Must One “Intend” To Be Racist to Say Something That Is Racist?
Short answer: no — but the statement does have to be the product of racist thought. You should not get called a racist for a completely innocent comment that you did not intend to be racist and that has no roots in racist thought.
Beldar has an excellent comment from the last thread that is worth reproducing here in full. I will emphasize the parts I think are particularly important:
Anyone of any race who denies having ever had racist thoughts is a liar. Anyone who expects us to believe that he or she has never had racist thoughts is a fool.
From time to time — but infrequently — I have made racist statements. They’ve been the product of racist thoughts. I didn’t intend them; I was surprised when I replayed them in my mind’s eye and realized that they were, indeed, racist. They reflect something occasional within myself of which I disapprove, and that I am committed to change or, failing that, to suppress, or failing that, to promptly acknowledge and apologize for.
Identity politics — of which I profoundly disapprove, but which are universal in today’s American life and the preferred ideological mode of the Left and the Democratic Party — are most often what sparks the stereotyping that in turn leads me into racist thoughts and statements.
My acknowledgment that I have had racist thoughts or made racist statements is not equivalent, however, to my being, on a regular and thorough-going basis, “a racist.” That’s a label that needs earning before it’s applied.
Beldar makes two very important points: 1) making a racist comment does not mean you are a racist, and 2) you need not “intend” to be racist to be racist.
As for the first point, that is why I was careful to say that I was not calling R.S. McCain a racist. Some across the Internet made the claim that I had — simply by saying he had made one racist comment! — but I did not. The people who made that claim either did not read me carefully or are liars.
As to point 2), there are just a lot of instances where it just makes no sense to say you “intended” racism. Unless you’re an unabashed racist, few people “intend” racism. To use the word “intend” in that fashion is just not how normal people talk — and if you insist on talking about “intending” racism, you’re going to lose a lot of people who think just like Beldar and I do.
HOWEVER —
However, for a statement to be racist, it does have to be the product of racist thought. We can all agree that it is unacceptable to judge someone a racist for comments that are not the product of racist thought in any way.
What I think concerns a lot of conservatives is the idea that they might say something completely innocent and yet have it misconstrued as racist because of the listener’s reaction. I have never endorsed that (although people who do not understand my arguments have accused me of it) — because I have had false accusations of prejudice happen to me, more than once.
One example I can’t discuss because it relates to work — which is why I sympathize with R.S. McCain’s complaint that he could not defend himself against allegations of racism while he was at the Washington Times. I get it.
Another time, I lashed out at a blogger who, in my opinion, was creating dishonest controversies to boost traffic whenever it looked like money was running out for him. I never said a single word about his Jewish heritage, so imagine my shock when he then wrote that I was calling him a “money-grubbing Jew opportunist.” (It’s not important who the blogger is, since this is about the ideas and not the personality. If you must know, you can click the link here and keep reading. To make the irony as rich as possible, this blogger actually habitually rants and raves about this tactic of playing the group identity card — when it’s played by others.)
It is precisely this sort of invocation of one’s group status to declare oneself a martyr — in the face of a totally unprejudiced comment — that should indeed concern conservatives. Again: I get it. It’s impossible to face down false accusations of racism or anti-Semitism and not understand it.
However, I am not convinced R.S. McCain falls in that category, personally. I have read his response and am just not impressed by the argument. (Nor am I impressed by the victim status he claims. Did you know I “hijacked” the whole Internet to convene some kind of inquisition? And here I thought I was some guy with a web site criticizing a statement by some other guy with a web site! I never knew the power I had!)
I am, however, pleased that he finally addressed the issue directly, and I think it will be to his benefit to have done so. Because some will accept his argument, and others will at least see that he is no longer being evasive. Which is a good thing. Owning your own words is what bloggers should do.
And I think the entire discussion is worthwhile, because this topic is coming up more and more in this wonderful post-racial era we are enjoying with the Barack Obama presidency.
P.S. DRJ will be out the next couple of days, and I am still crushed at work, so unless Karl or Jack Dunphy comes to the rescue, this is all you’re getting out of me for a while. Feel free to bitch about the fact that I’m writing about this again — but please also understand that I am as bored by such comments as you are by the posts. Who in real life voluntarily walks into a group discussion just so they can declare the discussion stupid? Why is such a nonsensical action suddenly respectable because it’s done on the Internet??
P.P.S. Cassandra understands me well. After days of reading dozens of comments from people who don’t — and who ignore what I say — it’s a pleasure to read someone who is paying attention and understands.
I do.
Dr. K (eca563) — 12/11/2009 @ 4:37 amYou’re absolutely right on this. People are excoriated for saying things they in no way intended to be insulting or demeaning or racist but were taken as such.
There’s far too much sensitivity, which I believe is the reaction too far the opposite way of what used to go on.
I know at work, I am careful to edit everything I say/do, and if there’s any doubt as to how someone will take it, I keep my mouth shut.
JEA (cfcb76) — 12/11/2009 @ 5:36 amI think that you would find this an interesting take on the discussion. Rather than trying (and probably failing) to explain it, take a look at Daffyd on Big Lizards
Sabba Hillel (153338) — 12/11/2009 @ 5:53 amOh no – metacommentary!!!!
Here’s one way of looking at it: tribalism is an instinctive part of human nature. We evolved in small groups, always suspicious of “the other”. Racism is merely a part of that instinctive xenophobia.
But, we don’t have to be a slave to our instincts. We can rise above racism, if we try. The real problem with identity politics, which politicians have been practicing for a long time, is that it wallows in xenophobia, and can be destructive to a larger society, which contains many different groups of people.
The only way to end racism is to stop thinking in racial terms.
JayC (20201c) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:01 amI meant to say rather than mytrying (and probably failing) to explain it, take a look at Daffyd on Big Lizards
Sabba Hillel (153338) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:08 amYou know what people say in real life when people like you do that, Dr. K? They say: so what the hell are you doing here in the first place?
That’s what they say.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:14 am“The only way to end racism is to stop thinking in racial terms.
Comment by JayC”
If only everyone got this simple and important point. Race isn’t real. It’s amazing how much power it has.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:28 am#7 Dustin:
Years ago in Columbia, I was talking to a pair of Columbian soldiers. After one of them left, the other said to me, ‘Those mountain people aren’t real bright,’ and proceeded to tell me all the reasons that the people from the highlands (who apparently have more Indian blood than those from the lowlands) were inferior.
Be damned if I could tell them apart.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:42 amPatterico wrote,
The first point is indeed one I tried to make and with which I entirely agree.
I might state the second point differently, although I suspect Patterico and I are in basic agreement. Intent, both subjectively felt (sometimes called “actual intent”) or inferred by outsiders, is a tricky and hard thing to discuss.
I am satisfied that overall, over time, and at my deepest core, I am generally successful in my conscious efforts to avoid making judgments of individuals and groups based on race. My intention, in general, is to avoid being “a racist.” Consistently with that, I likewise generally intend to avoid thoughts that are racist. Moreover, I generally intend to avoid communications or actions that are racist — whether viewed either from an objective, outsider’s position or as viewed subjectively on the basis of my purely internal intentions and understanding.
Despite those good intentions, I sometimes fail in making good on them: That is to say, despite my lack of intention to make judgments based on race, and indeed despite my intention not to make judgments based on race, I sometimes find, to my dismay, that I’ve done exactly that. I’ve (sometimes) had racist thoughts; I’ve (less frequently) made racist statements; I’ve (even less frequently, and I think very rarely indeed) engaged in racist actions.
Thus, hypothetically: It’s difficult, but not entirely impossible, for me to imagine myself thinking: “I personally react to these images [of interracial couples] with an altogether natural revulsion.”
(Note: In this hypothetical, I’m deliberately recasting the quote into something different, and much worse, than R.S. McCain wrote when he said “a number of perfectly rational people” might so react; as has been repeatedly pointed out and should be forever stipulated, he did not say that was his own personal reaction, nor did he defend or associate himself with the “perfectly rational people” who might so react.)
Continuing with that hypothetical: I’ll further grant that it would be possible to have this recognition of revulsion without simultaneously thereby intending to make a conscious judgment based on race. (Leave aside for now whether that’s “natural” or not.) Nevertheless, even if I’ve never expressed the thought aloud or in writing, even if I’ve never shared it with anyone, even if I’ve never acted on it in any way, I would have to concede in this hypothetical that I have indeed made at least a necessarily implicit judgment of some sort based upon race. That’s true even if my judgment was entirely subjective and internal, with no outward manifestation.
(“Revulsion” means my hypothetical judgment was a negative one. I might instead hypothesize that I had a natural but positive judgment upon being presented with images of interracial couples — e.g., sympathy or admiration to the extent, for example, that I identify with or approve of a couple who is unwilling to let the bigotry of others affect their romantic choices. Is that also “racism”? I don’t think so; the judgment isn’t based on race, but rather is based on how some people react to race; and my disapproval of bigots who actively ridicule or attack interracial couples would extend to whites, blacks, or anyone else who did that, regardless of their own race.)
If I go further: If I hypothesize that I say aloud, or write on my blog, that “I personally react to these images [of interracial couples] with an altogether natural revulsion,” then regardless of my subjective intent, I’ve made an objectively racist statement. That statement [note again: this isn’t what McCain said, it’s changed to be much worse in this hypothetical] is objectively racist even if I was lying.
If I go further: Suppose I hypothesize that I’ve called a white employee of mine into my office and said to her, “You’re dating a black man. I find that revolting. You’re fired.” Okay, now I’ve engaged in an objectively racist action. Regardless of my internal, subjective intent — and certainly regardless of whether it’s “natural” or otherwise excusable in some way to experience revulsion at the sight of an interracial couple — any fairminded and objective person, watching what I’ve just (hypothetically) said and done, ought to agree that I’ve committed a racist act.
Indeed, if I defended that action and persisted in it, or if I repeated it, then at that point an objective observer would have ample grounds to doubt me if I continued to insist that I’m not a thorough-going, systematic, dyed-in-the-wool racist.
It’s precisely because I intend not to be a racist that I’m upset on those occasions when I’ve nevertheless made mental judgments of people based on race. It bothers me when I find myself judging based on race, even if it’s only inside my head. It bothers me far more when I fail to filter such thoughts and they escape into spoken or written form. And taking action based on such judgments would bother me even more.
So yes, I am entirely convinced that it’s possible to have subjectively racist thoughts, and to make either subjectively or objectively racist statements, and to undertake either subjectively or objectively racist actions — and to do so not only without necessarily being a thorough-going racist, but to do so with no conscious and deliberate intention of having made judgments based on race as part of the process.
And indeed, it’s precisely the unintentional, unexpected, but still racist thoughts, speech, and actions that I fear most from myself. Those are the ones I’m far more likely to make. Those are the ones that may not be so obviously pernicious (e.g., “Asians are natural math wonks”), but they’re still judgments of a sort that I’m trying to avoid.
Beldar (33a5e4) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:02 amI respect Belder. Btw, can you tell Beldar to write something on his damn blog. its been like 2 months. we miss him.
But like i said, i respect beldar, but it is simply not correct to say everyone is racist. and it hasn’t been historically true either. You would doubt me saying i am not, but how about me watching my nieces and nephews? they are utterly unconcerned about race. i’m not saying they having noticed differences in pigmentation. I am saying they really don’t care.
And i will differentiate between conscious and unconsious racism. of course being revolted by the sight of an interracial couple is wrong, but it can also be so deeply ingrained you can’t help it anymore. Being in an “interracial” marriage, i think i can say with unique authority that i consider it unfortunate but forgivable.
