What teacher? (calling Twilight to Hell because she wanted me to)

24

Comments

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Most serious journalists, even on the liberal side are admitting they were wrong and too quick to judge. Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism. Here.

    As I noted on the Purg thread, there were several reporting errors in the original coverage. Some mischaracterized Phillips' service; some possibly misquoted him. At least one source got Sandemann's age wrong. Various reporters filed stories before confirming all the details. There were additional errors; I don't recall them all. Sloppy reporting. Too quick to judge? Maybe. Definitely they were too quick to file.

    Getting an assortment of details wrong (as collected by several different reporters), while deplorable, is not quite the same as getting the whole story wrong. Who are all these "serious journalists" who are now retracting and/or correcting and/or withdrawing their original reporting? Even the one source you link to acknowledges that Covington seems to engage in racism. I don't think one article in The Atlantic (I'm an admirer of the mag, which has a penchant for featuring one view per issue which counters the prevailing liberal spin), constitutes "most serious journalists."
  • All things are true as usual.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »

    I refer you to Bob Dylan's classic Christian anthem, You Gotta Serve Somebody. This one is Shirley Caesar's version, which I really like.

    Dear Ganesha, that song is awful. And I worship Bob Dylan. Nothing classic about that trash.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    (And to avoid the obvious rebuttal, it's you whose narrowed the focus to 'kids'. Something tells me the cops would see 'young black men' and not 'children'.)

    "Children" seem to become "young men" aged about 10 when they're black, and not until they've graduated from college when they're white.

    Funny that ... Unconscious bias in action.

    Based on previous history, I think a similar incident between a group of white adults and black male teenagers would not end well for the black teenagers. Although the police would have probably turned up a lot more quickly.

    There would be a lot less public sympathy for the black male teenagers or concern about the potential negative impact on their lives as well.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Most serious journalists, even on the liberal side are admitting they were wrong and too quick to judge. Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism. Here.

    From your linked article:
    I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist. Some boys did a tomahawk chop when Phillips walked into their group. There is a short video of a group that seems to be from the high school verbally harassing two young women as the women walk past it. In terms of the school itself, Covington Catholic High School apparently has a game-day tradition of students painting their skin black for “black-out days,” but any attempt by the school to cast this as innocent fun is undercut by a photograph of a white kid in black body paint leering at a black player on an opposing team.

    I can only assume you didn't read to the end.

    Of course I read the whole thing, unlike Mousethief who thinks it was written by a man.

    I don't follow your logic that if the kids on the steps attend a school where some other kids, on certain occasions, wear black face -- that means the kids on the steps are racist. I can find pictures in my year book of kids smoking, it doesn't mean I smoked in high school.

    My defense has been of Sandmann, the person who got the most ridicule, death threats and hatred from the media, and never so much as did the dreaded tomahawk chop -- and if anyone thinks the talk show hosts and people like Kathy Griffin would have done the same thing to a black sixteen year old they're lying to themselves.

    The videos show clearly that Phillips confronted Sandmann, not the other way around. There is no gaslighting. Just people who seem to be following a new rule of etiquette that says if you're standing in a spot and someone else possibly wants to stand in that spot you should move. I think I'll try this next time I'm in line at the movies.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »


    This whole conversation about privilege is really getting out of hand.

    <snip>

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Being born with white skin serves as an advantage in western society. So does being born rich, good looking, healthy, with a high IQ, and growing up with loving parents. Studies show that tall men are far more likely to get jobs they apply for than better qualified short men. Everyone, including babies, reacts more positively to the beautiful among us. In most cases, a college degree is a necessary step to a high income and people with a below normal IQ often find that step impossible, rendering them poor for life. Then of course there are gifts like talent with a basketball or great singing range that can cause such super-privileged people to amass more fame and fortune than the rest of us can imagine.

    Tell me who you think has the easiest life? A beautiful black woman or an ugly, low IQ white woman? A white person born with a serious disability or a black athlete? "White privilege" is just one tiny box to tick on the advantage side of all humans and not the huge, get out of jail free, card you seem to think it is.

