Roy of Alicublog doesn’t like us white folk suggesting that when black folk whip Oreo cookies at other black folk, the thinking behind such a display of internecine racial bickering is not only vicious and cowardy, but dangerous, as well. After quoting this bit from my post yesterday
Therefore, it follows that a move away from the Democratic party is tantamount to a move away from black authenticity, a willful act that opens to attack those “race traitors†who have surrendered the protections that proceed from adherence to the dictates of the group’s identity. Which is to say, racial jabs are okay when they are aimed at those who’ve surrendered the protections offered by the group, because those who’ve left the group no longer meet the requirements for protected blackness
…Roy breaks out the heavy-duty hipster irony
This same guy likes to complain about “a culture of political correctness constantly on guard against giving offense,” but when black people throw Oreos, it’s time to regulate!
And… oh, I give up. This is like trying to develop an argument against people who think peppermints are made out of peppers and mints. If you don’t see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms, then I can only suggest a remedial class in Life Itself.
”Time to regulate”? I have no idea what Roy is talking about there,¹ though by dint of his being a mendacious lefty apologist, I’m going to conclude that he’s purposely trying to conflate criticism of speech (which I engaged in, and which he is engaging in) with regulation of speech²—a conflation that happens materially only in the happy land of lefty speech zones and tolerance statutes.
Once you get past Roy’s carefully cultivated technique of dismissing offhandedly with ironic quips what he considers to be frustratingly stupid wingnut blatherings —a rhetorical ploy that seems to go over well in the land of vacuous neo-hipsterism (BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!)—all you’re left with is this: Roy and many of his equally vulgar commenters believe that black racism against blacks is to be dealt with by blacks themselves—and that white folk, who clearly have no stake in the battle, need to mind their own business.
That this argument precisely makes my point about the dangers of identity politics—“racism” is no longer something that can be decided upon globally, but is rather something whose conditions are determined by warring factions within a particular identity group—is lost on Roy, who seems to follow Said, implicitly if not explicitly, by championing a form of identity politics that allows each identity group to make its own rules.
Such hardcore multiculturalism is at odds with the idea of American individualism, and—though self-satisfied progressives like Roy don’t like when we conservative racists point it out—with the idea of a society in which people are judged by the content of their character.
As Salman Rushdie noted recently:
The idea of universal rightsâ€â€the idea of rights that are universal to all people because they correspond to our natures as human beings, not te where we live or what our cultural background isâ€â€is an incredibly important one. This belief is being challenged by apostles of cultural relativism who refuse to accept that such rights exist. If you look at those who employ this idea, it turns out to be Robert Mugabe, the leaders of China, the leaders of Singapore, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini. It is a dangerous belief that everything is relative and therefore these people should be allowed to kill because it’s their culture to kill.
Time to add a few MD Democrats and Roy to that list, as well.
****
related.
****
update For those of you visiting from Alas, a blog, Ampersand’s post has nothing much to do with my take on identity politics, which I have discussed on this site at great length. If you are interested in the subject, do a site search to find some of my more detailed posts, which trace the rise in influence of identity politics from the certain hermeneutic ideas about interpretation into certain philosophical and political ideas which then gain public policy traction.
I’m assuming that since lefties generally want to regulate the things they don’t like, that colors their thinking.
Man, that Boondocks ad is not going to reach their target audience.
What you call “American individualism” I call Evil.
It’s racist to talk about “individualism.”
It’s fascist and mean to poor people too. I call it corporate greed and bad for the environment.
Get in line, Slave. Hate yourself and reality as we do. Otherwise it will be you in the cell in Gitmo, when the Revolution comes and we take Power.
If you don’t see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms, then I can only suggest a remedial class in Life Itself.
At the School of Hard Knocks, presumably.
SB: below
Dive! Dive!
I attempted to related that oreo story to a Dem frind of mine yesterday and the two responses were 1) don’t believe it and 2) if so, it is ok ‘cause it was black-on-black.
I attempted to re-state the Jeff’s earlier points about how that was not a good defense and completely failed to convince.
Then to make things worse I mentioned changing my registration to indy. That went over well.
Boy do I suck at political conversations.