Look, i have said it before but alot of families are like mine. My grandparents were racists, but thankfully mostly kept it to themselves. So for instance I never asked my wife to meet my grandmother. By then she was my only surviving grandparent. I knew she was very likely to be ugly toward my wife. I remember her once complaining about the Cosby Show and when i expressed that i liked the show, she said, “but you wouldn’t want to marry one of them, would you?” I said more or less, if i loved her, sure. So then in a statement that was not only appalling immoral but also poor science: she argued that then our children would be white but they would be in danger of having black children with another white spouse; in other words she thought that skin color was an all or nothing proposition in a classic dominant/recessive configuration (think like that monk’s bean plants). Demonstrating at the age of ten that my morality was much better than my scientific understanding, I said, “Well, if their mother is black, I don’t think they would have a problem having a black child.” Yes, embarrasingly, I didn’t know enough to know that the basic scientific premise of her argument was wrong. Now I have never asked her what she felt about my wife’s exact racial/ethnic background, because frankly I decided i would rather not know. But I doubt she had anything good to say about her people.
So given all of that, and given that my grandmother had advanced alziemers by then, chances were 1) she wouldn’t even know who i was when she saw me (by that point she thought I was still a little child*), and 2) fifteen minutes after I left she would never remember i was there. So my logic was, “it was pointless to see her anyway, and it was pointless to expose my wife to a potentially ugly situation. She literally wouldn’t remember it even happened.” i mean there was not even the potential for growth. Even if i convinced her to be accepting of my wife, 15 minutes later she would forget the conversation and default back to her previous attitudes. So she never met my wife.
On the other hand, my parents had unconscious racial attitudes. They knew this was wrong, but I genuinely think they couldn’t help it.
And then there is my generation which is generally not racist.
And then there are my nieces and nephews who are oblivious to race. i am sure they will learn about it as an issue eventually but i how we can keep that going as long as possible.
Now of course it would be a mistake to think that this is universally true; there are some old fogeys who are enlightened, and young skinheads. But i think it is a fair notation of how our culture looks these days. the point is that there is a swath of people around my parents’ age who were raised as racists and figured out it was wrong. But to some degree some of that residue lingers and so what are we going to do? Disown our parents? Say they are bad people? They are trying their best, what do you want from them? That’s my attitude anyway.
—————–
* I said my grandmother thought i was still a kid. at one point my mother quizzed her to try to figure out what year my grandmother thought it was. This was back in 2003. She said that my grandmother thought it was 1991. I said, “well, what do you expect? She turns on the TV and sees George Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell all talking about kicking Saddam’s ass. Its confusing.”
I should mention that i have been raised to find the humor in every situation.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:05 amDunno — who in real life picks up a decades-old, out-of-context quote and demands its author “prove” he’s not a racist?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:06 am11, Rob, I’ve seen many lefties do just that. Scour the record for a comment out of context they don’t like and try to tar and feather the person who uttered it.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:14 amMr. Crawford (#11 – 12/11/2009 @ 7:06 am): I’m pretty sure that Patterico has never “demand[ed that McCain] ‘prove’ he’s not a racist.” You’re using quote marks around a single word. Do you have a full quote and link? Or are you, as I suspect, putting words into Patterico’s mouth?
Beldar (33a5e4) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:15 amWho is to be the judge of which remarks are made as a result of racist thought and which aren’t?
Anwyn (a130c1) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:15 amRob Crawford, you’re the one leveling charges now. Can you back them up?
I don’t think you can, and I think it’s clear you haven’t bothered to read what Patterico wrote. He didn’t demand RSM prove he’s not racist. He found an obviously racist quote, and while noting that one racist quote did not make a man a racist, sought confirmation it was accurate and some explanation for it.
That confirmation has finally been made, and the explanation finally been given. If you can find where that happened before, free of the implication that the quote can’t be trusted, post a link. If you can find where Patterico demanded anyone prove they aren’t racist, post a link. Otherwise, please stop making a polite and intelligent discussion into a dumb attack.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:16 amOh good grief.
SarahW (692fc6) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:21 amWho wrote “There are White Folks, and then their are ignorant Motherf*****s like you”
in his best selling book???…umm can’t remember the title
Hint: He won the Nobel Peace Prize.
No, its not Jimmy Carter or Yasser Arafat.
Frank
Frank Drackman (c2d1a4) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:21 amI get what Beldar is saying in comment 9. I’m not sure I’d say it all the same way, but it’s an interesting view, and certainly at odds with other theories I have seen on these here Intarwebs.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:22 amLet us take three people.
One is unabashedly racist and makes racist comments;
The second is a racist who avoids expressing racism;
The third is not a racist but on occasion may make a racist comment.
Now we know what is socially acceptable. But can we look at what is going on in those peoples’ heads? If the theory that thought and speech are inseparable is correct, and the evidence is that it is, then the first and third person are, at the very least, guilty of fuzzy thinking, and the second has a clear and disciplined mind. What say you?
nk (df76d4) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:33 amVery interesting. I like this explanation.
I think that where some of the problems begin to occur is that some people who “know” they are not racists allow themselves to overreact when someone like Sharpton says things that stereotype a whole class of people. For example, some people, rather than simply stating something along the lines of “I know that label doesn’t fit me or most people I know” will jump at the opportunity to point out example after example of Sharptons or Dukes of the world prove racism is not exclusive to specific races. To others this sounds defensive and as if they are making excuses and only inflames an already heated topic.
voiceofreason2 (8e6b90) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:47 amThe recent episode with Tiger Woods showed another type of behavior I see on the internet in particular which is some will use it as an excuse to throw out the phrases and stereotypes they wouldn’t likely say in “real life”. In turn that heats things up and overshadows the more responsible and reflective discussions some such as Beldar and Patterico engage in.
nk, it’s very challenging to answer that.
While I say the quote in question is racist, regardless of the intent (unless the intent was satirical or the quote truly out of ‘it’s not like I mean this’ context). Perhaps your ‘fuzzy thinking’ and undisciplined race speech (and perhaps thought) is more accurate. I think non racists who make racist comments are simply too stupid or sociopathic to understand that they are fucking the world up a little bit. The racist who doesn’t express his hatred is seemingly aware he’s out of step with culture, and has forfeited the argument to culture. I really don’t have much problem with someone like that.
The arguments got really ugly, and I think too much of what I read was how we couldn’t trust that Mccain had even written this, we were relying on evil sites for the charge, etc. That this was not the way to treat a friend, a betrayal, etc. We were arguing about motives instead of merits. Was the evasion similar to nk’s man #2 who knows he’s got the unpopular view and simply keeps it to himself? Finally, though, RSM explained why he wrote this in careful and polite fashion.
These charges were brought up before (by LGF when he decided to start attacking everyone and prove Palin consorts with white supremacists or something), but unlike then, RSM now had to face an intelligently rigorous and thoughtful look at the commentary. With LGF, it was pre-concluded RSM was a white supremacist (anyone defending RSM was simply banned), and never really analyzed in a compelling way. The stigma attached (partly because RSM didn’t see fit to answer to an asshole), and battle lines were drawn, and I don’t think this conversation really occurred. Now that he’s faced serious scrutiny, it’s clear that he said a downright mistaken thing, but in an effort to have candor and make an intellectual point. If you loved him the whole time, obviously this back and forth didn’t make him look any better, but to me, it is more clear that the best case available against RSM doesn’t justify treating him like a racist or a pariah or anything like that. He implied misquote and questioned motives, which I thought was lame evasion.
He’s totally unapologetic about his attempt to discuss racism, because he never endorsed any of the views that he strangely described as unracist. He has a couple of other stupid comments on his (very distant) record we’ll never get a full explanation for, but really, after all this digging, the worst of it, in my opinion, is that he earnestly made a really bad argument years ago and didn’t own it.
It’s a shame it took this long to really dig into what LGF considered proof of white supremacy and see it’s something much less sinister. Those who stood by his side and got angry to even see this brought up in a fair environment do not have any reason to gloat about this. Stop acting like there’s something to hide. I’d be much more deeply annoyed if RSM hadn’t already paid a drastically steep price for the comment. Perfectly natural and not racist to feel that revulsion? That’s not right or cool. But I don’t think that’s a clear insight into who RSM is, except that he’s fallible.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:48 amIt is a sad fact of life that humans are not computers and cannot handle all the data they receive about others intensively, taking each one all by itself. Instead, we’re forced to generalize and categorize. It’s handy to put people, at first blush, into a pigeonhole – a stereotype. It helps us process the information.
So when I see someone at a distance I make a quick first impression on the basis of their clothes (waistband down around the knees? Gangbanger. Buttcrack showing but flannel shirt? Plumber. etc.) As I get closer or engage them in conversation, with each additional experience, I add data from their accent, vocabulary, attitude, body odor, you-name-it. And then I have to add all those things to my database of character traits.
Sometimes our database is too small in some areas. So if I have only met a dozen black people, and they all happened to be problematic examples, with a racial chip on their shoulder and an impenetrable urban accent, that’s what I’ve got to work with. If the only people I know from Kentucky happen to fit the NPR stereotype of trailer house, low education, hillbilly, etc. then I’ll make initial judgments on the basis of that.
So HERE is what a true racist is: someone who either a) prefers to deal only in the stereotypes and refuses to add any new information to his database, or b) someone who sees all the new information about an individual who violates his stereotype and still refuses to change the stereotype (that’s the “some blacks are OK” type person).
When Beldar has a momentary racist thought, it is an act of intellectual laziness. Sometimes it’s just easier to condemn people in batches, like the French Revolution, than to bother to think of them as more complex and individual. Like it’s easier just to blast away in a comment posting than it is to craft a carefully balanced reply.
(I would go into the moral and theological implications of all this, but I don’t want to foist too much of my own ideas on everyone.)
So… does this help advance the discussion?
Gesundheit (5c938e) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:50 am“Who is to be the judge of which remarks are made as a result of racist thought and which aren’t?
Comment by Anwyn — 12/11/2009 @ 7:15 am ”
That’s the thing. You have to be pretty egregious before folks are justified to believe what’s in your head. It’s more productive to look at whether a comment itself is problematic than have an actual witch hunt.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:51 am#18 nk: I am not so convinced that thought and speech are inseparable, otherwise we wouldn’t hear “But he was such a nice man/woman!” from the neighbors after the bodies are discovered in the backyard.
That said, more important to me is how to handle them? Since I won’t tolerate racist remarks/behavior, the first will be challenged to change his behavior or our interactions will terminate.
The second doesn’t behave in a racist manner, which has the effect of internally negating his racism. No problem.
The third will be challenged as the first, and if truly not a racist, may make a more conscious effort to communicate what he really intends.
In real life, I know of at least one instance where challenging the first resulted in a reevaluation of his racism.
Challenges to the speech of the third kind of individual are often met with a sheepish acknowledgment and more thoughtful speech in the future.
It is the racism of the second individual that is most interesting, in that it is not self-perpetuating. For example, my grandparents were racist bigots but kept it to themselves until my parents (and I) were adults, consequently that racism died with them.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:53 amWhat is the legal definition of racism? Absent a legal definition you have a shifting playing field with your “enemy” setting the rules by which you must live.
To people who pull that trick on me and accuse me of racism or sexism or any other ism of that ilk for a simple act if discrimination on merits I simply proudly declaim I am a racist and walk away. Scroom.