    I grew up in the third whitest state in America and you never saw such misery.

    Wherever did you get the notion that "privilege" equates to "not being miserable?"

    Being attractive confers privilege; I had that as a (much) younger woman. It also conferred certain forms of misery (being hassled in the street by strange men every time I left the house; getting badly typecast (I was an actor then) as an ingenue when I lacked pretty much ALL the characteristics of ingenues beyond being white, blonde, blue-eyed, and shapely. I didn't have an ingenue voice. I didn't have an ingenue manner. I didn't have the expected ingenue intelligence [or lack thereof]. Did my looks get me roles? Yes. The very same looks also frequently denied me opportunities to display my ability with accents, convey deep emotions, explore characters' psychological complexities, etc.).

    Privilege is not about self-flagellation over being nice or nasty. Privilege lies in having, as a white person, the CHOICE to consider how race may be a factor in whatever I'm doing at the moment. I am free to ignore this issue. In this society, people of color do not have that option.

    For this society's non-whites, race/religion/color is ALWAYS a potential -- and highly unpredictable -- factor in their interactions with whites and white institutions, i.e. they have no choice about this. Me? Aside from the fact that I interact with people of color all the time in my professional life, and aside from the fact that all my interactions with fellow-gardeners in my community garden April through October are with people whose complexions are darker than mine, who speak different languages from me, and whose religious practices seem quite exotic to my New England vaguely-Protestant mindset, I have no need, ever, to think about race/religion/color.

    I don't have to wonder if someone will call the police when I try to enter my own home, or if I'll be arrested while driving my own car through a neighborhood where white people live, or if neighbors will complain about my dark-complected child's lemonade stand (but never about another white child's).

    Privilege confers the confidence to go about my innocent daily business without being hassled, suspect, questioned, interrupted, or arrested because some white person somewhere has decided I am a threat. Privilege does NOT confer happiness, health, or prosperity (even though it may up my chances of having one or more of these).

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Twilight wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Most serious journalists, even on the liberal side are admitting they were wrong and too quick to judge. Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism. Here.

    From your linked article:
    I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist. Some boys did a tomahawk chop when Phillips walked into their group. There is a short video of a group that seems to be from the high school verbally harassing two young women as the women walk past it. In terms of the school itself, Covington Catholic High School apparently has a game-day tradition of students painting their skin black for “black-out days,” but any attempt by the school to cast this as innocent fun is undercut by a photograph of a white kid in black body paint leering at a black player on an opposing team.

    I can only assume you didn't read to the end.

    Of course I read the whole thing, unlike Mousethief who thinks it was written by a man.

    I don't follow your logic that if the kids on the steps attend a school where some other kids, on certain occasions, wear black face -- that means the kids on the steps are racist. I can find pictures in my year book of kids smoking, it doesn't mean I smoked in high school.

    I'm quoting the whole thing so folk can follow the argument.

    That's not what you said.

    You said "Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism."

    I provided a quote from the article you linked to which directly contradicts that statement. ("I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist.")

    You swerve and talk about black face.

    I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your inability to read for comprehension, and/or your ability to do so and then simply lie about what something says in actual print. The article you linked to says the kids did things that were ugly, rude, or racist. Are you denying that the article says that? Or are you denying the boys did those things, while otherwise promoting the rest of the article?
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    @Twilight said -
    If you actually knew more than a handful of people of color you would know that, in reality, some are and some aren't . They come in all kinds just like white people.

    There’s you making assumptions

    In response to your gigantic assumption that I'm a racist. Yes I made some wild guesses based on things you've said, but nobody has called you a racist have they Baby Boogie? You're the spoiled little gal who floats through Hell in her flame proof onesie every day making mean remarks about others, and never getting singed.