This&That: Official ‘wingnut’
Hey Crackers:
How dare you quote Salman Rushdie? Are you Muslim? Are you Arab?
You wingnuts are so racist, you don’t even know it!
…
Unless of course the causcasian in question is Ted Rall calling Condi a House N****r, then it’s a-ok.
YAHTZEE!
There’s political correctness and then there’s throwing shit at a guy because you disagree with him.
Furthermore, the Oreo thing does not challenge an orthodoxy, it enforces conformity. So Roy is wrong, the Oreo throwers ARE ‘politically correct’.
That peppermint comment is clearly some sorta jab at those American Indians that have jumped the reservation.
But Jeff! You didn’t get the point! He’s SMARTER than you are! You know how we know this?–he FEELS smarter than you! And because he’s smarter than you are, he’s also MORE INTELLIGENT!
I suggest you give up blogging, and resume only after you’ve taken that class in “Life Itself.” And make sure to tell us what grade you got!
I wonder if those who justify black-on-black race-baiting are willing to justify black-on-black crimes such as murder, theft, and rape. Because who are we pale folk to JUDGE it?
’All you’re left with is this: Roy and many of his equally vulgar commenters believe that black racism against blacks is to be dealt with by blacks themselvesâ€â€and that white folk, who clearly have no stake in the battle, need to mind their own business.’
No, actually what we think is this: it isn’t racist for one african-american to smear another using racist stereotypes or words anymore than it is for gay guys to make frequent use of the word homophobic epithets or anybody jewish to invoke and play with jewish stereotypes. Words are simply words. When person a says ‘x’ it can mean ‘x’. When person b says ‘x’ it can mean ‘~x’ or ‘fuck the people who call you x’. And when the word ‘x’ has widespread delusional meaning applied by group a against group b, groups a and b are both part of the word and are pretty much inescapable when using the word.
On a philosophical level, I could point out that you have a deeply mechanical view of univeralism if you think that it’s a mark of a relativist to assign different meanings to the same word. But why bother? It’s obvious everyday that words may be self-ironic, smug, glib, insincere or whatever. The words may hurt, annoy, or ice over real problems. Whatever. But the battle you seem to think is being fought is only in your head mate.
“I wonder if those who justify black-on-black race-baiting are willing to justify black-on-black crimes such as murder, theft, and rape. “
I wonder how long it’ll be before that’s the intermediate step to excusing such behavior because…
Gak. I can’t even make myself write it out, the thought’s so vile. For this Rev. King marched and died?
TW: ‘simple’. Yes. In the end most basic moral issues are simple indeed, friend computer.
What is with “Progressives” throwing food at those they disagree with? Talk about babies….
PS: Jeff better watch out, I’m going to nail him with a gallon of white milk sometime. My skin pigmentation is similar to Jeff’s, so it’s ok if throw shit at him.
I can only imagine the degree to which someone would have to have had internalized racial stereotypes to put himself through the kind of mental gymnastics required to come up with an explanation that convoluted in order to justify the kind of behavior we’re talking about.
TW: “Means”. Paging Mr. X on the, uh, “melanin deprived” courtesy phone.
The Rushdie quote reminds me of a post I saw at Harry’s Place the other day. In it, Brent Scowcroft–of all people–is quoted as saying this:
Scowcroft was referring to the Middle East, but his attitude shows just how little appreciation for freedom some Americans possess. Lulled by the illusion that, as long as things look okay on the outside there is no need to ‘rock the bus’ by stopping to let anyone else aboard, he is a poor representative of humanity, indeed.
Clearly, freedom has been wasted on Scowcroft. Perhaps he’d like to relinquish his seat and give it to someone who’ll appreciate it–Michael Steele, for example.
Thomas,
Be careful about the argument you’re making when you start with Jeff. He’s knowledgeable and passionate about the subject of language.
Your comment sounds reasonably intelligent, if not thought all the way through, until the very end. This battle is being fought outside of Jeff’s head, which is why you’re here in the first place.
I’d be interested to hear you and Jeff debate the topic.
Hmmm.
Ok enough with the heavy thinking. Now let’s get to the real issue!
So if I, a half-asian/half-American, became a race traitor, what kind of cookie would I merit? Is there a sliding scale? Any chances for promotion? Would I start out as a wafer and then perhaps move up to an almond cookie?