I’ve been told I’m a bigot when I say I (a female) am no more interested in marrying a female than I am in marrying a mutant buffalo making me both sexist and speciesist. If you net the other bozo set the rules, you lose, if you lose if he wants you to lose.
Are you, an experienced lawyer, letting this befall you?
Given that it’s other people making the definition and they have hair triggers when they get upset with me I admit I am a racist. That does not mean I will fail to recommend for employment the best qualified person I can find for a job regardless of externals. In point of fact I’ve done that and she quickly became a manager in an engineering department after being hired as an engineer. I’m proud I hired this brilliant young woman, who happened to be black from the Virgin Islands. But, I am still a racist. I admit it so I can get down to the real business at hand.
That does not mean I won’t pick the best qualified person to marry or partner with. If I am going to live with somebody we have to share common ideals. I’ve noticed over the 65 years I’ve been alive that I have more in common with the set of people which happens to be mostly white fellow engineers who are brilliant enough I can respect as well as love them. Gee, that’s discrimination. I’m a horrid “ist”, I suppose.
I let somebody call me that all they want. Then I consider what this reflects on the source of the criticism. I am also a “stupidist”. But to those who decry every act of discrimination is racist the result follows. I figure they are all “automobile-ists” because they seem to pick fancy cars and not the first random thing they find for sale.
Even my cats are racist er foodists. They turn their noses up at some kinds of food. Discrimination is a very “living thing” sort of action. Trying to make it criminal is about like trying to make CO2 illegal, assinine on its face.
{^_^}
JD (847e52) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:54 am#23 EW1: Of course, my intolerance of racism makes me exactly what the Left accuses me of: Intolerant. (‘It’s their culture!‘
And I’m okay with that.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:55 amBy the way, “racists” as a group are ALSO a part of our database. So we might tend to say that so-and-so is a racist because they said something that other racists we’ve known also said. Maybe I’ve only known one really obnoxious racist in my life (my brother-in-law for instance), but if you use one of his pet phrases, no matter what your reason, my first judgment of you is not likely to be positive.
Example: You hear someone say, “Some of my best friends are black.” What’s your first thought about the speaker?
Fortunately, we DO (or should) have the ability to hold a judgment in a tentative way, waiting and listening for more information to confirm or deny our original impression. That is what prevents us from making racist conclusions. But if we’re in a hurry – or if we’re on the defensive or in the heat of argument – we may not wait for more information. Then it’s shoot first and find out who the person really is later.
Gesundheit (5c938e) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:56 am#20 Dustin:
It’s a shame anybody gives LGF any credence whatsoever anymore.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:58 am“What is the legal definition of racism?”
JD, that does seem to be a problem. A lot of people seem to have very limited definitions. I think they know implicitly that racism is considered outrageous, so have added in some racism barrier that has to be broken before racism occurs.
I think any time you give a shit (make judgments on the basis of) what someone’s race is, that’s racism. Of course, then a lot of things that aren’t worth getting upset about are racism, and racism is not always outrageous (but always stupid). like voting for a president because you simply want a black man to be president (aside from the social benefits of demonstrating equal opportunities). I’m going to think that idea is stupid and racist.
I’m not going to put words in mouths, but that’s not the definition everyone is working with.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:00 am“It’s a shame anybody gives LGF any credence whatsoever anymore.
Comment by EW1(SG) ”
Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I’m pretty sure this controversy persisted precisely because LGF oversold it, creating this idea that giving it any consideration is giving GF credence it doesn’t deserve.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:01 amWho is to be the judge of which remarks are made as a result of racist thought and which aren’t?
The thought police.
Official Internet Data Office (0a4bf0) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:10 amIt is pretty scary when the government starts entering these discussions. I know some folks think they should.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:13 amOh for Pete’s sake is right. This whole kerfuffle has been juvenile, sophomoric, childish, and any other demeaning description you can think of, and it wasn’t Robert Stacy McCain acting that way. Give me an answer to my question because! I will continue to post about you until you do! I will engage in incredibly silly posts about “does saying one racist thing make you a racist” and other ridiculously simplistic conversations! And then I will whine about how no one is correctly interpreting what I’m saying.
The Patterico Keystone Kop Thought Police Squad. You’ve embarrassed yourself in my eyes at least with this childish nonsense Patterico. I’d expect this kind of silly personal grudge match – and that’s all it ever was, no matter how much you say otherwise – on Balloon Juice or some other arrogant piece of crap blog, not here.
Who will give in first in the test of e-peens? Patterico or Robert Stacy McCain? I’m glad we spent a week figuring out just who is more passionate about badgering someone about something stupid until they give in and give you what you want. The one thing about this blog that is awesome is that Patterico doesn’t go into prosecutor mode very much. You had it on 110% and broke off the switch with this totally contrived RS McCain bullshit.
At a forum I post at somewhere on these intarwebs there’s a saying for head-butting like this: “Take it to PM (private message).” Take it to e-mail Patterico, where it belongs.
chaos (7ec2b0) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:30 amLOL
Putting up a quote and asking if people think it’s racist and not saying who it is from and then going “Gotcha! It’s from RS McCain! What do you think now?” is hardly intelligently rigorous or thoughtful. Maybe you’re referring to Patterico refuting arguments from McCain supporters that an eight year old could tell were invalid. But that’s not intelligently rigorous or thoughtful either, it’s knocking softballs out of the park.
The idea that this was examined in a thoughtful way is side-splitting. Patterico demanding McCain explain himself and batting around the bad arguments of the McCain defenders and generally being a hard-ass badgering prosecutor hardly constitutes thoughtful analysis. Mountain out of a molehill, railroading, pissing contest, we got it all here.
chaos (7ec2b0) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:35 amI think it’s a little disingenuous to say RSM is better for having defended himself without acknowledging that he is worse off in many ways as well. This series of posts perpetuates the RSM=racist meme, the conclusion of which requires a lot of background and investment for new readers to understand, especially compared to the sledge hammer accusation.
d-day (8bb92f) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:39 amOf course, there are many people who are not bigots in any way. They just think that everyone is inferior.
Actually there are two (sic) groups in the world, those intelligent enough to agree with me, those unintelligent people wh disagree with me, and those too stupid to understand my (obviously correct) arguments.
Sabba Hillel (153338) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:43 amThe only thing that should make him look worse off is the quote itself, and rightly so. The rest is a contrived head-butting match cooked up by Patterico and imposed on McCain by Patterico.
Are you trying to say that Patterico isn’t a paragon of truth and justice in this situation? You must have “misunderstood” him.
chaos (7ec2b0) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:56 am“especially compared to the sledge hammer accusation.
Comment by d-day ”
Look… stop charging RSM with being a racist, then. The only people bringing that charge up are his defenders. And maybe a very small number of his critiques.
He’s much better off having owned and explained this than he would be for not owning and explaining this. And believe me, it’s not just the readers who decide his credibility. It’s got a lot to do with how willing people with reputations in the blogosphere are to associate with RSM. I honestly think people were avoiding him because this simply wasn’t settled or even owned, despite the Colmes interview.
It’s unfortunate that it requires a lot of thought to understand where RSM is coming from, but that’s really on the author. It’s unfair to the rest of us that we can’t criticize bad arguments when it’s a fair cop, or because people will conflate ‘this looks like a racist quote and a bad argument’ with ‘tar and feather this white supremacist jerk’. It was unfair for RSM to be judged guilty by a pack of asses, but that was Charles Johnson’s doing. Read over Patterico’s treatment and compare it to LGF’s.
Best case scenario would have been for this discussion to take place a while ago, not for it to simply be ignored.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:56 amchaos, you say Patterico isn’t truthful. Directly.
Please back up your accusations. You seem to have a problem with people criticizing others out of turn, so I know you’ll be happy to point to some lies so that we know you’re being honest with us.
You say Patterico and Mccain had a head butting match, which obviously means they had a series of written disagreements. What are these blogs for, if not that?
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:06 amComment by EW1(SG) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:53 am
EW1(SG), could I take it one step further? When I went into high school, my IQ was 145. When I came out, it was 133.
Can you be dumbed down by being forced to accept ideas, in order to do well in society, that you do not naturally entertain?
nk (df76d4) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:14 amThese charges were brought up before (by LGF when he decided to start attacking everyone and prove Palin consorts with white supremacists
In 2006, a book entitled Donkey Cons was published, co-authored by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. (Vincent got top billing.) Vincent went on to help Sarah Palin with Going Rogue in 2009. Robert Stacy McCain did not write anything with Sarah Palin. Lynn Vincent did.
But apparently in the view of a certain pony-tailed dude, if Lynn Vincent co-authored a book with Robert Stacy McCain, that could be used to smear Palin by association with Robert Stacy McCain, even if Palin had no association with Robert Stacy McCain, and she didn’t. It was association with someone who associated with Robert Stacy McCain. Now the task was to find bad stuff about Robert Stacy McCain.
Official Internet Data Office (0a4bf0) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:16 amIt’s precisely because I intend not to be a racist that I’m upset on those occasions when I’ve nevertheless made mental judgments of people based on race. It bothers me when I find myself judging based on race, even if it’s only inside my head. It bothers me far more when I fail to filter such thoughts and they escape into spoken or written form. And taking action based on such judgments would bother me even more.
I would argue that it’s your reaction to thoughts like this, rather than the thoughts themselves, that defines who you are as a person.
Which just points up the idiocy in pointing to an isolated statement or two, insensitive/racist/insufficiently condemnatory or not, as “evidence” that one is a secret racist :p
Cassandra (b137c4) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:19 amYeah, that’s right. I didn’t even bother explaining it because it was just too stupid to care.
LGF is the #1 annoying left of center blog. What do you expect from such an aggressively nasty blog? Also, Robert Mccain wins an award for his reporting.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:20 amracial, and racist are different.
Any discussion that in any way involves race is racial.
Hating people because of race is racist.
The love of my life is black and I’m white, but when I see interracial couples I kinda wince, not in horror (as the quote seems to imply) but out of concern. I know what it’s like to be a part of an interracial couple.
I read the quote as other peoples inability to accept the “other” into their brood, they want to but they are concerned about it, and don’t know how to react.
I can understand people being put off by accepting someone outside of their understanding of normal. How would you feel if your daughter fell in love with a muslim, and to make him happy your daughter started wearing a veil?
Is that racist? Or are you just concerned about her?
Whenever the next generation, or in fact any member of any personally protected group (family and friends)accept an “other” that we don’t understand, we immediately respond with dislike.
And if you say otherwise you are a liar.
I’m not saying it’s right, or whatever, but watch your son grow temple curls, and become a fundamentalist jew, and tell me that you aren’t in some way dissapointed, or be a jew and watch your child become a mormon, or gape as your daughter dons a burka, and tell me that even though it is their choice, you yourself likely suffer horror.
That doesn’t make you a racist, or a religious fudamentalist or a cruel person, it makes you human.
That is how I read stacy’s quote. I think he wrote it poorly, but you are latching onto one quote to smear him, and one quote that someone who actually lived in the cross racial world can easily understand. Walking down the street with the love of my life, I wasn’t a hawk, I was a murderer, the ugly looks and comments she and I received being a white guy with a black woman turned me into a weapon.
What stacy summarized is not at all uncommon, it’s a fact, and I got the worst from blacks.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:28 amI think it’s a little disingenuous to say RSM is better for having defended himself without acknowledging that he is worse off in many ways as well. This series of posts perpetuates the RSM=racist meme, the conclusion of which requires a lot of background and investment for new readers to understand…
*sigh*
No, this series of posts does NOT perpetuate the “RSM=racist” meme. It examines it in great detail and concludes there’s nothing to see here.
