intentions(i.e. sincere discussion of racial issues)or should I apply the same level (or lack) of charity he gave RSM, which might lead me to conclude that he wanted the benefit of a big blowout which resulted in lots of attention and hits at his site.
I apologize if that was not very coherant I am suffering from a major league head cold.
Perhaps Dicentra or geoffb could help me out.
Comment by B Moe on 12/11 @ 6:42 am #
I think you said it just fine, Danger.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/11 @ 6:45 am #
I followed you Danger, and I haven’t even taken my pill yet.
Third paragraph from the bottom seems right on to me.
Comment by Blake on 12/11 @ 7:03 am #
Cynn, where are you? Just yesterday you were saying perception=reality.
You should be thrilled that we now have state sanctioned perception=reality.
Comment by BJTex on 12/11 @ 7:57 am #
Bingo! That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking for the last day now.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/11 @ 8:39 am #
And by you, I mean those of you who agree with me, because I won’t allow certain people in here to correct the errors I’m making.
For instance, I’ve heard people say things that sounded racist but were uttered out of ignorance. Which means I’ve heard ignorant people say ignorant things that would be racist if they intended them to be racist, but since they didn’t, they aren’t. Similarly, I’ve heard what I thought were racist statements until I understood the context. At which point I realized that what sounded racist wasn’t racist at all.
And I was amazed!
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 8:52 am #
So, have you returned to Little M Atilla, where we read:
Comment by Jeff G on 12/11 @ 8:57 am #
Hell, I’ve even heard things that could easily be misconstrued as racist but weren’t racist, because there was no racist intent.
Meanwhile, I’ve never heard a racist statement that didn’t proceed from racism — and so from a racist.
Now, naturally, just because you’re a racist once doesn’t relegate you to racist for life. But you were a racist at the time you made the racist statement, because if you weren’t, it would make no sense to call your statement racist. Racist-sounding and racist are two different animals. One has to do with intent. The other has to do with codes, social expectations, etc — all of which are erected to help us communicate our intent easier.
But a failure to communicate our intent doesn’t mean we didn’t mean what we meant. It just means we weren’t successful in getting others to understand what we meant. The fault could very well be ours; but that STILL wouldn’t mean the receiver of our message gets to claim our intent.
Comment by Jeff G on 12/11 @ 8:59 am #
Total bullshit, sdferr.
I told SEK I’d delete his trackbacks on a given subject. SEK misunderstood. And now I’m being defined by that misunderstanding.
There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
Comment by BumperStickerist on 12/11 @ 9:00 am #
lest we think this is limited to blacks — I’ll toss my real-life “I experienced this moment” personally as it applies to Jews.
I served on a statewide advocate’s board and was coming up with some graphics and such for the website. I mocked up a page that had
this image (Safe for work, unless you’re a particular kind of Jew.)
A board member’s comment was that her immediate thought — as a Jew — on looking at that image – which was being used as the bullet for a bulleted list, btw – was that it made her think of Christianity.
To my credit, I didn’t burst out laughing at her. I simply said – well, the golf-tee-peg game is pretty common in Stuckey’s and Cracker Barrels and I’m reasonably sure that people that see this won’t think that we’re trying to convert them to Christianity, given that there isn’t a bit of Christian-y stuff on the site. (it was a special education group – you know – square pegs/round holes, that kind of deal)
She persisted a bit, but more in the sense of justifying her concern rather than trying to, you know, help the group with its mission.
… it was the second dumbest thing I’ve been involved in.
The dumbest one involved a different group that used an image of an adult male holding the hand of a girl – 6 or 7 years old – the image was in silhouette. To me, it looked a father and a daughter walking together. The concern was that it looked the adult MALE was dragging a young GIRL off into the DARK for some BAD THING … and they were very educated people.
Lastly, the Shriners – noted mainly for fezzes and small cars rather than the large multi-state charitable health-care organization they run for kids at no cost to the families – used to have an iconic image:
Story of the Shriner iconic Image
that’s now been depersonalized to this
I don’t know what the *intent* was with the switch … maybe it was to save printing costs.
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 9:10 am #
The argument itself, at least at Pat’s hands, is now veering into re-defining intention space into something bizarrely narrow — the common man’s usage, we’re told — where somehow, (and I’m not entirely clear how this works, so forgive me if I get it wrong from Beldar’s pov) one can utter what I understand to be a third or fourth order statement, derivative in analysis from a racist line of thought, though apparently uttered in ignorance or unreflective speech, and that, we’re told, is to be taken as an “unintentionally racist” statement. Or something like that. I’m going to have to try harder to disentangle what’s going on.
