Is this language acceptable
I hate polls, but I thought this one might be useful, if only to satisfy my curiosity. In a recent thread, the text I've copied below was posted. I objected, saying that a similar derogatory post about any racial or ethnic group other than white people would not be allowed in the forum. The poster responded that the text did not specifically refer to white people, which made me laugh. The text clearly refers to white people in the southern US. Here's the text:
I'm a New Yorker (by way of Cali, DC, Minnesota & Arizona) who has lived in the "dirty south" from 1997-2002 and 2015-present. "Hotlanta" is the epistome of sinning like hell for six days and (occasionally) getting right with Jeezus on Sunday. Praise the Lawd! The religious hypocrisy is as thick as smoked molasses down here in the Bible Belt. More adultery, fatherless children, unwed mothers, porn gambling & opiod addicts, junky baptist strippers, titty bars & jack shacks, shameless obesity, gas-guzzling Trump-festooned pick-up trucks, liquor stores & chicken shacks, maskless morons in a pandemic, gun racks & MAGA-QAnon-Confederate flags, more hate crimes & police lynchings, private (plantation) prisons & endemic voter suppression, etc – you name the social pathology, son, and we've got it in spades down here in Dixie – Gawd's own country! Wtf are you talking about, T Clark? :lol: Yeah, these folks wear their knee-jerk 'White Jeezus-ism' on their sleeve-less sleeves like cheap, truck stop tattoos but that's because these "Gawd-fearing folks" belong to the least educated, least healthy, demographic in the US.
The kind of language in this post makes me angry, but I'm not proposing that it be removed or restricted. I'd just like to talk about whether similar language should be acceptable for black people, Hispanics, Asians, or others. If not, why is it acceptable for white people?
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation can go where it goes. I don't intend to try to keep it focused in any particular direction. Speaking for myself, I intend to try to keep my own contributions low-key and philosophical.
I'm a New Yorker (by way of Cali, DC, Minnesota & Arizona) who has lived in the "dirty south" from 1997-2002 and 2015-present. "Hotlanta" is the epistome of sinning like hell for six days and (occasionally) getting right with Jeezus on Sunday. Praise the Lawd! The religious hypocrisy is as thick as smoked molasses down here in the Bible Belt. More adultery, fatherless children, unwed mothers, porn gambling & opiod addicts, junky baptist strippers, titty bars & jack shacks, shameless obesity, gas-guzzling Trump-festooned pick-up trucks, liquor stores & chicken shacks, maskless morons in a pandemic, gun racks & MAGA-QAnon-Confederate flags, more hate crimes & police lynchings, private (plantation) prisons & endemic voter suppression, etc – you name the social pathology, son, and we've got it in spades down here in Dixie – Gawd's own country! Wtf are you talking about, T Clark? :lol: Yeah, these folks wear their knee-jerk 'White Jeezus-ism' on their sleeve-less sleeves like cheap, truck stop tattoos but that's because these "Gawd-fearing folks" belong to the least educated, least healthy, demographic in the US.
The kind of language in this post makes me angry, but I'm not proposing that it be removed or restricted. I'd just like to talk about whether similar language should be acceptable for black people, Hispanics, Asians, or others. If not, why is it acceptable for white people?
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation can go where it goes. I don't intend to try to keep it focused in any particular direction. Speaking for myself, I intend to try to keep my own contributions low-key and philosophical.
Comments (45)
There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white Jesusism" which is not a race but the racist idea that Jesus was white. You're allowed to critize that obviously.
1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers
That, if anything, is a racist assumption on your part.
Yes, that's what the poster claimed. As I noted, I think that is disingenuous. Rather than arguing about that I'll just ask - if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable.
You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts.
Dude, if the cap fits, whoever it fits needs to wear it, whatever race they are. You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you.
Of course I do, or, when you say "you have no right" do you mean that as a moderator you won't allow? If so, just stop the thread now. As I said, I plan to keep my input civil and low key.
You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation.
I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. If, as a moderator, you disagree, and if you think that the thread is unacceptable, I am not going to raise a ruckus if you remove it.