Where are the standards dammit!
What’s the difference between an oreo and a n*gg*r lover?
Calling Steele an oreo is no different than the southern epiteph hurled at white civil rights supporters. After all, it was just whites dealing with whites . . .
And it is equally distasteful. One would hope that this tactic would be recognized for what it is. A reach to ad hominem, a refusal to address actual issues, a display of gross intolerance and an appeal to hatred.
SB – ‘first’, as in, this isn’t the first time this tactic has been used.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff Goldstein
So if it’s ok for Democrats to throw Oreos because they think Steele is an “oreo”, then is it also equally ok if I throw fruitcake at them since I think they’re “fruitcakes”?
Frankly I think they’re on the losing side of that argument. My Aunt’s fruitcake is considered a lethal weapon in at least three states.
And that’s if you eat it. Imagine if you chucked it at someone!
sw: “believe”. Ya gotta believe in magic; man.
Hold on a moment, isn’t the whole “x” in this case an accusation of being too much like us melanin deficient folks? I mean, those of us that can’t claim specific African heritage are being insulted are we not? Or are we supposed to not pay attention to such things because we have this pigment issue? Even if such a person is pursuing a life of public service which presumably represents those who are not just black?
Just as a litmus test can we get a nod that throwing things at someone is wrong? Or is this justified because of the man’s politics?
Leave it to a multicultural sophisticate brimming with nuance and ten dollar words to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT OF THE POST. The message being sent to Mr. Steele is clearly racist and is meant for him to be perceived as such: by dint of the color of his skin, he is not to be permitted to hold certain intellectual or philosophical positions and by holding such positions, deserves ostracization from the group who have the same skin color. Racism is but one form of determinism, the same determinism that relegated Jews and Gypsies to a—shall we say—subordinate role in Nazi Germany or a Tutsi baby to the tender mercies of a Hutu machete. Determinism and its offshoots like racism are antithetical to the individualistic—and I’ll add, as Jeff did not use this exact term, meritocratic—ideal of American society.
Did you ever consider that your argument is a bit elitist, as well? A few influential members of a societal sub-group pronounce a fellow member a race traitor and suddenly non-members must accept this verdict as binding and eternal? Never mind asking the rest of the sub-group: that reeks of the bourgeous notions of democracy and elections. Next thing you know, those roly-poly burghers will be imposing rule of law, due process, and *shudder* property rights without consulting the sub-group’s leaders.
Can I throw watermelons at environmentalists?
(You know, green on the outside, red on the inside.)
CHICKENN*GG*R?
Personally, I’m not interested in seeing Thomas and Jeff debate language use.
I’m aware that Christopher Isherwood proposed that gay men should just call each other “queers” (“after alll, that’s what everyone else calls us, behind our backs”). But he was specifically advocating what he called “verbal judo”–using a word often enough to take some of its power away. (That’s why I wince when I hear a black person using the euphemism “n-word” for “nigger.” I want to scream, “you’re giving the stupid word more power!”)
But this sort of use–and ironic use–is pretty clear in context. Photoshopping someone as a minstrel, throwing Oreo cookies, referring to a black member of the administration as a “house slave” (or whatever) is all simply designed to shut down debate when the subject is not conforming. And, of course, to do it in the nastiest, most hurtful way possible.
The fact that people are justifying it just takes my breath away.
If you don’t see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms…
I…I don’t. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!!!
You’re a racist! That’s what!
Whoever says it, it still hurts. I may be white, but I’ve had my shoulder cried on by a black friend when someone has said something racist to her like that.
“So if I, a half-asian/half-American, became a race traitor, what kind of cookie would I merit?” Ed, that would warrant you at least a twinkie thrown at you, but maybe even a banana if they really hated you.
Personally I’m going to embrace Roy’s post and start throwing Fig Newtons at any white person I see listening to rap music. Since apparently the standards of my own identity group are up to me.
Wait a minute, so peppermints aren’t made from peppers and mints?
Next you’ll be telling me that wintergreens aren’t made from … umm, winter and green.
ed: apparently you’re a Twinkie.