Comment by BumperStickerist on 12/11 @ 9:17 am #
I’m going to have to try harder to disentangle what’s going on.
It won’t work. This issue is a tar baby. In the literal sense of the phrase – an issue that, the more you struggle to rid yourself of it, the more entangled you become.
Wikipedia, though, manages to explode everybody’s head with this passage:
Although the term’s provenance arose in African folklore (e.g., the gum doll Anansi created to trap Mmoatia, the dwarf), some Americans now consider “tar baby” to have negative connotations revolving around negative images of African-Americans.[3]
In recent years, several politicians who have publicly used the term have encountered some controversy, mocking, and censure from African-American civil rights leaders, members of the popular daily media, and other politicians.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
In an interview, Toni Morrison said the following of its use in her book, in an acting of reclaiming: “Tar Baby is also a name, like ‘nigger,’ that white people call black children, black girls, as I recall….
At one time, a tar pit was a holy place, at least an important place, because tar was used to build things…. It held together things like Moses’ little boat and the pyramids. For me, the tar baby came to mean the black woman who can hold things together.”[11]
———————
soooooooooooooooo, if the phrase is used to describe a *situation* – it’s okay. If it’s used to desribe African-American children, “Tar-baby” is racist (and, imo, a dumbass wrong-headed thing to say) –
BUT – if you’re using the phrase while talking about an African-American woman who’s familiar with, and agrees with, Toni Morrison – you’ll get laid. Because then “tar-baby” s a compliment, and chicks like it when you pitch woo at them.
.
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 9:17 am #
If I were to have to produce an example (which I wish wholeheartedly that Beldar had done for me, but whaddayagonnado?) it sounds as though he’s pointing to the use of a stereotype or portion of a stereotype, and I take it, a false stereotype at that, which can be traced back in common parlance to a racist line of thought, but which has become so widespread and long-used– a cliche almost, I guess — that its origins have become obscure to the users who innocently enough, he says, utter it, yet upon reflection apprehend its origin and confess (after the fact of the speech act) that this is indeed a racist statement. Whew! And I’m still only guessing.
Comment by Squid on 12/11 @ 9:18 am #
One cannot help but notice that Frey does very well in his arguments with criminal high-school dropouts and LA Times staff, but less well against educated debaters.
One also cannot help but notice that no matter the words he chooses, his intent is to be an asshole.
Comment by dicentra on 12/11 @ 9:20 am #
Trouble with the “reasonable man” standard is that you’re STILL giving power to the listener to determine the speaker’s intent.
Again, it may be REASONABLE for someone to interpret someone’s statement as racist.
But that doesn’t mean that the REASONABLE interpretation can characterize the statement (or the stater) as racist.
That’s where Pat gets hung up: racist-sounding DOES NOT EQUAL racist. He thinks it does.
Comment by DarthRove on 12/11 @ 9:21 am #
Is it at all possible for lawyers to turn off that mental “lawyer switch” and think like normal people? God, it must be annoying to live your life in a never-ending and non-comedic version of “My Cousin Vinny”.
Comment by dicentra on 12/11 @ 9:22 am #
chicks like it when you pitch woo at them.
…or pitch pitch, as the case may be.
Comment by dicentra on 12/11 @ 9:27 am #
Is it at all possible for lawyers to turn off that mental “lawyer switch” and think like normal people?
My experience? No.
And that’s what cheeses us normal folks off about lawyers: they can’t stop thinking like a lawyer when it isn’t called for.
As for “tar baby,” it’s true that the epithet was (maybe still is) used as an insult against black girls.
It’s also true that it was used to describe a situation such as we found with Bre’r Rabbit, who got more stuck in the tar the more he tried to punch the tar baby.
The second usage is the original one, the first being a sick derivative.
ERGO.
“Tar baby” is a racist slur when applied to people.
“Tar baby” is a literary reference when applied to difficult situations.
QUIT LISTENING TO IRRELEVANT OVERTONES, PEEPS!
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 9:27 am #
“Trouble with the “reasonable man” standard is that you’re STILL giving power to the listener to determine the speaker’s intent.”
Beldar is playing the role of the “reasonable man” against himself ex-post-speech-act, it appears to me.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/11 @ 9:33 am #
“unintentionally racist” is just another way of saying “racist-sounding.”
For something to be “racist-sounding,” it has to be racist sounding to someone.
If we have already admitted that the racist-sounding statement was unintentional, we are now left to either dismiss it as racist, or recognize the reasons why it sounded racist. Which have to do with social mores, convention, etc.
Those things change over time. Conventions shift (who can keep up with the ever-changing “proper” names to use when talking of certain groups). And so if you aren’t aware of the convention, you can say something that may sound “unintentionally racist.” But the fact of the matter is, it was never racist at all. It was simply ignorant about current convention.