    Yes, I feel like a fool with my "some of my best friends are POC" examples, but how on earth else am I supposed to defend myself against a charge of racism on the internet by people who don't know me?

    Ohher wrote: »
    Feel better now?

    Yes, I do. I was getting tired of just ignoring all the insults in Purg.

    Well, for what it's worth, that may be a premature -- the 'feeling better' thing, that is.

    Twilight, I'm fully prepared to believe that you don't intend to be racist and don't want to to be racist. Like many, many whites (myself included), you have successfully assimilated the notion that being racist is a Bad Thing, so you reject racism, and want racism Out Of Your Life.

    It's a little like being ordered by the doctor to change our eating habits if we want to preserve our health. The way we've been eating is no good for us: too much fat, too much salt, too much sugar, not enough veg and fruit, etc. etc. So off we go home to embark on the new regime. Within days, we're falling apart. We're a mass of cravings, our schedules are a wreck because our go-to meals are now off-limits (or taste like crap because of what we must omit from them). We suddenly have to do far more cooking, of different kinds, and with different ingredients, and within about 10 days we're a simmering mass of resentments, confusions, and despair over the realization that the simple-sounding changes the doc demands are, in reality, enormously complicated with effects on our schedules, habits, free time, budgets, attitudes, and comfort zones.

    Uprooting racism is like this. It's relatively easy for most whites to reject the idea of racism, just like it's easy to reject, in theory, all those bad-for-us convenience foods. Carrying the program out, though, is much more complicated. We always have mac-and-cheese Thursday nights because we can get it on the table, eaten, and cleaned up after between work and choir practice -- only WHAM! Now we can't have mac-and-cheese at all. What do we have instead? The "instead" has to be afforded, and shopped for, and prepared, and cleaned up after, and all these little individual steps call for different behaviors from us, and that's just for ONE out of approximately 21 meals per week.

    For most whites, many of whom can chug along their accustomed routines without a nano-second's thought about race, and some of whom live (as I do) in places where there are relatively few people of color, rejecting the idea of racism is about as we get. Few of us really have to think much about this, so we don't. The result is that many of us really have very little understanding of what it is we're actually rejecting.

    Maybe we end up vaguely thinking something like, "Be nice to people of color." Well, that's easy enough. We know how to be nice to people, right? So we go a little out of our way to exchange pleasantries with the clerk at the corner store because she's black.

    Here's what we hardly ever think about, though: the fact that in that one simple little action, we continue to exercise our own white privilege -- the privilege of being able to choose (rather than being forced) to consider race every minute of every living day, the way that clerk may have to -- in our interaction with her as we go right on "othering" her, just we would if we were nasty to her because she's black. We're not being nice to her because we're nice; we're being nice to her because she's black.

    And that's only one tiny small piece of the work whites have to do on ourselves -- the work of discovering and dealing with privilege -- before we can even hope to start unraveling racism in the US society.

    I don't accuse you of doing the above. But I often see you engage in another aspect of racism which starts from the assumption that, when it comes to "othering," people of color start from the exact same position as white do. But that's a whole 'nother discussion, and I am out of time.

    A very helpful analogy, IMHO, whether or not it applies to Twilight-- one I'll borrow I'm sure. I would add, too, that our attempts at change will cost us something, quite literally. As your analogy shows, moving from eating crap to eating healthy is going to cost something-- healthy food is more expensive (at least in US-- for all sorts of malevolent reasons, but that's another thread) and will cost us time to prepare. In the same way, truly rooting out racism is going to cost us more than just socializing with a more diverse group of friends or having to forgo a racist joke or reframe our language. If we truly give up "white privilege" it will cost us economically, professionally, personally. And it will cost our kids. I think it's the later that white Americans in particular, myself included, balk at-- even though we don't want to say so explicitly.

    But there's no way around it: Change is costly. Justice is costly.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    But there's no way around it: Change is costly. Justice is costly.

    Amen

    Jesus said the same.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »


    This whole conversation about privilege is really getting out of hand.