That’s why I wince when I hear a black person using the euphemism “n-word†for “nigger.†[emphasis mine]
If you don’t see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms
One of these things is just like the other, isn’t it, Attila Girl? Shouldn’t we be working toward an “everyone, or no one” solution to hurtful epitaphs?
Of course I meant epithets. Stupid preview only works if you use it.
Actually Little Miss Atilla, he’s being consistent. The only thing consistent on the left these days is hate.
TW: labor. ”Labor union thugs.”
ed, Do you even have to ask?
Fortune cookie silly!
(the American part of you doesn’t count until it’s at least 16/17ths, using the Ward Churchill rule)
How rapidly we moved from the idea in hate crime laws that crime between ‘races’ is worse than crime within a race, to the place now where crime within a race is to be considered the purvue of that race alone. Forget the idea of individualism that this country was founded on, and nevermind Kings admonition that it is the content of the character of the individual we are to be concerned with, because now we have new rules. Someone tell Bill Maher, maybe he can put it in his next book.
Never mind, preview’s nice, but how about a delete?
The phrase “time to regulate” is just a figure of speech. It’s slang. It means the same thing as “time to lay down the law”. I doubt he’s talking about actual legal regulations.
We injuns that didn’t stay on the reservation are “apples”, red on the outside, white on the inside. Let’s get it right here!
Actually I think Rushdie was just quoting me. :p
BTW, what about Jewish Republicans? What’s our food?
Don’t we get points for not racially insulting the Oreo-throwing dissenters by calling them articulate and well-spoken?
PEPPERS AND MINTS! LA LA LA LA
it isn’t racist for one african-american to smear another using racist stereotypes or words anymore than it is for gay guys to make frequent use of the word homophobic epithets or anybody jewish to invoke and play with jewish stereotypes.
What complete, utter bullshit.
If I, a pasty white guy, take a picture of a black man and draw a minstrel outfit on him, I’m racist; if you, a black man, and do the EXACT SAME THING, you’re not racist?
Jeff – everything you’ve said about language, political correctness, and such, is absolutely true. If the above doesn’t prove it, I don’t know what does.
TV (Harry)
That pretty much nails it.
It’s sad (pathetic, horrifying) that some of the AfAm elites are so much more concerned with party affiliation than with actual progress within their community—or in race relations—that they will aggressively and savagely torpedo any one of their own who does not spout the accepted boilerplate language.
(Opens fortune cookie) “You’re a traitor to your race in bed.”
Well, I vote to ban the pernicious term “AfAm” from the PW lexicon as being to cute for words. If you want to do the race-identity thing, please spell out “African-American” in full.
And yes, TeREEza does count. Africa’s a continent, not a race. But then America’s a country, so how much sense does the whole thing make?
SB: other
have some fuckin’ RESPECT, boy!
You’ll have to forgive him for cricizing your post, Jeff. He didn’t know you were Jewish.
Hey Thomas, can you define “african-american” for me? You said:
If I am 1/64th black but appear white to the naked eye, am I black enough for the purposes of your argument above? How about 1/16 black? How about half black/half white like Halle Berry? Is she black enough? What if I’m half black and half Vietnamese, but raised by Russian immigrant parents in the Pennsylvania dutch country of rural Iowa? Am I still black? When is it ok for me to call Jesse Jackson a ni**er, do you think?
Or maybe – just maybe – skin tone is a stupid measure of anything. Maybe ‘cultural heritage’ is also a stupid measure. Maybe we could all just be human and not judged nor insulted by the color of our skin, the language we speak, or the enviroment in which we were raised. That sound good to you?
A smarter man than I said it much better here.
You… you probably think you get spearmints from mixing SPEARS and MINTS!! LOL
(Wait… I just said spears… does that make me a racist…? FUCK. No, no, lemme think, lemme think… I voted for Nader in 2000, Kerry in 2004… I’m from a Blue state, I hate Bush and all he stands for… I’m familiar with the work of Nate Dogg and Warren G… I’m cool, phew.)
Joe:
“That’s why I wince when I hear a black person using the euphemism “n-word†for “nigger.†”
“If you don’t see the difference between Caucasians doing these things to African-Americans, and AfAms doing them to other AfAms.”
One of these things is just like the other, isn’t it, Attila Girl? Shouldn’t we be working toward an “everyone, or no one†solution to hurtful epitaphs?