To apologize for that is to apologize to those who continually massage the language to manipulate the way people speak. If you must, apologize for not knowing the convention; but don’t EVER buy in to the pernicious “fact” that what you said was “unintentionally racist.” Because there’ no such thing — and acceding to such a formulation will get your vanity plate ripped away by the state.
Comment by Carin on 12/11 @ 9:41 am #
you must, apologize for not knowing the convention; but don’t EVER buy in to the pernicious “fact” that what you said was “unintentionally racist.” Because there’ no such thing — and acceding to such a formulation will get your vanity plate ripped away by the state.
Except, of course, when you’re racist and don’t even know it. Right? Isn’t that the trick they use here?
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 9:44 am #
In sum of my view of what is going on with Beldar and Pat (by his proxy-ish use of Beldar’s example, which is now filling out, by the way, Beldar having — since my last post on the subject — written a new comment) there is more than a little “water muddying” taking place. Rather than reduce the argument to its bones, evermore flesh is being piled on to it so that it begins to resemble Mr. Creosote on the verge of explosion.
Comment by LTC John on 12/11 @ 9:59 am #
“Is it at all possible for lawyers to turn off that mental “lawyer switch” and think like normal people?”
Sure. Perhaps because I am not a trial lawyer anymore, I have to switch the lawyer “on” to think that way. Otherwise I think like any other Midwestern, middle aged, country church Methodist, Blackhawks fan that happens to belong to the National Guard.
Comment by McGehee on 12/11 @ 10:09 am #
Eeny, meeny, miney, mo.
Comment by sdferr on 12/11 @ 10:11 am #
Catch an ex-post-intentionalist by the toe.
Comment by JHo on 12/11 @ 10:11 am #
Which is to say that statism is indeed erected by arbitrary elites, those same elites who would have us believe — which scores do — that what they dispense is a privilege they can then revoke at their whim by further exclusivity and the various proprietary edicts and pronouncements they call public policy. Ironic that the progg suddenly finds such a violation of sacrosanct majority democracy so palatable.
The next time I hear a progg braying about the Constitution and free speech I’ll have little choice but not to take them seriously.
Comment by DarthRove on 12/11 @ 10:14 am #
Sure. Perhaps because I am not a trial lawyer anymore, I have to switch the lawyer “on” to think that way
I am pleased to hear that, LTC John. Which makes me wonder all the more why Patterico insists on using “lawyer mode” in an arena where such is not warranted, if not to ensure that debate and discussion happens in an arena where he maintains an advantage.
Which seems to me to be an argument in bad faith.
Pingback by “Unintentional Racism” and the failure of formalism on 12/11 @ 10:30 am #
[...] In the comments to my previous post, sdferr points [...]
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/11 @ 10:35 am #
When someone uses the “reasonable man” argument they are making an appeal to authority only they are the authority.
In case anyone’s missed it, I agree with Jeff. I think that you cannot claim a statement is racist unless it is made with a racist intent. If it’s made with a racist intent it is made by a racist. That another person can read the statement and think it’s racist is not the fault of the person who made the statement unless the statement was intended to be racist. The reader should be able divine intent from the clues and context of the original statement, if not, there’s always the second order argument from the writer. If the writer’s dead, look at his other works. Look at the historical context. It’s not that hard, it’s inconvenient.
Jeff’s argument with Patterico is important. Not just because it looks to a lot of people, me included, that Patterico was poisoning the well, but mostly because assigning meaning without intent is a road toward totalitarianism. It’s dangerous and it doesn’t matter which side of the aisle is doing it.
For what it’s worth, I don’t read Patterico. I don’t read Stacy Mcain. I don’t care if either one is a racist deep down at heart. I do care about language, logic and reason (and talking vegetables, self defense, the overuse of commas, red pills and dick jokes). Even, and I mean this, even if I do get it wrong most of the time.
Comment by Jeff G on 12/11 @ 10:50 am #
Pat’s promising to write a post “proving” that I called him an anti-semite, and did so seriously.
What’s ironic is, he’s going to have to appeal to intent.
Heh.
Comment by McGehee on 12/11 @ 10:53 am #
Jeff, if his “proof” of that one is on a par with his “proof” about the “death threat,” what he’ll end up actually proving is that he, Patterico, is a Latino Rastafarian.
Comment by Dave C on 12/11 @ 11:42 am #
Maybe it’s my lack of imagination but I had to check out the comments here to see what the plate actually meant and what Tiffany thought it meant.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/11 @ 12:16 pm #
That’s just your unintentional racism rearing its ugly head again, Dave.