    <snip>

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Being born with white skin serves as an advantage in western society. So does being born rich, good looking, healthy, with a high IQ, and growing up with loving parents. Studies show that tall men are far more likely to get jobs they apply for than better qualified short men. Everyone, including babies, reacts more positively to the beautiful among us. In most cases, a college degree is a necessary step to a high income and people with a below normal IQ often find that step impossible, rendering them poor for life. Then of course there are gifts like talent with a basketball or great singing range that can cause such super-privileged people to amass more fame and fortune than the rest of us can imagine.

    Tell me who you think has the easiest life? A beautiful black woman or an ugly, low IQ white woman? A white person born with a serious disability or a black athlete? "White privilege" is just one tiny box to tick on the advantage side of all humans and not the huge, get out of jail free, card you seem to think it is.

    I grew up in the third whitest state in America and you never saw such misery.

    Wherever did you get the notion that "privilege" equates to "not being miserable?"

    Being attractive confers privilege; I had that as a (much) younger woman. It also conferred certain forms of misery (being hassled in the street by strange men every time I left the house; getting badly typecast (I was an actor then) as an ingenue when I lacked pretty much ALL the characteristics of ingenues beyond being white, blonde, blue-eyed, and shapely. I didn't have an ingenue voice. I didn't have an ingenue manner. I didn't have the expected ingenue intelligence [or lack thereof]. Did my looks get me roles? Yes. The very same looks also frequently denied me opportunities to display my ability with accents, convey deep emotions, explore characters' psychological complexities, etc.).

    Privilege is not about self-flagellation over being nice or nasty. Privilege lies in having, as a white person, the CHOICE to consider how race may be a factor in whatever I'm doing at the moment. I am free to ignore this issue. In this society, people of color do not have that option.

    For this society's non-whites, race/religion/color is ALWAYS a potential -- and highly unpredictable -- factor in their interactions with whites and white institutions, i.e. they have no choice about this. Me? Aside from the fact that I interact with people of color all the time in my professional life, and aside from the fact that all my interactions with fellow-gardeners in my community garden April through October are with people whose complexions are darker than mine, who speak different languages from me, and whose religious practices seem quite exotic to my New England vaguely-Protestant mindset, I have no need, ever, to think about race/religion/color.

    I don't have to wonder if someone will call the police when I try to enter my own home, or if I'll be arrested while driving my own car through a neighborhood where white people live, or if neighbors will complain about my dark-complected child's lemonade stand (but never about another white child's).

    Privilege confers the confidence to go about my innocent daily business without being hassled, suspect, questioned, interrupted, or arrested because some white person somewhere has decided I am a threat. Privilege does NOT confer happiness, health, or prosperity (even though it may up my chances of having one or more of these).

    If misery can't enter into the debate then I guess having to worry about being arrested doesn't enter into it either. According to you only one type of disadvantage matters.

    You have no need to think about race, and no need to think about whether there's wheel chair access at the restaurant , and no need to wonder if the clerk is ignoring you because you're ugly, and no need to wonder if you didn't get the job because you have a stutter, and no need to fear that the macho redneck is going to beat you up for being gay and no need to wonder if your kids will go to bed hungry tonight. Good for you. Having experienced none of these things, I wonder why you have appointed yourself judge over which sort of privilege really matters and which you can just blow off.

  • Twilight wrote: »

    I grew up in the third whitest state in America and you never saw such misery. At that time the poorest city in America was Welch, West Virginia (all white.) One in three West Virginia girls were sexually abused as a child, usually through incest. Jobs get harder to find every year. When factories or coal mines close only about 50% of the workers ever work again.* Houses bought 10 years ago for 80,000 are now selling for 20,000. Suicide is on the rise and drug overdose in the area is now responsible for more deaths than car accidents. I'm heartedly sick of hearing about white privilege.

    * A greater percentage of West Virginians voted for Trump than any other state because they thought he would bring jobs back to the state. Just one more example of people who might wear a MAGA hat without being racist.