Yes, we should. That is Jeff’s point. Context is important, though, so we don’t misjudge irony.
But if we cannot discuss the word “nigger” as a word–if a black people, especially, cannot bring himself to utter it in a discussion about linguistics–we are granting undue power to those who do misuse it: we increase the shock value when someone hears that word. This helps no one.
Nigger. Airheaded blonde chick. Wop. Spic. Kike. Mick. Chink. Gook. Jap. Trailer trash. Wierdos with family from Nebraska farmland who say “warsh” for “wash.” [I worked myself in here twice!]
The problem lies not in the words, but in how they are wielded. When the intent is to humiliate someone into silence, it’s a big fucking problem. Okay?
This is profoundly obtuse. There’s a middle ground between doubting one’s own judgment (or, better, doubting the eminently questionable judgment of a rightward blogger), and believing there’s no objective vantage from which we can denounce murder.
When did ‘not politically correct’ become synonymous with ‘offensive’? They shared some territory originally, but it was more telling about the ‘correct’ than about the offensive. Another subtlety flushed down the drain of popular culture.
Jack Roy —
The Rushdie quote is being used to speak to problems inherent in the animating principles of a multiculturalist political paradigm—which principles conspire (in my estimation, through certain invalid linguistic maneuvers) to deconstruct notions of inalienable rights under the guise of group empowerment and collective autonomy.
The idea that whites can’t speak to black on black racism, crime, etc., follows from the same kind of thinking that, logically, leads to the kinds of things about which Rushdie speaks.
Roy, can you help us by defining ‘African-American’ in clear terms so that we know who is and who isn’t? That’d help a bunch.
Thanks.
If my fellow white devils ever get mad at me for being race traitor, I hope they throw foot-long Cold Cut Combos from Subway, on parmesan oregano bread (hold the tomatoes). That’d be sweet.
Hi, Jack. I assume that you regularly make it a point to denounce “honor killings” among Muslim groups, since you’re so concerned with the distinction between merely persecuting people and outright killing them? (A distinction that’s become awfully subtle in certain times and places.)
I’d rather have the turkey and swiss, but I’ll take Doug F.’s tomatoes.
The problem lies not in the words, but in how they are wielded. When the intent is to humiliate someone into silence, it’s a big fucking problem. Okay?
Absolutely, AG. My point here is more along the lines of who gets to determine the insult (the intent). Why is acceptable (or at least not racist) for a black man to call a white redneck, or cracker, or honkey, but it’s not acceptable for a white man to use nigger or other racial insults towards blacks? Is it the history of usage or the intent that decides? If blacks refer to each other as nigger (or whites refer to each other as rednecks), how can either parties claim offense at the other if they’re using the very same word?
In addition, if we designate some words as protected, and only permitted to be used by the group it describes, aren’t we Balkanizing ourselves into ever smaller and more petty differentiations? That whole viewpoint baffles me. I may not have a solution, but I don’t think requiring party affiliation by race, as Roy advocates, is helpful.
Why fight black-on-black racism when it’s really no trouble at all to add another box to the choices on forms: Asian-American, Hispanic-American, Native-American, Euro-American, African-American, and Oreo/Minstrel-Republican?
We should just accept that the Dems OWN blacks and are fighting hard for their uncivil rights.
Life Imitates an SNL Garret Morris Sketch:
<a href=”http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76rblackperspective.phtml” target=”_blank”>Black Perspective</a>
n.b: In this sketch, ‘Julian Bond’ is lighter skinned than Garrett Morris.
If a white man calls a black man a nigger under the cover of anonymity, is he still a racist?
tw: man-> invisible
A little under a year ago on the campus of the Philadelphia area university that I attend, in an effort to boost student participation in politics, the school held a public debate between the officers of the College Democrats and the College Republicans. The president of the College Republicans at the time (no longer as he now holds the position of president of the student government, and school rules say you cannot be the president of two activities) was black. All other participants in the debate, on both sides were white.
The debate was fairly hostile, as were most events surrounding last year’s presidential election. At one point, the college republicans president, having already made a speech on the point, was asked if he had anything to say to refute one of the CD’s arguments regarding homeland security and terrorism. The CR’s president smiled and said that it was ridiculous that he had just heard his own words from before repeated back to him.