So how, exactly, is Stacy worse off? Is he worse off b/c even people who (for whatever reason) think that even if the statement was objectionable that didn’t prove Stacy is a racist? Wow. That’s a novel interpretation.
I read his post. It’s quite good, and makes anyone who tries to misquote him look distinctly foolish.
There are no guarantees in life. We’re not insulated from the stupidity of others trying to tell us what we really meant. Stacy didn’t have to respond/clarify, but he did. Saying, “OMG! We can’t mention what’s that’s right in front of us for fear that someone, somewhere might not come to the correct conclusion!” strikes me as problematic at best. It’s intended to shut down conversation, which only tends to make people think there must be something very wrong since we’re not allowed to talk about it.
The fact is that anyone who brings this up again will have to rebut a well written post by Stacy who is, after all, the most authoritative expert on what he meant :p
He’s a big boy and did a good job of defending himself. End of story.
Cassandra (b137c4) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:30 amstacy has flaws, and while he and his sycophant engage in racial baiting, I don’t think they are racists.
I think they are thumbing their noses at people who obsess over it.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:33 amBTW, did you ever watch “Clerks II?”
That Kevin Smith? What a Racist!
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:34 amand don’t get me started on quentin tarantino.
RACIST!
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:35 amThere’s an interesting discussion at Little Miss Attila http://littlemissattila.com/?p=11826#comment-20712 and could I get some of you to partipitate while I get some lunch and look after the kid?
nk (df76d4) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:39 am41 was replying to 39
Cassandra, idiocy? To think someone is racist for posting a racist statement or two (to paraphrase your hypo)? It’s not idiocy, it’s just a leap of faith that is very ugly to express without more evidence. Leaving this specific case aside, you said we can “define” people by how they react to their thoughts. At the very least, it would be hard not to define someone who screws up 2 comments like this as someone who reacts poorly to their inner views. You say this isn’t evidence, but it is evidence (to use your term) that is simply very inconclusive.
What’s my point? Writers should expect that everything they write is evidence about them, and if they make a bad argument, they can be criticized and misunderstood. It’s really, really, really easy to misunderstand someone when you’re asking them to explain themselves and they are evasive and attack the integrity of the critic, and exaggerate the conclusions of the critic beyond ‘this statement, whether you said it or not, is racist’. You can’t blame someone for misunderstanding you when you’re refusing to clarify the point for them (unless they are being ridiculously ugly).
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:40 am“12. Rob, I’ve seen many lefties do just that. Scour the record for a comment out of context they don’t like and try to tar and feather the person who uttered it.”
Many conservatives do it too.
JEA (cfcb76) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:41 am“Short answer: no — but the statement does have to be the product of racist thought.”
Is your short answer some type of “novel legal strategy”?
Such as,
American citizens are on notice of better alternatives to the disparate practice of thought and choose to ignore those alternatives, they will be exhibiting “deliberate indifference” and “intentional disregard” demonstrating intent and can therefore be held accountable for injuries that result from their actions.”
chercast (502adc) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:41 amby the way, I only read stacy for his anti CJ links. I think he is a mediocre writer, and his defenses are weak, and his stances are convoluted and at the end empty.
I don’t like his blog, don’t know about the guy himself, never met him, but in his writing, while he gets RACIAL! he isn’t racist.
My biggest concern is one of his contributors “porche manque.” I think is his name.
That is the most racist thing I’ve seen of his writing, or contributions.
Letting someone riff out on “porch monkey.” would have made me quite unhappy when I “ran” my own little group blog, even though I had one member declare himself a “racist” (search through ace)
porch maque while engaging in nose flipping racial comparissons, is WAY different from a bunch of “tards” agreeing that we are all “racists.”
key to satire seperate yourself from it.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:44 amstacy should ditch porch manque, HE I think is a scumbag.
nk, I would, but last time I tried to comment on her blog it was several hours and several blog posts before my comments were approved (if they ever were, though I bet they were). Trolls and spammers suck, and I understand the need for moderation, but it’s just too damn painful to have a back and forth when all comments appear in a blast two times a day. Might as well debate by mail. Probably not her fault at all, and I admire bloggers with comment sections.
Same reason I only left three comments on RSM’s blog.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:44 amIt did a while for my first comment to be approved, Justin, but all the following ones were put up immediately. Won’t you please give it a try?
nk (df76d4) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:46 am“they will be exhibiting “deliberate indifference” and “intentional disregard” demonstrating intent and can therefore be held accountable for injuries that result from their actions.”
Comment by chercast”
I think you get it. Professional truck drivers are expected to take extra caution to avoid accidents. Professional writers are expected to exercise regard for this issue. If they don’t, they are criticized when something they say is interpretable as racist.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:49 amIf you use moderation then comments are purely egocentric.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:50 amdustin, that quote is from a a series of e-mails and closed server discussions.
The person who published them published them without stacy’s permission, and without context to the entire discussion. (context isn’t just the whole statement, its the whole discussion)
I don’t know if stacy is a racist, I don’t think he is, but THINK is the key word, but the “proof” that he “IS” is meaningless.
BTW the reason Stacy is even being discussed is because CJ wanted to attack palin, because her assistant, and editor and in some ways ghost writer once worked with stacy.
CJ wouldn’t give a damn about stacy if he didn’t collaborate with a co-auther, who co-authered a book attributed to palin.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:54 amnk, I’ll go take a look. I’m kinda annoyed about her tone earlier, but I guess that’s no reason not to discuss it.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:55 am#37 nk:
Oh, I think so.
Just look at Democrats as a whole for an example.
Of course, the obverse would also be true. But we also get into the hair-splitting of whether an idea can be forced upon someone or not.
In my confronting a racist southern cracker and telling him his behavior was unacceptable to me incident of many years ago, it was a liberating idea for him~not one that was “forced” on him: although the consequences of not changing his behavior would have been uncomfortable.
On the other hand, several older acquaintances who have had stellar careers in the sciences are now shedding IQ points hourly as they become more besotted with the orthodoxies of the Left.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:56 amThis isn’t a partisan thing. I fully support the opinion that bucchanaan is an anti-semite, and a borderline retard in many ways, while being a rhetorical genius.
But I don’t give one damn about buchannaan. If he was dying of hypothermia I MIGHT, and only MIGHT consider setting him on fire. I hate that man.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:56 am[…] most recent “racism” entry is this, wherein he quotes a table-pounding assertion by blogger Beldar — who I love like a […]
"Race" Face | America Watches Obama (4ab9a2) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:02 amYou are all denounced and condemned.
JD (0d395c) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:09 amCassandra, I think my #48 missed your point to some extent, not that I don’t stand by what I said.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:12 am48, JEA, what you are objecting to is telling the truth about your far left radical friends who haven’t changed one whit. Not only that, JEA, you hate it when their entire quotes are brought to light to show what evil people they are.
Case in point, Van Jones. When his quotes from 1999 about the killing of Police Officer Faulkner in Philadelphia by Mumia was broadcast destroying his ability to stay in the Obama Abomination, you had a hissy fit, didn’t you. You couldn’t refute it because it is true, and Jones didn’t back off those words one bit.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:35 amFWIW, I think everybody is racist. I think it’s in our evolutionary programming. Distrusting people from other tribes was more likely to lead to the survival of our ancestors than trusting them.
The test should be if and how this innate racism reveals itself in our behavior. A person who recognizes patterns of racism in his thoughts and keeps them from translating into his actions is a better person than someone who simply denies his racism and is oblivious to how it affects his behavior.
V the K (a99f44) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:36 amPatterico
i am personally checking out of the debate, and for your own sanity, i would consider doing the same. I think its been played out. those who were convincable were already convinced and now we are just talking past each other. that’s just my opinion, but there you go.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:40 am@ Dustin – I’m just trying to figure out where the whole intent thing is coming from, and then reflect on what that means to me and my kids as American citizens. Of course, others have different ideas of intent, I’m all for free exchange of ideas. Whether or not I agree with others on intent, I certainly want to understand what the current law and momentum behind that is. In my opinion, Americans have very limited information in the current times. We are having to be very resourceful in putting together a semblance of an accurately reasonable picture. Perhaps that is just life.
chercast (502adc) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:59 amActually, “racism” may – over time – become so internalized, that it may not be recognized as “racism” as such anymore.
For example why are “black” people “black”?
Why does it make sense to describe someone who has seven white great grandparents and one African American great grand parent, as “black”.
Tiger Woods is an example. He is far more “something else” then he is “black”.
The reasoning goes back to the “one drop rule” of old Southern racists. We have adopted the racist reasoning of the old South, internalized it, and now use it without questioning it’s reasoning or whether or not it’s appropriate – or even racist.
Mike Giles (af4371) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:12 ami am personally
The science is settled?
Thanks patterico.
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:14 am“Not only that, JEA, you hate it when their entire quotes are brought to light to show what evil people they are.”
Sorry, never said that. I hate when either side does it. Such remarks are almost always taken out of context and purposely distorted. Are there some that are valid? Yes, there are, but it’s far more common that they’re not. But people would rather hear sound bites like “hiding the decline” and “death panels”.
PS. I live in the Philly area, and Mumia is a cop-killer. Never understood the liberals’ defense of him any more than I understood their defense of Polanski. He’s the perfect example of someone who cries ‘racism’ to excuse a vile crime.
JEA (cfcb76) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:32 am@65,
I think you’ve got the right attitude about it. It’s not really fair that I, a person who doesn’t honestly care about race or prefer one to another, has to take heed to not offend people. There’s nothing immoral about me accidentally pissing people of, is there? Depends on your ethical foundation bla bla bla.
No matter what, to get along in this world, I have to try not to offend people. I can’t sing a Kanye West song with the N word in it (my skin is lighter than black) without getting my ass kicked. Not that this affects whether RSM made a mistake.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:46 amOh good grief.
Comment by SarahW
zaugg (6b8b3b) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:07 pm+1
Tempest, meet teapot. Time to give this a rest.
Mason (db4bc2) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:10 pmHow then are you not setting yourself up for a situation in which a constant shifting in the definitions of things must lead to an intentional silencing of the “wrong sort” of voice?
Makewi (0864f9) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:12 pmJEA is the one that told us yesterday that Republicans denied healthcare to children.
JD (cfbd15) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:17 pmThis got boring far too many days ago!
AD - RtR/OS! (e54b5e) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:19 pmJEA, I always demand to see the entire quote and story. Media Matters is one to trim the quote into something offensive for the Soros kool-aid drinkers.
I feel sorry you live in the city of the “Phony from Philly”, Smerconish. The weasel refused to address Van Jones support of Mumia because the Phony drinks so deeply at the fount of Obama Kool-Aid.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:22 pmOK.. I’m a complete newbie to this particular blog (my spouse reads it, and pointed me to this discussion). I don’t know the players, but as an outsider, I thought that both Patterico and Beldar made good points about distinguishing racist thought/actions from those which are not, and about the effort it takes to not fall into “intellectual laziness” (as Gesundheit identifies it in #21)
I think that this discussion has missed two points:
First, that Racism is really just a subset of what one might call “Otherism”, which has a whole set of sub-classes, all of which are based on an attempt to set up a differential structure to identify “those like me/us” from those that are “not like me/us”. Criteria for distinction have included religion (including sect/creed/denomination/etc.), class, ethnic origin, skin and hair color, face shapes, education levels, national origin, language… the list is a long as the number of things that a human being can perceive. And of course, they can be combined in any manner.