    Is it? Or is it an example of someone who has suffered in life for reasons other than race, being vulnerable to a racist scapegoating explanation for his/her misery? Trump explicitly blames "others" (mostly immigrants) for their misery. It's an appealing answer-- that if we just built the wall, everything would be OK, the jobs would come back, we'd be able to pay our bills and have health care and a decent place to live. We can sympathize with desperate people who are vulnerable to such an appeal. But it doesn't make it any less racist.

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited February 12
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Most serious journalists, even on the liberal side are admitting they were wrong and too quick to judge. Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism. Here.

    From your linked article:
    I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist. Some boys did a tomahawk chop when Phillips walked into their group. There is a short video of a group that seems to be from the high school verbally harassing two young women as the women walk past it. In terms of the school itself, Covington Catholic High School apparently has a game-day tradition of students painting their skin black for “black-out days,” but any attempt by the school to cast this as innocent fun is undercut by a photograph of a white kid in black body paint leering at a black player on an opposing team.

    I can only assume you didn't read to the end.

    Of course I read the whole thing, unlike Mousethief who thinks it was written by a man.

    I don't follow your logic that if the kids on the steps attend a school where some other kids, on certain occasions, wear black face -- that means the kids on the steps are racist. I can find pictures in my year book of kids smoking, it doesn't mean I smoked in high school.

    I'm quoting the whole thing so folk can follow the argument.

    That's not what you said.

    You said "Only on the ship have the heels been dug in and the kids firmly charged with racism."

    I provided a quote from the article you linked to which directly contradicts that statement. ("I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist.")

    You swerve and talk about black face.

    I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your inability to read for comprehension, and/or your ability to do so and then simply lie about what something says in actual print. The article you linked to says the kids did things that were ugly, rude, or racist. Are you denying that the article says that? Or are you denying the boys did those things, while otherwise promoting the rest of the article?

    I'm denying that Nick Sandmann did anything racist, ugly, or rude. A few of the other kids did to a very slight degree. I don't consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. I don't agree with every word of the article, but with her general conclusion that the press got it wrong.

  • Twilight wrote: »

    I grew up in the third whitest state in America and you never saw such misery. At that time the poorest city in America was Welch, West Virginia (all white.) One in three West Virginia girls were sexually abused as a child, usually through incest. Jobs get harder to find every year. When factories or coal mines close only about 50% of the workers ever work again.* Houses bought 10 years ago for 80,000 are now selling for 20,000. Suicide is on the rise and drug overdose in the area is now responsible for more deaths than car accidents. I'm heartedly sick of hearing about white privilege.

    * A greater percentage of West Virginians voted for Trump than any other state because they thought he would bring jobs back to the state. Just one more example of people who might wear a MAGA hat without being racist.


    Is it? Or is it an example of someone who has suffered in life for reasons other than race, being vulnerable to a racist scapegoating explanation for his/her misery? Trump explicitly blames "others" (mostly immigrants) for their misery. It's an appealing answer-- that if we just built the wall, everything would be OK, the jobs would come back, we'd be able to pay our bills and have health care and a decent place to live. We can sympathize with desperate people who are vulnerable to such an appeal. But it doesn't make it any less racist.

    I'm sure you'd like to think they're racists, that's just more people for you to feel superior to and more people you can give yourself permission to hate, but it's extremely unlikely that people living thousands of miles from the border, who worked in a factory where everyone else was white, would think that people of color, or immigrants, had stolen their jobs or that the coal mine closed because of something to do with some immigrants in Texas. If you're going to give yourself permission to read peoples minds and make up thoughts for them so that you can call them racist, at least do a little better job.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    I think you protest too long and loud @Twilight - this has hit a chord with you.

    I’m glad to hear that you are anti tRump. That’s something at least.

    Or, I wonder, are you one of those people who will defend anti abortionists however inappropriate their behaviour - just because they are anti abortion.