The white CD president interrupted and asked, “As ridiculous as a black republican?”
The crowd responded with vociferous applause.
I have to dissent from the drift in this thread that equates usage of “oreo” (the word or the actual cookie) with the word “nigger” as racist. The problem with such an equivalence is that it conforms with the concept of politically correct language, turning “name-calling” into crime (racial and ethnic insensitvity as “hate crimes” and hostile workplace legislation)–one step removed from thought crimes.
I read Jeff’s post (and the earlier “Racing with the Moon(bats)”) as a dissertation on how the continuing appeal to group-identity politics is ruinous to the American cultural heritage of individual liberty. (Liberty being the absence of coercion.)
What is unfortunate about the political left’s PC-language police effort is the urge to impose upon society, via (legislation or regulation) “hate crimes” and speech codes, that which they reject–morality, i.e. standards of right and wrong, the ideas of virtuous conduct, shame, and modesty, et. al. as culturally endorsed traditional norms of individual behavior.
That the left has endorsed the post-modernist perspective of cultural relativism is not news, and thus, we should never pause in pointing out pernicious outcomes such as the approval of bigotry, however “justified”.
On the recieving end of hurtful comments as a child, I was told the old saw, “Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Needless to say, this old saw is a two-way street on childish behavior: as name-calling “never hurts me,” the use of name-calling demonstrates child-like immaturity.
It seems that not only are a number of adults acting like children (name-calling and throwing cookies!), while others are as thin-skinned as children in their reaction to the name-calling. The offensiveness in all this is the child-like immaturity of the double-standard justification for “inter-clan” bigotry.
Offensive behavior is not eliminated by “banning” the useage of “oreo” or nigger (or other non-PC behavior) as such behavior ultimately finds an alternative outlet. And the banning steals us of our ability to disgrace and condemn, of public opprobrium, diminishing the morality-based traditions in our culture.
Only by “shinning the light of day” on such pernicious views as the Balkanizing “it’s a black thing” argument, can we can we inform, and ask, our culture to reject such arguments, and reject on the basis of morality–of right and wrong.
Korecshun:
Only by “shinning the light of day†on such pernicious views as the Balkanizing “it’s a black thing†argument, can we inform, and ask, our culture to reject such arguments, and reject on the basis of morality–of right and wrong.
I get the whole peppermints aren’t made from pepper and mints argument (although I wonder if he knows that peppermint is also a plant that can grow?). And that blacks calling blacks nigg* and women calling other women c*nts and rich kids wearing John Deere hats is all ironic and fun. Hey, I’m fun, I know fun.
If Roy is advocating that the way Mike Steele is being treated is the same as the black/black “Hi Nigga”, it would have to be true that the persecution of Steele is a parody of how racist whites have treated black people. It would have to be an ironic persecution, not an actual persecution.
But this is real live persecution, with all the consequences our society at one point sought to eliminate. And the only irony is that while those of us that took Life Itself 101 were learning to see people as individuals and internalizing the unintended consequences of tossing out phrases like ‘you people’, those teaching the course were developing the groupthink that would eventually define race itself.
So yeah, I need the remedial course.
Bacon Lettuce Tomato nails it.
Is there a such thing as a paper-bag Oreo? Would that be the same as a Nilla wafer with creme filling? Or do you have to buy one of those off-brand, $1.99 muticultural “Neopolitan” cookie packages to encompass the whole arsenal of anti-Uncle Tom ordinance?
Well, Thomas…?
Thought so. RACIST!
Allan Bloom said it here:
Sometimes the United States is attacked for failing
to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to
impose “the American way of life” on all people
withouth respect for their cultures. To the extent
that it does the latter, the United States does so in
the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good
of all men. But it’s critics argue that there are no
such truths, that they are the prejudices of American
culture. On the one hand, the Ayatollah was initially
supported by some here because he represented true
Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating
human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam.
His critics insist that there are universal principles
that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of
the U.S. in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah
in the name of human rights, are the same person,
which they often are, they are persons who want to eat
their cake and have it, too.
I thnk there’s a distinction to be drawn between saying, “there ought to be a law against doing what you do,” and merely pointing out, “man, you are one suck-ass bigot!”