Why we have the need to make the us/not us distinction is probably a natural part of evolution. Those who believe that they are better presumably have some psychological advantages. (cf “Master Races”, slavery, etc.) Unfortunately, there has not been a strong countervailing force to keep it from progressing to the level of identity politics and ethnic cleansing, although it has been strong enough to move us away from pogroms and slavery. As AW notes in #10, there currently seems to be a decline in racially-based prejudices, which I (for one) believe to be A Good Thing.
To move along….
Secondly, we need to be able to talk about race / perceived racial/cultural attributes without being immediately labeled “racist” for having posited distinctions, or revealed ignorances (eg: I was in my 30’s before I realized that dark-skinned people could get sunburned.) If we are going to de-weight the patterning discussed by Gesundheit in #21 and AW and Dustin in their posts, then we need to be able to bring things out for examination and discussion.
Third, there has been no substantive discussion (beyond the few probes at the term “bigot”) of what drives people to be “otherists”. For my part, I think that there are two primary factors, which may or may not interact: cultural (as AW and Douglas note), and individual fears/experiences (which in my opinion also underlie the writings of Patterico’s antagonists he describes in the initial posting).
I’d be most interested in reading what the other folks reading this think and might want to add on to or refine my points.
CGH (e0cf20) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:39 pm@74
I’m not. I have more faith in the people whose opinions matter.
think of it this way, absolutely nothing will convince Charles Johnson that RSM isn’t a white supremacist, but there will always be a group of people willing to analyze fairly what’s going on. The cultural shift you speak of may increase and decrease the size of the group of realistic and credible people, but it doesn’t change the standard.
Look at all these careful methods. ‘Must one intend to be racist?’ ‘Just because someone says one racist thing doesn’t make them a racist’. etc etc. It’s the fair standards that define who is reasonable, not the people who decide what’s fair.
I’m only ruling over me. Other people chose to be convinced by LGF. Others chose to be convinced in the other direction, by nothing concrete. Some don’t want to delve into this, and I wanted to carefully analyze it.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 12:46 pmWhen a professional communicator fails to connect with his audience, it’s not the audience’s fault.
When a lawyer fails to convince a jury, it’s not the jury’s fault.
When a blogger tries to conjure up a hatestorm against another blogger and makes himself look a fool… whose fault is it, councilor?
If you don’t like commenters pointing out that you’ve been continuing to pound your credibility into the ground, long after others would’ve stopped… maybe you shouldn’t be blaming the commenters. If you don’t like dissenting points of view in your comment section, go the full Charles Johnson and ban everyone who disagrees with you. But don’t whine because people disagree with your posts.
DaveP. (c02c31) — 12/11/2009 @ 2:15 pm[…] discussions of important issues, hence his current “racism” theme, I have responded to this post by Patterico over on my own blog, Big Lizards: “Race” […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Dafydd Responds to “Must One ‘Intend’ to Be Racist” (e4ab32) — 12/11/2009 @ 2:28 pm“I feel sorry you live in the city of the “Phony from Philly”, Smerconish. The weasel refused to address Van Jones support of Mumia because the Phony drinks so deeply at the fount of Obama Kool-Aid.”
Wrong yet again. Smerconish has spoken amany times about it, written countless articles and a couple of books, interviewed Officer Faulkner’s widow on numerous occasions, and held fundraisers.
“JEA is the one that told us yesterday that Republicans denied healthcare to children.”
Because they did – convenient amnesia about the vote to expand CHIP a couple of years back. Just like the Dems suffer from it.
JEA (aeea5c) — 12/11/2009 @ 2:30 pmDustin:
Sorry about the “idiocy” :p It wasn’t aimed at you all, but I could have been more clear. Usually when I comment, it’s on a quick break from work and I am not always as careful in my choice of words as I could be.
Cassandra (b137c4) — 12/11/2009 @ 2:34 pmThat is a lie and you are a liar, JEA. Even the most charitable reading of your drivel would lead one to the conclusion that you either do not understand the objections, the legislation, or are just being hyperbolic in your partisanship. Either way, your assertion bears little resemblence to reality.
JD (83e967) — 12/11/2009 @ 2:52 pmPattericco,
I blogged about this “Flame war,” last night.
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-fights-on-right-meh.html
The whole debate is about words written in 1996! Are you going to take the words of Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson over someone who consistantly will back you in a fight?
Do you want kudos from the Atlantic or do you want people who share your philosiphy to win against The LA Times?
Your point is made, but until all the branches of the Right decide who is the next Wm. Buckley, (it is not a self-appointing job), pick up the phone and hash this out.
It’s not like we need all hands on deck for next year’s elections. /sarc
Pick up the phone and call RS McCain and put it to rest.
Thank you.
(And I have enjoyed your yearly Dog Trainer posts. I have reading your Blog during the two invasions of lefty Sock-puppetting — so I will continue to read it. Just, PLEASE. STOP. ATTACKING. THE. RIGHT. Thank you)
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/11/2009 @ 3:09 pmThis is a pretty unsatisfactory ending, if it is the ending, to an unsatisfactory conversation.
Understanding Patterico is under time constraints, which he did not grant RSM, I do not have an answer whether Patterico feels the racist statement belabored here represented RSM’s thoughts or as RSM explained, represent the views of others he was introducing into the conversation. Many commenters here, including Dustin, still don’t seem to either accept or understand the distinction RSM now more clearly explains on his blog.
I understand Patterico’s points yesterday and the day before claiming he did not call RSM a racist, or at least a racist for life. To me that is an overly legalistic interpretation of what has been said. In a court of law you could not point out those words here but in this post, Beldar and Patterico acknowledge that the racist words stem from rascist thoughts, tying them back to the individual. Dafydd seems to be in agreement with this position. Well, if he wasn’t a lifelong racist, how long was he a racist? Seconds, minutes, hours, years? Patterico is attempting SEK type word parsing which really is transparent when given intelligent thought and then claims his readers are liars or misunderstand him. Normally when an author finds a large chunk of his readership in dispute over what he’s saying he might look inward rather than outward. A.J. Strata lost a large chunk of his readership by insulting his commenters rather than examining his positions.
I also think Patterico railroaded RSM into a response. Many people here keep claiming RSM did not have to respond. Again, putting on a legal hat that is true. From a practical perspective, he most probably did and as Patterico points out above, it’s not fun responding to allegations of racism, scratch that, Patterico really didn’t call him a racist, I keep forgetting. With people here saying RSM should be exiled from the conservative movement and not quoted anywhere, Dustin does that sound familiar, it is not the same thing as when people lacking credibility from the left attack you. Alan Colmes has no credibility. Charles Johnson lacks credibility. Patterico has credibility and has an audience and got attention and trackbacks from his posts. So while it is strictly and legally true that RSM did not have to respond to Patterico, as a practical matter I believe he did. Again, it’s the SEK type hairsplitting and wordsmithing at work.
Just my humble opinion.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/11/2009 @ 3:56 pmTom Kratman Puts It All in Perspective…
There really isn’t much more I can say that I have not already said in my previous two entries, “The McCain Defamation” and “The McCain Mutiny”. If anything good comes of this, hopefully it will be an end to the “Robert Stacy McCain is racist” m…
South Texian (59ce3a) — 12/11/2009 @ 4:02 pmI guess “Pin the Tail on a Racist” is a success.
And just in time, The Holiday Party (Christmas is so offensive) time is upon us.
Now it will be easy to Big it up with our Liberal friends, proclaiming we can play “Pin the Tail on a Racist” as good as they can, and confess, we are coming to grips with our inner racist.
I’m sure they’ll love us now.
Mission Accomplished.
Regards,
the Dragon (966ad1) — 12/11/2009 @ 4:52 pmSerious or joke? I hope joke. Why is a nonsensical action like badgering someone in the fashion you did McCain and then pounding a dead horse into the core of the planet as you have this “issue” suddenly respectable? Because it’s done on the internet?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I’m sorry but we don’t need to have a “discussion” on race or the kind of not-so-sly-as-you-think smearing of McCain you’ve been doing. Everyone knows what racism is. If you don’t, you’re being dishonest or you’re honestly deluded in some fashion. You know what it is when you see it or hear it or read it. That’s all that needs to be said about racism. Not a half dozen blog posts about such an extraordinarily stupid topic, handled in such an extraordinarily stupid fashion. Maybe it’s just a generational thing. Most people my age see you old(ish) farts getting your panties in a bunch about race and we can’t comprehend how anyone could get so worked up over something so stupid. So yeah, it may be silly and a little stupid to walk in on a stupid conversation and declare it stupid, but it’s a pebble on the ground next to the mountain range of silly and stupid that the “conversation” is in the first place.
I guess school just did too good a job of indoctrination on me, all that race doesn’t mean jack and that racism is terrible propaganda (good propaganda mind you, that word is a neutral term, the Left has just given it a bad connotation through their endless chicanery) they start funneling down your throat about the second grade. The people today who are going to be running the country in 30 years, to them the idea of a “conversation on race” that has to ask questions like “does one racist statement make you a racist” and “do you have to intend a statement to be racist for it to be racist” is the height of condescending imbecility. And if Patterico doesn’t like it, too bad.
chaos (9c54c6) — 12/11/2009 @ 5:51 pmFor me none of this is a problem because I don’t buy into the mental gymnastics the left likes to put Conservatives through in worrying about race. I am going to say what I want when I want how I want and RARELY if EVER that I can remember has ANYTHING I have said been construed as racist. The left on the other hand has been so apparent in their RACISM with regards to black Conservatives and Conservative women and yet they get a pass which tells me I need not worry about this FALSE issue of perceived racism.
I will absolutely agree that I have had racist thought and said racist things in my past when I was a liberal living in the city coming up in the early 70’s with liberal parents and let me be CLEAR I have NEVER heard the kind of racist comments from those I have had the pleasure of meeting within the Conservative Movement that I heard when I was helping Barbara Mikulski getting elected to Congress (see I told you I used to be a lefty).
My advice to Conservatives is just be yourself and the rest will take care of itself and don’t live in fear or guilt of someone (usually a leftist) taking your comments and twisting your words and intent!
Jaded (018064) — 12/11/2009 @ 6:00 pm#90 Jaded:
That’s all fine and well and good and everything, but how the heck do we get rid of Mikulski?
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:00 pmIn the absence of happyfeet, here’s a Friday night music video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2FT4FprxDg&feature=related
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:59 pmI didn’t say it wasn’t fair to ask about the statements or the controversy, but others have already noted that the way it got started here was pretty blunt & accusatory. Which, fine, it’s not my blog. I could just do without the “really this helps him” bit of sanctimony.
d-day (eb8fa0) — 12/11/2009 @ 11:07 pmJust as I’ve argued.
True.
Saying “there are a lot of instances” is not the same as giving examples.
Provide some, let me know, and I’m happy to respond. Just as I did today when Beldar showed up in the comments at my site and engaged me on point.
One thing that needs to be made clear: just because you need to be racist to make a racist statement doesn’t mean you are necessarily perpetually racist, or that you are fated forever to be labeled racist (unless, of course, someone posts on things you wrote 14 years ago and suggests that what you wrote was racist, in advance of understanding the full context).
On another site, Patrick gave this example of why one need not “intend” racism:
I responded to this in my own post, but it bears repeating here:
Now, it’s possible the man in question was blocking the door as a strict segregationist, or as a libertarian. In which case, we’d adjust how we labeled the statement to reflect that it was something other than “racism” that he intended.
At any rate, I’ve posted on why the idea of “unintended racism” makes no sense from the perspective of linguistics, and you are all free to tackle it or not at your own choosing.