    Maybe you ignored the racism because you were seeing the encounter through anti abortion lenses?

    (I wasn’t aware of why the boys were there at first, but it certainly compounded my outrage.)

    What are you talking about? I'm Pro-choice and have said so over and over.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm denying that Nick Sandmann did anything racist, ugly, or rude. A few of the other kids did to a very slight degree. I don't consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. I don't agree with every word of the article, but with her general conclusion that the press got it wrong.

    You are perfectly free to deny whatever you want. You are perfectly free to not consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. You can absolutely conclude that the press got it wrong.

    What you're being held to account for here in Hell is your insistence of picking whichever facts suit you, denying the rest, and then repeatedly accusing people of wanting Sandmann, the rest of his class, his entire school and every white person in the state tarred and feathered.

    That's not what happened in Purgatory, and you can't argue for shit.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    I'm denying that Nick Sandmann did anything racist, ugly, or rude. A few of the other kids did to a very slight degree. I don't consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. I don't agree with every word of the article, but with her general conclusion that the press got it wrong.

    Yeah well, so a group of red maga hat-wearing white boys are being profiled as being racist. So they get to learn how it feels to be profiled. You know, like Mexicans
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    If misery can't enter into the debate

    Try reading what I actually wrote, and then point out where I said this.
    Twilight wrote: »
    According to you only one type of disadvantage matters.

    Try reading what I actually wrote, and then point out where I said this.
    Twilight wrote: »
    You have no need to think about race,

    Try reading what I actually wrote, and then point out where I said this. As it happens, I think about this many times daily, as I have students of different races, who come from different countries / cultures, and whose mother tongues are often not English.
    Twilight wrote: »
    and no need to think about whether there's wheel chair access at the restaurant

    I face this issue frequently because of family, friends, and students who use wheelchairs.
    Twilight wrote: »
    , and no need to wonder if the clerk is ignoring you because you're ugly, and no need to wonder if you didn't get the job because you have a stutter, and no need to fear that the macho redneck is going to beat you up for being gay and no need to wonder if your kids will go to bed hungry tonight.

    As it happens, I'm a former welfare mother, and I have gone to bed hungry to ensure my offspring didn't. I have gone without heat or lights or a phone for several days at a stretch because I had no money to pay the bills. I am sometimes fearful for my gay brother-in-law's safety. I have been arrested while protesting for civil rights. I have had to wonder whether I didn't get the job because I was female, or because I have a hearing impairment, or because of that arrest. I have actually received lower pay due to being female. I'm pretty sure clerks ignore me these days because I'm old.

    None of which has the slightest bearing on the present discussion, which is about racism and white privilege and not about all these other issues. Do I think one of these forms of privilege takes priority over others? Do I blow these other matters off? No. I don't. I can't. Every one is part of my life.

    At the moment we're only discussing one of them.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Blah blah blah.
    The kids were wearing MAGA hats, which is a racist act. Everything else is degrees and circumstance.

    Some people don't like that simple equation, which is understandable. But liking it is not relevant to its truth. Same with blackface, and KKK hoods, and dixie battle flags.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited February 12
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm denying that Nick Sandmann did anything racist, ugly, or rude. A few of the other kids did to a very slight degree. I don't consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. I don't agree with every word of the article, but with her general conclusion that the press got it wrong.

    You are perfectly free to deny whatever you want. You are perfectly free to not consider the tomahawk motion proof of racism. You can absolutely conclude that the press got it wrong.

    What you're being held to account for here in Hell is your insistence of picking whichever facts suit you, denying the rest, and then repeatedly accusing people of wanting Sandmann, the rest of his class, his entire school and every white person in the state tarred and feathered.

    That's not what happened in Purgatory, and you can't argue for shit.

    The Purg thread pretty much agreed that the main responsibility for what happened lay with the adults who were meant to be supervising the young men and didn’t.

    Given these are the same adults who don’t see a problem with black-face, the behaviour of the young men isn’t entirely surprising.