Jeff,
Personally, I don’t care what one blogger thinks about another blogger. Blogging is not the real world; it is like an alternate reality. Stick to commenting on what is going on in the real world. Bloggers bashing bloggers is like Hollywood stars trashing Hollywood stars. Who cares unless it involves hair pulling?
So, you are black and you think Democrats are the party that represents you?
Are you a black independent thinker? A Successful black entrepreneur? Do any of your ideas differ with the Dem\lib\socialist agenda?
Yes? Well welcome to the Uncle Tom club. You, as an independent thinking Black American should call yourself Sambo; a simple minded uppity asterisk. These my friends are the realities of the Democrat party.
Liberal reaction to people who think the Uncle Tom’ing of black conservatives is offensive tells it all.
As Allidiotscublog said :
This gives the lie to the left. The attempt to marginalize this as a black on black prerogative or even as sanctioned by blacks unveils the true allegiance libs have to race. They don’t necessarily like the color but they love the victimization.
Yeah, they love black people so much that they put a rich white doctor in charge of the DNC, one who didn’t seem to be able to find any blacks to work along side him as governor.
Hmmm, logic has never been the libs strong suit but hypocrisy, lies and race baiting sure are.
Like BLT I too am concened about knowing if someone is “black enough” to make rcial slurs against republicans.
I think the left needs to start using words like “Octaroon” and “Quadroon” again to make sure.
Tankerboy —
I think if you look close enough at the post, you’ll find more to it than bloggers bashing other bloggers. It’s got a bit of Rushdie, a bit on how cultural relativism leads to anti-individualism and public policy that establishes and encourages such, and a bit on how many on the left have embraced a particular multicultural worldview that leads to the kind of logically incoherence that underpins much of the progressive agenda.
The blogger bashing other blogger portion (which I prefer to frame as my responding to the criticisms of my position by someone who views the indexing of racism differently than do I) is simply an occasion to launch the post.
Bloggers are public commentators that debate issues. During the debate of such issues, public commentators with different takes on issues come into conflict, and advance their position, even to the personal detriment of the other. Without said conflict, there is barely a reason to blog, as the entire enterprise is based around critique.
Thus, your above-it-all posturing is nonsensical horseshit.
holy cow, you guys are tools. just for starters, “regulate” is a common rap parlance that comes from the nate-dogg, warren g song of 1994.
As for the post itself and your responses… jesus… just… jesus…
A common question to low-level musicians who perform their own songs is “Is that a real song or did you just make that up?”
So I guess in the blog-o-sphere now the question is “Is that a real opinion or did you just make that up?”
(and as for the first question, since I really didn’t want the philosophical responsibility of determining the reality of a song, I would usually confess I just made it up)
Yeah, exasperating, isn’t it. I mean, it’s like, just, man — you know?
Dude.
What about Jesus? If you got something to say, say it to my face or face the brimstone-filled wrath of my daddy, Holmes.
Regards,
Jesus
Seriously, Jeff. Your self-righteous dudgeon and writing defy parody. I used to think it was funny watching right-wingers try to get their minds around pop culture, but this is just pathetic.
I guess in a world where “heh, indeed, read the whole thing” passes for intelligent commentary, someone who can coin a phrase like “piss flinging” stands tall. Congrats.
You know what is funny? Watching vapid air-heads trying to pose as intellectuals, fucking always cracks me up. Especially when they start talking about the significance of pop-culture.
Truth to power, dawg. [raised fist salute]
BECAUSE OF THE CULTURAL IRRELEVANCE!!!!
Isn’t vapid air-head kind of redundant, b moe?
Anyway, I’m not trying to pass as an intellectual. I just find it amusing how right-wingers consistently misunderstand pop culture references.
Perhaps pop culture is a barren wasteland and the mark of a true intellectual is not knowing anything about it and thinking an offhanded reference to an extremely famous rap song means government regulation.
You know what else I find amusing? Farts.
Stay cool, protein wisdom.
That’s “dawg” as in “desperately seeking pop cultural relevance”, not as in “oops, I mispelled ‘dogg’”. But I suspect Nate-Dogg, being the kewl ironic hipster that he is, already knew that. “Hipster” being cool ‘50’s slang for “gangsta”.