As for the bit in this post about turning a suggestion about ginning up manufactured controversy for money in order to dupe thoughtless drones into a charge of anti-semitism, well, I suspect at least some of the people here will see how that might work when it’s aimed at a person whose ideas about the role of intent in the meaning-making process tend to diminish the importance of an appeal to original intent, and in favor of a doctrine of “the reasonable man.”
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:30 amd-day, you really are about being sanctimonious and your disingenuous “not my blog, do what you want, you sanctimonious prick” aren’t you? I have a blog-philosophy that might help you out once you’re done being hypocritically sanctimonious. If I find no interest in a topic, I don’t read the commentary and I don’t post in that topic. You might want to try it out instead of being sanctimonious. Just sayin’.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:41 amI think starting from a literalist viewpoint and branching out from there is more helpful than reading into it what I want and coming up with rationalizations later. I generally first interpret things close to literally as do many people, at least when it comes to political statements.
That’s one of the reasons why what Patterico said about RS McCain (and I’m not an RS McCain fan) was dangerous.
If you say someone wrote something that seems racist to you, and it did to me too, then people might then assume that the other person is likely to be racist.
But perhaps that was silly of me.
Jeff G. restates what I thought was the brilliant post he made on his blog. So much so that I posted it in the “Jeff Goldstein unbanned” thread at about the same time Jeff G. posted it here. Pure coincidence.
Patterico responded to me:
It seems to me that Patterico may well be being sincere. BUT… Jeff G. is more correct literally. His “Goldstein way” to express strikes me as arguably more pedantic, but also more precise.
And it seems that Patterico noticed he was right about this pedantic precise way of thinking at just about the same time as he realized he stepped it when overstating his comments on RS McCain.
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:51 amBy the way, just because Goldstein is allowed to post here doesn’t mean I’ll be speaking to him. I don’t debate liars.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:52 amWhen did Goldstein lie? For those of us who may not know the entire story from your perspective.
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:54 amAnd it seems that Patterico noticed he was right about this pedantic precise way of thinking at just about the same time as he realized he stepped it when overstating his comments on RS McCain.
That’s an idiotic statement. At no time did I overstep. I have retracted nothing and stand by everything.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 1:54 amWhen did Goldstein lie? For those of us who may not know the entire story from your perspective.
I’m glad you asked. The story is a long and interesting one, but I don’t have time to document it all right now. If you follow the link in the post above, you will see several lies I have documented tonight. That is all I have time for.
It’s mostly stuff like what you just said about me realizing I overstepped with McCain — except that I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Goldstein gets no benefit of any doubt. His track record of lies is clear.
If people insist on evidence, I can do a long series of posts on it. I’m considering it. I have reams of evidence.
Depends on how he behaves. I am capable of a tit for tat strategy.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:00 amThe frenchman on strange trips is definitely tripping. But what can you expect from monsieur pomme tete?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:01 amAnd, Patterico, count me as voting against rehashing that war between you and Goldstein. But if you must, keep it as a single article, please, so I can ignore it and keep watching this site otherwise. 😉
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:03 amI’ve respected the majority of your writing for years. I’ve respected the majority of Goldstein’s (somewhat more intermittent) writing for years too.
When you two have disagreed, despite reading your writing more frequently, I’ve agreed with Goldstein.
If, on the other hand, you have actual proof which would stand up to scrutiny that Jeff Goldstein is a liar, and he’s publicly and repeatedly questioning you and, from your perspective, putting words in your mouth perhaps you should write such a series of post.
I obviously don’t have anything against Goldstein. At this point, I tend to agree with him pending the fact that I’m going to reread (yet again) what you said initially on RS McCain and the link at the top of this post.
But it’s one thing to say over and over again that Goldstein is a liar, whereas he is quoting you and showing — to my “idiotic” or otherwise ignorant self — to be more reasonable from my perspective. If you feel I’m mistaken about Goldstein generally, and that you should have more credibility when the two of you disagree, his being a “liar” as you allege you can prove with a clear track record is relevant.
I don’t want to say, “You owe it to your readers,” but if you’re right, do you owe it to yourself?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:09 am*posts
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:09 amSo, Patrick, you spend the night suggesting on several occasions that I’m somehow unwilling to comment here, but when I do, you will engage only on topics that move us away from what is ostensibly being discussed.
That’s fine. I’m just noting it.
And of course, my behavior won’t change a bit. My conscience is spotless.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:10 amJeff G., I’ve respected you and taken your side in many an argument with Patterico. Didn’t make a bit of difference, I’m sure, but nonetheless I have.
However.
Is it true that Patterico called you a money-grubbing Jew opportunist? If so, when and where? If not, did you say that he did?
Because if he didn’t call you that and you said he did, that would make you a liar, wouldn’t it? And if he says he didn’t call you that, but he really did, that would make him a liar, wouldn’t it?
For the record, everyone lies at times so one lie even if it was to pump up blog stats needn’t brand a person as untrustworthy forever (despite the fact this would be a bad lie if it was to extract money from the bloggers’ readers based on a fraudulent claim).
But Patterico alleges a track record of lies, and not a mere single.
So is Patterico simply mistaken in this single instance, are you a liar in this case, or is he?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:22 amPatrick believes I’m lying about a post and some comments that went missing from my site 7 months ago. The posts in question have to do with the “anti-semitic” bit in this post.
I sent him emails at the time. He says he’s saved screen shots, but he won’t say whether or not he saved my emails. As it was 7 months ago, I’m not sure what happened to the comments or the post. I may have removed them (which is what I thought when he brought this up tonight) or they may have gotten lost in a site propagation.
I don’t remember. But the threads in question, along with the emails I sent him at the time, would almost certainly make mention of what actually happened.
Patrick’s “proof” of my lies is that I can’t remember the specifics, and may have misremembered how the comments got lost — either by deletion, or because they were left when the site was propagating.
Other instances of my “lies” include such things as being able to formulate an opinion on the linguistic tack Patrick took in a given argument merely by seeing his conclusion. There is, naturally, no trick in this; when you’ve been dealing with questions of hermeneutics long enough, you are aware of the finite premises that result in particular conclusions. Which means I can understand what argument is being made without reading the entirety of the argument.
According to Patrick, doing so is (inexplicably) engaging in ad hominem arguments. The claim is that I couldn’t know his intent without reading his words. And, because I’m an intentionalist, it further means I’m a hypocrite.
I’ve tried to counsel Patrick that, yet again, he’s showing that he doesn’t much understand intentionalism (else he wouldn’t make such a ridiculous argument), but that counsel has fallen on deaf ears.
No fury like a woman scorned and all that.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:22 amNo, Patrick didn’t call me a money-grubbing Jew opportunist. Just money-grubbing. And sneaky. Which, in the midst of an argument over the importance of intent, I was kind enough to rephrase for him.
I suspect he didn’t mean what I attributed to him. I also suspect that he missed the irony of why I did it, and of what it suggests about how he believes interpretation works.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:25 amCan you clarify?
The term “propagation” is most commonly used to refer to a new uniform resource locator (URL or website address) “propagating” throught the internet to various domain name servers (DNS). During that period of time, the URL may be impossible to reach for intermittent periods of time until it fully propagates.
I have 2 sites on WordPress and have participated in a number of forums on web design and development. I’m not an expert, but have never heard the term “gotten lost in a site propagation” used the way you mean… not in a way that would cause one to lose data.
Are you referring to “migrating” from one server to another (a mere linguistic mistake, if you got the two words mixed up, something I do frequently, and that’s a fact) or is there another type of “site propogation” that I’m unfamiliar with which would cause you to lose an unpublished (but saved) post from WordPress’s MySQL database?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:29 amActually, my description of DNS propogation is probably not the most technically precise possible. In actuality, you need to propogate the DNS info even when keeping the same URL, but moving your website to a new host.
But anyway.
I’ve deleted posts before, for various reasons. I actually recently went through a little-used blog and changed the status of about 15 posts on subjects not relevant to its core purpose to “unpublished”.
On those occasions where I deleted posts, the data was lost from the database. On those occasions where I made the posts unpublished, the data is still there. No “propagation” has yet destroyed my data.
Site migrations, and other changes, can destroy data, I’ve heard, which is why keeping a backup is important. But I don’t recall any specific stories about data being destroyed only on a given topic where a blogger was being accused by an ideological peer of lying.
I’m not saying that couldn’t happen. Just saying I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Could you have simply deleted it? Would that be a more likely explanation if you don’t have the data Patterico is referring to?
Do you keep database backups from that period?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:42 amI’m not a computer expert, but my understanding is that comments left on the old server while the site was in the process of changing servers might not show up on the new server.
So maybe migrating is what I meant. As I say, I don’t know about this stuff. My host was doing the work.
That all this happened at around 2 in the morning or later suggests to me that this would have been the time where such a procedure would take place.
Incidentally, Patrick tonight made it a point to say that I was championing a racist statement by arguing on behalf of Stacy McCain.
However, in my posts on the subject, I made it clear that I was not at all concerned with McCain, and that he could defend himself. What I am concerned with is how certain arguments bespeak certain ideas about language.
Having made that clear — and having Patrick ignore that and claim instead that I was aligning myself with McCain and whatever it is he stands for — it strikes me that such a thing fits right in to Patrick’s idea of what a “lie” is.
YMMV.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:43 amAs I’ve said, in both your rhetorical and substantive quarrels with Patterico, I’ve sided with you. Not out of any particular feeling of fellowship, just because I thought you were right and he wrong.
Yet wouldn’t the above point you just made be stronger if you could republish that post?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:46 amI suppose my host could have the data. I don’t know.
As I say, I emailed Patrick at the time, and any commentary subsequent to this that took place would almost certainly allude to the problem — long before I ever suspected it would be a bone of contention.
So were I to look for whom to believe, I might start there and with the emails I sent to Patrick.
He says he saved screen shots. It makes sense he’d have saved emails sent directly to him at the time.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:47 amPatrick has the screenshot of the post and has many times tonight threatened to post it.
I haven’t objected.
I don’t have it. Or I would. I don’t have anything to hide. I just don’t have the post or comments.
It was very late. That thread was the only one active, with maybe 4 or 5 people on it.
There are people who were there live who’ve already commented on it.
Jeff G (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:51 amOkay, migrating sounds like the correct word. If your host was moving your site from one server to the other. Yours is a popular site, so would require more maintenance than mine.
What data did you lose in addition to the data where you had the argument with Patterico, in which he now accuses you of being dishonest?
That could be. It makes some sense if you’re referring to comments made at the exact time of the server move.
I’d have to take you at your word since, while an interesting coincidence in terms of the time of the move, it could well be so. I’m no expert.
Would you object to Patterico publishing his screenshots?
I rather suspect if Patterico doesn’t overcomment it (and if he does, you can always reply), it may show a misunderstanding between the both of you, or in any case, if not a misunderstanding then each of you behaving less badly than the worst accusations of the others.
You can’t control what Patterico thinks. If he thinks you’re a terrible liar, well, he could be sincere but mistaken.
I DO think he is sometimes both sincere and mistaken.
At the same time, he’s well-respected, and if he’s accusing you of lying frequently, I’d think you’d want others to see that this isn’t the case. Or am I being naive? Do you not trust Patterico to be BOTH honest AND fair in his reconstruction?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:54 am“Patrick has the screenshot of the post and has many times tonight threatened to post it.
“I haven’t objected.”
Well then. You answered that question in the affirmative before I got around to asking it.