I disagree, but I'm not going to delete or close it quite yet (although maybe another mod will, which is fine by me). I expect the response will be more akin to my interpretation that this is not at all a fair way to represent someone's quote than your idea that this is just a low key civil thing to do.
Quoting Baden
For the record, I didn't call the poster a racist. He's not. I like and respect him and he and I agree on a lot. I didn't say anything about him. I only asked about the post he wrote.
Quoting Baden
I don't intend to answer your question. In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. I don't feel any need to justify that. If other people agree with you, this thread will peter out quickly.
That's the thing, by the plain language alone, it would only be about some white people, not all. And, while I like the notion of "If the shoe fits, wear it", I like even better my own twist which is this: "If the shoe doesn't fit, why the hell are you wearing it?" Are you the accused? Or are you coming to the defense of the accused?
Another angle is the "All Lives Matter" mantra in response to BLM. As has been opined elsewhere, that's like walking across the street to your neighbor's house on fire and asking the fireman "Hey, what about my house?" Jeesh, take a seat.
Finally, when a heritage that you choose to venerate and hang on to is one of treason, slavery, racism, confederation, and anti-intellectualism, then you get to play the enemy of America. You probably don't want or need T Clark to come to your defense. Let the hate rain.
Why?
Quoting T Clark
Yes, you do, because it forms the basis of your accusation of the use of racial language.
+1
Quoting Baden
+1
Quoting Baden
+1
Quoting Baden
They don't have to be, Quoting Not T Clark
I wonder what demographic that is? Could it be this one?
[quote=Bob Dylan]But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game[/quote]
To speak of race is always to take a risk, but the risk of not speaking is a far more damaging form of racism. Let me say out loud that the dreadful history of the manufacture of race and the institutionalisation of racism as ghettoising, apartheid, has damaged us all and continues to damage us all. But clearly the history of Europe and America is all one way and none of the other way. To suggest that there is a legacy of black superiority that needs to be addressed by special threads and moderation to protect white folks is an insult to the intelligence of a moron.
We can talk about white people in various ways, and we need to be able to, to make sense of history, of the whole colonial story of which the slave trade and colonisation of the Americas was a large part, and the troubles social and psychological that we inherit on all sides. We need to make sense of it and take steps to ameliorate the ongoing damage.
Essentially, it's a nice little conundrum he's gotten himself into. The extent he can be sure the language refers to white people equals the extent we're justified in assuming white people in the South are actually like that equals the lack of prejudicial content. And the only way out of this circus of foolishness is an even worse circular presumption that it's because 180 wrote it that it must be racist? Why? Because he's black? Oh, more racism from T Clark.
Maybe it's not. Go change the world instead of expecting others to change it for you if it's that important to you. Man "some people" are lazy af. Think everyone is just created to do things for them.
:100: The "other side" would then begin to understand what is meant by the term "dog whistle" which they've been using in support of fascist nationalism and racism from Dear Leader. Fun when the shoe is on the other foot.
I don't understand. What difference does it make whether it refers to all white people or just some? It definitely doesn't refer to me. I'm a northern white liberal
Quoting James Riley
This is the issue I had hoped to discuss. It looks like the thread won't go in that direction though.
I don't think what the language describes is a "heritage." Actually, I think that was the posters point - he was describing what he considers to be the heritage of white southerners.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!
You have to laugh.
Then again, why wear the shoe if it doesn't fit? Is it because you find them an underdog in need of a white liberal defense?
Quoting T Clark
I do. In fact, many a southern bigot specifically defends their own stance as one of heritage. I get it from the following language: "Confederate flags . . . endemic voter suppression . . . Dixie . . ."
My heritage is destroying them, circa 1860s. Why aren't they all about my heritage?
This is a stereotype about white southerners, indeed. For example, when I think of people of the American South, my first impulse is to think of white people, not of blacks.
On a philosophy forum, it should go without saying that people would do their due dilligence and check with the potentially offensive poster as to what they really mean, before accusing them of racism.
Unless it is clear from the poster's posting history that they are a particular kind of racist supremacist.
This answer makes sense to me, although I don't agree. This is the question I was trying to get at.
I think there are two questions here 1) Do different rules apply to white people because of historical conditions and 2) Is the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post acceptable.