    As an aside if you don’t think something is racist but members of that community do, then their opinion carries more weight. Google tells me that Native Americans do consider the tomahawk guesture racist and they’ve asked various sports teams to stop doing it.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »

    I grew up in the third whitest state in America and you never saw such misery. At that time the poorest city in America was Welch, West Virginia (all white.) One in three West Virginia girls were sexually abused as a child, usually through incest. Jobs get harder to find every year. When factories or coal mines close only about 50% of the workers ever work again.* Houses bought 10 years ago for 80,000 are now selling for 20,000. Suicide is on the rise and drug overdose in the area is now responsible for more deaths than car accidents. I'm heartedly sick of hearing about white privilege.

    * A greater percentage of West Virginians voted for Trump than any other state because they thought he would bring jobs back to the state. Just one more example of people who might wear a MAGA hat without being racist.


    Is it? Or is it an example of someone who has suffered in life for reasons other than race, being vulnerable to a racist scapegoating explanation for his/her misery? Trump explicitly blames "others" (mostly immigrants) for their misery. It's an appealing answer-- that if we just built the wall, everything would be OK, the jobs would come back, we'd be able to pay our bills and have health care and a decent place to live. We can sympathize with desperate people who are vulnerable to such an appeal. But it doesn't make it any less racist.

    I'm sure you'd like to think they're racists, that's just more people for you to feel superior to and more people you can give yourself permission to hate, but it's extremely unlikely that people living thousands of miles from the border, who worked in a factory where everyone else was white, would think that people of color, or immigrants, had stolen their jobs or that the coal mine closed because of something to do with some immigrants in Texas. If you're going to give yourself permission to read peoples minds and make up thoughts for them so that you can call them racist, at least do a little better job.

    Actually, both of us are making assumptions about why people in that particular part of the world voted for Trump. You made your assumption, I floated my own counter suggestion. At least I framed mine as a question/possibility rather than asserting it as fact.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    It's a well-attested phenomenon here in the UK, that the lower the non-white population is in an area, the more racist it is. That's not mind-reading, that's statistics and voting patterns.
  • Tubbs wrote: »

    As an aside if you don’t think something is racist but members of that community do, then their opinion carries more weight. Google tells me that Native Americans do consider the tomahawk guesture racist and they’ve asked various sports teams to stop doing it.

    This seems to me to be quite important.

    The drummers were at the site already.

    I've no reason to believe that peace drumming is not part of Nathan's practice at that site, so it makes sense in more than one way that he would think it appropriate to stand between groups he believed were about to get violent.

    Even if he was wrong in that point, even if everything else he has said is wrong, we have only have to believe that the Native Americans believe in peace drums and were at the site independent of the school boys to see their actions as consistent. He was acting out freely his religious view.

    Despicably, in my view, the shouty men were also acting out their religious views.

    In contrast to both of those groups, the actions of the boys, when things came to a head, were designed to ridicule and offend. That's pretty much textbook racism.

    They boys were just hanging around temporarily after an event. They acted in a hateful, ridiculing way.

    If they went back day after day and confronted the shouty men with acts of defiance - I don't know, noisily doing Mass in front of them - that would be something else.

    But they didn't. They were temporary actors in this (rather ridiculous) drama, and instead of keeping cool resorted to racism - and then tried to pretend they are victims, aided and abetted by the racist in the White House.


  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    I refer you to Bob Dylan's classic Christian anthem, You Gotta Serve Somebody. This one is Shirley Caesar's version, which I really like.

    Dear Ganesha, that song is awful. And I worship Bob Dylan. Nothing classic about that trash.

    Huh. I'm not a huge Dylan fan, but I do really like this song.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    I refer you to Bob Dylan's classic Christian anthem, You Gotta Serve Somebody. This one is Shirley Caesar's version, which I really like.

    Dear Ganesha, that song is awful. And I worship Bob Dylan. Nothing classic about that trash.