Patterico?
I will be frank in that I generally agree with Jeff G. when the two of you disagree (but you agree a lot so there you go: I’m probably on board then). So I’m not perhaps entirely neutral, but I’m more interested in learning for myself who is trustworthy here, whether one, none, or both, than picking a side.
You have accused Goldstein — whose thinking and analysis I greatly respect — of repeatedly lying. He says he doesn’t object to you publishing your screenshots.
Why not publish them?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:58 amYou were being kind and ironic? Let me be kind and rephrase what you said… that you’re a vile liar who smears people as anti-Semites without cause. I suspect you actually did mean to lie. I also suspect that you miss the irony of my phrasing and what it suggests I think of your character.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/12/2009 @ 3:18 amHi Jeff,
I’m reading the thread at Little Miss Attila’s. I just got to this part:
Am I completely incorrect in thinking that the comments you’re adamantly saying you deleted at Little Miss Attila’s are the same comment you said you may have deleted, may have lost in your web host’s propogation/migration at 2 AM that night?
Have I got that right?
Or are you referring to different lost comments?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 3:42 amI missed the part in parenthesis. I apologize.
I find you deleting them to be a more probable explanation than these particular comments happened to be the ones that were deleted when your web host did some work. However, you already admitted you thought and therefore said you deleted them earlier.
So what I thought was a troubling point of inconsistency I found, wasn’t. Not by itself, unless Patterico has more on the subject.
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 6:08 am“The people who made that claim either did not read me carefully or are liars.”
So, does telling one lie make one a liar? 🙂
Pot, meet kettle.
Dan S (bf5f6a) — 12/12/2009 @ 7:16 am#91 EW1(SG)
You won’t get rid of her, she isn’t going any where until she dies. Maryland and most especially Baltimore loves them some Mikulski. That woman has given away more taxpayers dollars to lazy ingrates then any other Congressman or Senator she is the ultimate PORK Queen!
I of course do APOLOGIZE HEARTILY for my former life but I fall into that category of “if your in your 20’s and not a liberal you have no heart and if you are in your 30’s and are not a Conservative you have no brain”…heh!
Jaded (018064) — 12/12/2009 @ 7:46 am#121 Jaded: My own assessment as well. Sigh.
You do realize that you are DOOMED to atonement the rest of your life for that single transgression!?!
Of course, as a conservative, you can own your own guilt and not allow it to prevent you from leading a long, happy, and prosperous life. 😉
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/12/2009 @ 8:08 amMore seriously, with regards to my snarky comment above, why do we have different standards (here) for tossing around “liar” and “racist?” Shouldn’t the key to applicability of both be a pattern of evidence, not a one-off?
Patterico says he has a pattern for JeffG, so I allow in that case his use of “liar” is appropriate (to him, at least, pending review of his evidence of a pattern.)
But calling someone who posts one contrafactual a liar would appear to me to be as egregious as calling someone who posts one racist remark a “racist.” Neither contributes to real communication; each is an ad hominum rather than an accurate observation.
Patterico, I love reading your posts even though I don’t ALWAYS agree with you. But it does grate on my nerves a bit when your emotion overrides your otherwise acute observation.
But it is your blog. Venting is certainly an internet tradition.
The series on of posts (and the comments, with a special nod to Beldar) on racism has been interesting and, I think, thought provoking despite the venting.
Dan S (bf5f6a) — 12/12/2009 @ 8:40 am“I sent him emails at the time. He says he’s saved screen shots, but he won’t say whether or not he saved my emails.”
I haven’t read the whole thread here, but see, that right there is dishonest.
The truth is: I say I have saved screenshots, but I was sleeping when Jeff G asked whether I saved his e-mails.
That’s just an example of the kind of regular dishonesty he shows.
I’ll probably save the screenshots for Monday morning, for maximum impact.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:29 amBut calling someone who posts one contrafactual a liar would appear to me to be as egregious as calling someone who posts one racist remark a “racist.”
Goldstein says that if I note that McCain did pen one racist remark, that automatically brands McCain a racist. That is a stupid remark that defines an entire individual by one action, and you agree with me that it would be egregious to do so.
Why don’t you hash that out with Goldstein. He’s here.
As for Goldstein, I have an entire history with him that I don’t care to find links to rehash. Anyone who wants to read through his and my archives from March will see his repeated lies there. I have documented a handful at Joy McCann’s place, linked above in the post. There is a pattern.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:33 am“And, Patterico, count me as voting against rehashing that war between you and Goldstein. But if you must, keep it as a single article, please, so I can ignore it and keep watching this site otherwise.”
No promises. I think you’re capable of overlooking individual posts.
I don’t see it so much as a war as liberation. In March I tiptoed around all the shit I saw this guy do. Now I have decided, gloves off. His philosophy is a fraud and he is a fraud, and I’ll say whatever I like.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:45 amBut part of what I’m going to do is say WHAT I WANT TO SAY in the way that I WANT TO SAY IT. It will not be defined by little challenges from the Professional Martyr.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:46 amIt felt good last night to tell him what I really think of him.
It will feel good to continue.
The main lie he tells about me, Nom des Voyages à L’Étranger, is his characterization of my views about language. He suggests that I don’t appeal to the speaker’s true intent when discussing interpretation. I have said precisely that I do. Yet whenever he mischaracterizes me, and I point it out, he uses his false characterization of my views as a “gotcha” to say that “Well, I am allowed to misread your views under your own theory.” Haha, the irony! Except, that is NOT my theory. So it’s a false irony.
But this is the tactic he uses, again and again.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:50 am“I suspect he didn’t mean what I attributed to him.” – Jeff
Hmmmmm. As I said earlier, I didn’t agree with Patterico about the tree hanging comment and I sympathized with you. But what a dick you turned out to be.
YOU told people HE made a racist comment. Your recent body of work proves that you see such a thing as very destructive and wrong. Some people don’t think about race in this way, or try to destroy people. That’s the core reason you don’t get along with Patterico. There’s a huge divide in the right movement, and I think this is as good an example as any.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/12/2009 @ 10:17 amThe fact is, I acknowledged within a day that the tree hanging comment might very well not have been a death threat — but that Goldstein, given his history of threats on the Internet (and I’m NOT talking about cock-slapping, which was funny, but actual threats to break people like toothpicks and such), was headed towards threats of violence towards nk, whom he was already threatening with some creepy nonjudicial sort of retaliation.
You don’t read much about that, though, in the months-long declarations he has made on the subject from up on his cross.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:25 amPatterico,
I hope you had a good Thanksgiving and a good Christmas and New year too, but can you answer my question?
Who appointed you Wm. Buckley to define who is or is not a better Conservative Blogger?
Jeff Goldstein and RS McCain I’m sure would side with you against the LA Times and the sockpuppets, so Cui Bono?
What do you gain by fighting all over the ‘net against people who fire the rhetorical cannon in the same direction as you?
You do realize there is an upcoming election next year and you, JG and RS need to support candidates. If any leftist Blogger grabs any of this dicussion, the candidates these people endore or help might lose.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:45 amThank you.
Who in real life voluntarily walks into a group discussion just so they can declare the discussion stupid?
Is this supposed to be a serious question? I’ve been in many meetings where somebody involved declares the discussion stupid. Often they phrase it slightly more politely than that, but this is what they are saying. Patterico must move in some unusual professional circles.
Subotai (e0506b) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:48 amPatterico,
The reason I ask the q’s above is because Andrew Sullivan started down the same path as the self-appointed “Wm. Buckley of the Blogosphere,”
Thanks.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 12:08 pmDear JSF,
I hope my letter finds you well. I do have a request of you and I’ll couch my request in the most polite terms I can muster.
Who died and made you queen?
Yours sincerely, a loving fan.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/12/2009 @ 12:27 pmJohn,
I am not coming in saying, this person or that should or should not be part of a coalition, Patrick is.
Personally, I don’t give two shits about the fight, I just know damn well that next year, if either of these 3 Bloggers choose to help a canddiate, any words can be taken out and misconstroud for Electioneering.
Jesus, some of us actually want to secure a win next year. Sorry for actually giving a shit to make it happen.
[note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 2:45 pmNo, JSF, you are putting words in someone’s mouth. And, quite frankly, I don’t want to be any part of a coalition that goose-steps its way to victory. That, apparently, is your idea of the right thing to do, but it not mine, thank you very much.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/12/2009 @ 3:28 pmI was not calling R.S. McCain a racist. Some across the Internet made the claim that I had — simply by saying he had made one racist comment! — but I did not. The people who made that claim either did not read me carefully or are liars.
Or maybe they are using a regular dictionary, instead of Patrick’s Special Home-Brewed Dictionary, in which people can engage in racist acts (such as speech) without being racist–thereby turning the adjectival version of a word and its noun form into TWO DIFFERENT words that supposedly have sharply different meanings.
It’s your prerogative to assign words your own special meanings, Pat–but why are you insisting that the rest of us pretend these words mean the same things to us that they do to you?
Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann (3aa071) — 12/12/2009 @ 4:10 pmI’ve argued that it makes no coherent sense to call a statement racist unless it can be attached to a racist. All that’s required is that the utterer be racist at the time of the utterance.
You have concluded that McCain’s statement proceeded from racist thoughts, have you not? Therefore, you have concluded that the statement is racist.
Are you comfortable in saying Stacy McCain is racist in that instance?
And was this not the instance you raised for examination and scrutiny?
Nothing I said or wrote ever committed you to saying McCain is a racist in perpetuity. But with respect to the statement at hand, to conclude that it is racist is to conclude that its utterer is racist.
If you wish to get around that by saying that you are unwilling to call McCain racist because people might misunderstand — that one instance does not a racist make — that ship sailed the moment you began probing this issue in the way you did, and at the level of stakes you were playing.
So go ahead, say you don’t know if McCain is now a racist. But he must have been when he wrote the comment, otherwise it makes no sense to call the comment racist.
Call it racist-sounding, and suddenly people realize that it’s you who are responsible for hearing racism in a statement that may not have been intended that way.
And you are clearly more comfortable exploring other people’s racism than in probing when you have such a ready propensity to find it where it may not be.
JeffG (88bc84) — 12/12/2009 @ 4:37 pmJohn,
I’m not talking of goose-stepping (thanks for going Godwin to a Jew) — I’m just noting what is the endgame that Patrick is playing?
And why should he choose who stays and who goes? I’m not — I’m just saying it hurts the cause for 2010 it this plays out too far.
I never figured that Patrick would play to the keys of Sullivan, there are others he can play to.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 5:15 pmNo, a statement can be racist regardless of the speaker’s intent, because of the way it reasonates in the audience’s mind. Words can be evocative as well as denotative as any poet will attest, and careless words can evoke tings the speaker never intended.
And if this is a partial bow to intentionalism, that’s fine too.
nk (df76d4) — 12/12/2009 @ 5:21 pmJSF, you’re completely wrong about Andrew Sullivan acting like Patterico does today.
It looks like that if you don’t really care about ethics and tone and only care about team membership. Sullivan started criticizing a few conservatives, and then a few more, and then the whole concept of conservatism and the right generally.
But the entire time, even when he likes the Iraq war, he used insults to make arguments. People who didn’t agree with the Iraq war, in 2003, Andrew considered sub human idiotic traitors. Read his blog from back then… he really was funny, but yet kinda humorless and angry and … without any intellectual heft.
Patterico is pretty consistently using reasoning and seems to dislike slights of hand like ‘I can tell you’re making the same mistake’ instead of saying “I didn’t write that quote”.