Who is
John GaltJonas Gumby?Will do. And you stay gold, pony-nate-dogg.
Totally.
I see, like how people who are absorbed in pop-culture consistently misunderstand damn near everything else, kinda sorta.
Oh, now I see. The oreo cookie-flinging is a pop-culture reference!
You’re right, I don’t get it.
But seriously, expecting all people to be fully exposed to all pop-culture, whether they are interested in that pop-culture or not, is ridiculous, regardless of political affiliation.
I find it consistenly depressing and amusing how individuals like nate-dogg hide behind the emptiness of some pop culture construct in order to not have to speak to the issue at hand.
When “ jesus… just… jesus…” is offered by nate-dogg as thoughful commentary as he simultaneously chides Glenn Reynolds for saying “heh, indeed, read the whole thingâ€Â, can we regard nate-dogg as having put forth a creditable plea for rational inquiry?
Isn’t a lot of valuable time being wasted by piling on nate-dogg? Time that could be used to rip the French a new asshole?
Those French are smelly. They’re smelly and French. They’re smenchy.
Taste the rainbow of my white bread on French bread racism!!!!
…make that CREDIBLE plea.
Let’s ease up on a brother, shall we? I mean, nate-dogg seems to think recognizing a rap music lyric is the height of pop-cultural conversance. So very Snoop. The fucking W.A.W.A.
Whereas, even somebody like Martha Stewart knows that tribbing, or riding a home-made rubber-tipped sybian, are what the real underground cult queens are onto. And she’s white as Camilla Parker Bowles’ ass.
Ooh, that IS nice. Not hip, but nice. (Does it still count, then?)
OK, it’s still not clear:
Who can throw cookies at who? Because I have to start hurling these Nutter Butters or I’m gonna eat ‘em.
ed:
If by “half-American,” you mean “half-white,” then this generally translates to “asian enough.” White blood is common enough in America that any mixed ethnicity qualifies you as the non-white ethnicity.
But to answer your question, Twinkies would be thrown at you.
You can throw those right over here. Gently, though—they’re not so good when crushed on impact.
Cute, Jeff, but no one’s saying that. They’re saying you’ve got it wrong, not that multiculturalism precludes inter-racial commentary of the sort you’re hoping for. I think being skeptical of multiculturalism is a fine thing, myself, but you have to be careful that such skepticism doesn’t lead you to the other end of the spectrum where you don’t doubt your own perspective at all, and start making unwarranted assumptions. For a good example, look at Atillagirl’s comment—self-assured, confident that her opponents condone persecution, and utterly senseless.
On what basis are they saying I’ve gotten it wrong? I mean, they can say it, but what’s their evidence?
I’ve laid my arguments out in a series of posts on this subject that deal with the intersection of multiculturalism, linguistics, “diversity,” and postmodern philosophy. Those posts stand as the warrants to my assumptions. In response to which, Alicublog’s argument is…what, exactly?
Your response to me in two comments now has amounted to this: don’t be so sure. There’s a chance you could be wrong.
Yeah, so? I read Rorty too. Either argue with my assertions or don’t. But pointing out that they could potentially be wrong is hardly worth mentioning, is it—particularly in the course of a debate?
Personally, I would reserve Twinkies for gay homosexuality traitors, but only in memory of Harvey Milk.
Of course, an exception may be made for Senator Feinstein, who should have Twinkies thrown at her as often as possible.
I don’t get whats going on with roy that is “hipster.” Is that because I’m not a hipster?
“The behavior of self-appointed black leaders toward black conservatives does not constitute persecution, because I say it isn’t.”
–Jack Roy
Okey-doke. You believe what you want to believe. Just don’t be too shocked when the world of reasoned discourse passes you by.
Isn’t “extremely famous rap song” an oxymoron?
I still want to know if these are real opinions or if you guys just made them up.
[…] I’ve spent a lot of energy on this site detailing how underlying ideological assumptions — which I believe are necessarily driven by certain linguistic ideas (some of which have become so entrenched in our institutional rhetoric that they are difficult to discern, and even more difficult to weed out) — manifest themselves, in most cases, in predictable political affiliations. […]