As for 1) - If I thought that criticizing white people for current and historic wrongs would help solve racial problems or make things better for racial minorities, I would probably support it. It is clear to me that that type of criticism makes things worse rather than better. Calling people "racist" doesn't make things better for anyone.
And 2) - The contemptuous language in the post won't help solve any problems. It just makes the poster feel better but makes everything else worse. Beyond that, as I pointed out, I think this type of disparaging language would only be allowed about white people. I think that is a mistake.
I don't understand what this has to do with this thread.
All your arguments fall apart because the assumption the comments are exclusively about white people is yours and 180 is not responsible for your assumptions. Further, we don't do moderation on the basis of unfounded assumptions. At some point you need to acknowledge that and stop pretending you have any basis for your argument/complaint.
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying...
As I noted. I have not accused anyone of racism. All my comments are about the text. I didn't even call it racist. I just asked if it was acceptable as a description of white people.
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You are using unacceptable racial language!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying, should this language about white people be acceptable?
Me: What??
:100: :ok:
T Clark was saying that he didn't get "heritage" from the accusations and I was merely pointing out that many a southern racist specifically uses the term "heritage" in defense of his flying the Stars and Bars, etc. In that case, it's a self-own, regardless of what the poster might have meant.
Justify your presumption that this language was exclusively about whites or stop repeating the accusation and retract. Those are your choices. You can't procede without dealing with that.
Then don't call anyone racist Your thread was initially tilled "is racist language acceptable". Listen to your own advice
Quoting T Clark
The accusation of contemptuous language is moot, unless established by reasoning and evidence.
Quoting T Clark
No one is responsible for anyone else's biased reactions. If you feel a sting then you will have to find out the causes and fix it yourself.
Just my cent. Carry on.
I've had my say about that in my previous responses to your posts.
This thread, yet not especially the OP, is as Disturbed coined a "Land of Confusion" it would seem.
I was wondering about that. I guess the title was changed without my knowledge. I think the original language was "Is this racial language acceptable." "Racial" and "racist" are not the same thing.
No, you've avoided it and you don't get to do that. If you make an accusation, you need to justify it, or retract or it is presumed unfounded. If someone starts a thread accusing you of racist (or euphemistically "racial") language, you'll be done the same honour. We can't have people running around making threads about each other based on accusations they're not willing to back up with any evidence, can we?
I think different rules do apply to some white people, as the "offending" post specified. I think the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post may be acceptable. In fact, it should probably be combined with a heavy dose of ostracization (cancel culture, consequences). Had we executed total war during and after the Civil War, it's quite probable that we would not now be dealing with these issues. In fact, playing nice, putting it behind us, bygones, etc. may very well be the offending culprit in our current national division.
As we approach Memorial Day, we might reflect on all the men who died killing Confederate racist slavery-supporting enemies of the United States, and how "playing nice" essentially takes a big greasy shit on their graves.
I'm not going to justify my statements further. I'm also not going to retract them.
Again, I haven't accused anyone of using racist language. "Racist" is not a word I use.
Baden is right T Clark, the portion you quoted isn’t racist. As Baden pointed out the mention of “white” was about people who believe jesus was white not white people.
It would be analogous to calling a BLM activist a black crusader or something. I don’t think that would be racist and I don’t think it would get deleted or a person banned for saying so but I could be wrong.
Baden, would I be moderated for calling Malcolm X a black crusader?
T Clark, I agree that there is racism against white people that is hypocritical and socially acceptable. Academically there is open and accepted racism against white people as well, as when racism is defined as “prejudice plus power”.
I think you see this too, but in this case I think your sensitivity to it is clouding your view. Perhaps your anger has the best of you here because Baden is right, your position here hasn’t held up to scrutiny.
A disgusting and despicable thing to do.
OK, well, your accusations are unfounded then. Don't make any further threads like this.
Overall on the fdrake prejudice against whites scale, it gets somewhere between a phantom and a fart.
For my part, the anti-southern sentiment in the post doesn't really bother me because it sounds like an old grandpa rant, cursing an unnuanced caricature that doesn't actually exist., but that represents all that is wrong in the world.