It’s not like I agree with him all the time. This conversation reminds me of how he disliked that ‘I want Obama to fail’ language. That statement, to me, implied that Obama’s goals are not America’s success, but Patterico saw it as similar to all the statements the left made about wanting the US to lose a war, or glee at the economic problems the media openly encouraged (valid POV, but I disagree). But Patterico doesn’t say: Rush Limbaugh is a bad person. He didn’t say RSM is a racist. He just isn’t like Sullivan or LGF.
The Ann Coulters on the right really don’t serve any purpose whatsoever. But it’s hard to see that because they drum up emotion and say ugly things about ugly people. There’s a real tension between that crowd and the crowd of actual persuasive conservatives.
but wait for Patterico to turn into Andrew… it’ll be a long wait.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/12/2009 @ 5:53 pmDustin,
I’ve played in the political field on and off since I was 15; What I’m looking for is Patrick’s endgame.
This conversation started between P and RSM because of LGF and Sullivan making statements that they left the Right (look at the timing of the posts).
He might not be turning to a Sullivan, but he is letting him call the tune.
As far as ethics, yes we need good people to run and fight for us, but no politician (or Blogger or communicator) is born in a manger. We go to battle against the Left (having formally been of the Left, switched in Summer 92) with who we have, not who we wish.
And compalining about Rush, Coulter, Levin, et al, they are the communicators. Don’t like their style? You find a radio station. It is their job to be antagonistic.
The Republicans spent 40 years as the Minority Party because we did not fight back but we played to the left’s tune (as I see Patrick doing now). Without the Rush’s and Coulter’s, we would have had less of a short in 2010 without them.
All I see in Patrick’s battles here is a tool the Left can use should JG or RSM support a candidate. Suppose because of the feces flinging going on right now, the R candidate loses?
There are many different branches (Conservative, Liberterian, and Moderate) and different debate within them on policy and tactics. This is NOT one of them.
This is about Patrick trying to get on the good side of the Atlantic writers and not stand up for people who will also get attacked by the LA Times.
Prove me wrong.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 6:19 pmWith the main difference that hearing lies is far more common than hearing racist remarks in our society so one would assume it would take more lies to cross the magical threshold into being branded a “liar”.
I believe that’s an important point. That said, Patterico says Goldstein has made said lies, but (setting aside the argument between nk and Jeff G. and other alleged behavior where Jeff G. is overly aggressive online, threatening to ruin people) then they mostly appear to follow this pattern:
And I see where that would be damn frustrating, because Patterico does seem to think differently about some things than other people do.
Often this leads to Patterico making principled, insightful commentary on different issues, and occasionally winning modest (only because of the other side’s unwillingness to completely reform in positive ways) but very real battles against those who are dishonest, egregiously biased, etc.
Patterico, and this is to his credit, is not a “lock step” conservative going along with group-think. He has his own mind and the courage of his convictions. He calls a spade a spade (people who are quite rightly sensitive about racism, please… it refers to a literal shovel if you knew where this old saying came from). Sometimes he bites his tongue because he is a disciplined man, a professional, but it is somewhat difficult for him too because he’s passionate, hence this blog.
Hence his weighing in on RS McCain’s statement 14 years ago in a debate against a white supremacist.
So he walks the freedom of speech line between expressing himself and fighting things that bother him on the one hand, and civility and his own well-developed (but selective) sense of decorum on the other.
But for all that, for all Patterico’s many fine qualities — in most if not many cases finer than my own — the fact remains Patterico simply thinks differently than many people.
Perhaps that’s because we’re not trained to think in the same way. Perhaps it is because of other factors, Patterico’s upbringing (which must have been moral, philosophical, and principled), and maybe it’s just innate within him.
He is highly intelligent.
I tend to err on the side of trying to be literalist. I know that’s not an adequate way of understanding someone’s meaning, but it’s a necessary skill in the effort, a starting point.
Even still, I, quite possibly falsely, assumed that if Patterico is saying RS McCain said a racist thing, and coloured by my own experiences in my life, romantically and otherwise, regarding mixed race relationships and how important they are to me (by startling coincidence, my mixed race ex-girlfriend just walked up and hugged and kissed my mixed-race self as I typed the clause immediately before this parenthetical)…
… *I*, who strives toward literalism, believed that Patterico was calling McCain a racist, or at least heavily alluding to that.
I now believe that Patterico sees a distinction between a single racist utterance, that the person making it didn’t stop and think was racist in nature, vs. a racist pattern of behaviour coupled with a self-analytical realization that one is acting in a racist way.
But many people don’t see that fine of a distinction, and I think Patterico, based on either the history or even the present day reality of what he believes is Goldstein’s tendency to parse and then falsely rephrase his thoughts is not giving enough credit to something critical…
A large percentage of people — probably most — even conservatives like Joy McCann, and even those who try, however imperfectly, to grasp someone’s literal meaning will still see it the way McCann, and yes even Jeff G., saw it.
Patterico isn’t just simply “wrong”, but he is thinking about this in a decidedly alternative way, and perhaps he should both understand why so many others thought he was, in fact, calling McCain racist…
…and why some still think that he did.
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/12/2009 @ 6:30 pmJSF, you’re saying a wide variety of things… I don’t know what your point truly is. They all sound kinda good, though I think most of your notions fall apart easily.
What are you arguing? That Patterico’s not aggressive enough? That he needs to pick his battles and ignore it when conservatives in his sorta internet circle say racist things? It was a live controversy, since many of his defenders claimed it wasn’t even an accurate quote. A lot of people, including me, thought and refined our view of what constitutes racism and how to see people who make an isolated racist comment.
No, the goal was not taking back congress. I honestly don’t care. But I don’t see how some alliance of conservative bloggers would help much. I will say that LGF, which still has a lot of traffic for some reason (alexa), keeps pushing this notion that so many bloggers are racist just for dealing with RSM at all. That was never an easy sell, but now it’s a downright impossible argument. The best and worst you can say about it is that it’s a complicated example that’s hard to classify in a way that reflects on anyone today. And that LGF is thoughtless while many on the right have put a lot of effort into thinking about this ‘incident’. I think that’s a good thing and helps the right have a much better product.
I’m no psychic but I bet Patterico is being very careful about what he types. He knows that he better not say anything retarded or he’ll be pilloried for it. Does he care what KOS says about him? Nope. he cares what the right leaners say. It’s this level of criticism and back and forth that makes the blogosphere an interesting quality place for me. Stand back ten feet and I think this is what we want if we want the blogosphere to have an impact.
Redstate, Hannity on FNC, Ann Coulter? They don’t make any difference. Maybe they help rally and organize a little. But you gotta convince people before you want to rally them. That’s why Hot Air, Instapundit, and blogs like this are making a much bigger impact on people. I know, those are the blogs that you likely think are part of the problem.
You say you’ve been involved in politics since you were 15. What does that mean? Were you a democrat back then? I suspect you’ve always been pretty conservative and have not experienced turning from democrat to republican or idealist to conservative.
Again, not trying to be a prick or put words in your mouth. I gotta go out, but I’d respond if you expanded on what you think will actually make an impact on people who approved of Obama on January 21st.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/12/2009 @ 6:53 pmDustin,
To give a quick bio:
15 years old, my best friends father decided to run for NYC City Council in Queens, I learned machine politics (and I also had day to day teachings that can be found in Tip O’Neill’s book, All Poltics is Local).
My friends father was kicked out by the machine before his race picked up steam, but he became a chief of staff to a well known NY figure before Client #9.
I switched in 92 because I’ve seen a lot of anti-semitism in the Left (and still do today, turn on pacifica or Kos or FDL). I started off as a Liberal Republican, then was a moderate when I interned on the Hill and became Conservative after I moved West.
As far as the power of the communicators (Rush, Coulter, levin, beck et. al), they aren’t there to win converts (that’s our on the ground people) but to rally the base and help point out the hypocrisy on the other side (considering it is always thrown at the Right, it is good to have people attacking)
Politics is Idealism + Pragmatism + Support + Publicity = Win. Yes, I want to win, and I think a conversation like this between P and RS can be taken up by someone industrious who wants to hurt our candidates and use it against us in 2010.
That’s what worries me.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 12/12/2009 @ 9:19 pm“The claim is that I couldn’t know his intent without reading his words.”
Yup, that’s the claim, Goldstein. Well, it goes further. The claim — oh, hell, let’s call it what it is: “the TRUTH” — is that you can’t know what someone is saying unless you hear them out. And if you claim to, and you also claim to be an intentionalist — then you are a hypocrite of the highest order.
Which you are.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:24 pmNom des Voyages à L’Étranger,
That was a nice comment.
All I can say is, I wrote what I wrote. It doesn’t seem like people read it.
I will expound on this more tomorrow.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:28 pmAlso, this question:
How do you feel about Goldstein’s magic ability to discern a writer’s intent without even reading the writer’s words?
Patterico (64318f) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:29 pmThanks for replying so kindly, Patterico, and please, call me Christoph.
Nom des Voyages à L’Étranger = “Name used for international travel” (taken from “nom de guerre”)
I would say it’s impossible.
Occasionally, and by that I mean enough that I’m aware of it so probably more than many people, I will (for example) skip over words in my eagerness to reply to a portion of what someone said. Rarely does this increase the quality of my argument.
Since you unbanned one person, is there a remote possibility you may consider unbanning my Canadian IP if I make an earnest effort to use more circumspect language here than may be my habit for making my points in other conversations, because of your blog’s rules of decorum?
It has been what — 2 or 3 years or something like that, after all. And whatever tone I did use, I never called you a liar, an anti-Semite, etc.
I would if you were, but you haven’t been that I’ve seen so I didn’t. Perhaps that earns me enough points to rise to at least Jeff Goldstein’s level in your eyes on at least a skeptical basis and earn a period of probation?
Or is that a past decision you are completely unwilling to revisit, despite explicitly leaving yourself the long-shot option of revisiting it… as you did at the time?
Nom des Voyages à L'Étranger (518ba3) — 12/13/2009 @ 1:16 am[…] Frey, other than that one can make racist statements while not being racist (though those statements “have to be the product of racist thought” and be animated by something very much like intent, only, you know, different — all of which […]
Meet your site host, 2! (38c333) — 12/13/2009 @ 9:08 amSeriously? Who cares? Why does it matter?
Robert White (23f0b8) — 12/13/2009 @ 12:17 pmHow can you make a statement you don’t intend when a statement isn’t language without intent?
Again: you don’t know what you are talking about.
A speaker may not intend to verbalize his intent. But when you talk about “subconscious” thoughts, you are still talking about the thoughts belonging to that person. If those thoughts are racist, that person is racist.
Just because “intend” as it’s used to talk about agency and language doesn’t comport with how you use it in every day conversation doesn’t mean I am using some narrow or specialized form of the word. I’m not.
Here:
to have in mind as something to be done or brought about; plan: We intend to leave in a month.
2. to design or mean for a particular purpose, use, recipient, etc.: a fund intended for emergency use only.
3. to design to express or indicate, as by one’s words; refer to.
4. (of words, terms, statements, etc.) to mean or signify.
And your semantic two-step is perfectly ridiculous to anyone who has understood my arguments.
JeffG (88bc84) — 12/13/2009 @ 10:17 pm[…] the listener’s intent for the speaker’s. I have even explained this since, in my post quoting Beldar: “For a statement to be racist, it does have to be the product of racist […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Jeff Goldstein’s Fraudulent Application of His Views on Language (e4ab32) — 12/14/2009 @ 2:20 am