    Huh. I'm not a huge Dylan fan, but I do really like this song.

    Meh. Dylan does his best work when he opens his mouth in parables. Like Jesus.*
    Or mumbles lyrics so metaphorically loaded that they are equal parts profound and gibberish. Like Martin54.
    That song is waaaaaay too earnest. It makes me cringe.

    *I'm aware that this is a bit of a long bow, even for a Dylan worshipper like me.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    We can have a separate thread for those who mutilate Dylan songs. Let's keep this one for Twilight, mkay?
  • Twilight, at least on this thread, is a fuckwit. Her failures in logic are manifest. Others have pointed this out. She is more like Morrissey than the one I'm not discussing anymore.

    I'm aware that this observation may result in the accusation that I am sucking up to mousethief, or part of the self-hating white (I'm brown, but whatevs) liberal mafia crucifying a poor middle class kid who just wanted to wear a racist hat and smirk at Native Americans with his scaly mates. I have actual video of me not caring, but I can't be arsed to upload it.
  • Thanks, Dark Knight. The cheque is in the post.
  • Self-hating white... hmmm. My first reaction is funny. I'm not going to delve further. I think John Safran does a few very funny riffs on being a self-hating Jew, and also on using arabic words in scrabble when you don't have a u to go with your q.

    But I only came here because I have a theory that Twilight might be a contraversialist, if I use the term to describe someone who is compelled to disagree with people around them and then hold their ground. Its kind of like being a beserker on a ninth-century battlefield, or having white line fever as a sportsperson.

    I use the characterisation with love. My mother is definitely a controversialist. I have just negotiated a fencing dispute for her (I hope), and I too have that tendency.
  • One of my daughters has that affliction. Hers were often based in saying something off the top of her head based on words floating aimlessly through her brain. Her most famous absurdity that she doubled down on like a dog on a bone: "I didn't realize clothes came in sizes." She was in her late teens.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Twilight has famous form for wading into any Hell thread to back up whomever she perceived to be the underdog, regardless of how thoroughly they deserved the heat they were getting. I used to ascribe it simply to paranoid projection, that there's a "they" who pick people arbitrarily to be unpopular, and that it was her fraternal duty to support her comrades in unpopularity. Over time, I've assumed a somewhat different hypothesis.

    Being fair and true to herself appear to be Twilight's main motivations, along with a personal conviction not to simply stand by when others are oppressed. I don't have a high regard for Twilight's objectivity about how she orients or corrects any of those drives, but I respect the fuck out of what she's picked to power them. I've joked about her holier-than-thou-ness and her persecution complex, but I can forgive them and appreciate how she is much more than either of those caricatures.

    She's one of us. And I'm grateful for it.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I don't know if Twilight is a contraversialist, but I've been that way in the past, compelled by a need to present the opposing view, so the issue is explored fairly (to my mind). I would get a sort of itch when I saw people only looking at one angle, and I felt a need to present another angle. Not sure why - perhaps from growing up being taught very distorted fundamentalist (and often contradictory) views, and realising how harmful they can be, and that they needed to be challenged. Perhaps also because my dad (who is not a fundamentalist, or even religious) has always impressed on me that the way something is presented in the media is not the full story, and the importance of not having a knee-jerk reaction. Possibly that is what Twilight is aiming for here, to stand back and refuse to judge, not knowing the full story. Because we never know the full story.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Possibly that is what Twilight is aiming for here, to stand back and refuse to judge, not knowing the full story. Because we never know the full story.

    Her reaction to my comments had nothing of the ‘standing back and refusing to judge’ you mention.

    :lol:
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    True, she seemed to be getting angry/frustrated/miserable. That is maybe a separate issue. And a very human one. We are all inconsistent in what we aim for and what we achieve.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    True, she seemed to be getting angry/frustrated/miserable. That is maybe a separate issue. And a very human one. We are all inconsistent in what we aim for and what we achieve.

    See, I find that odd.

    Yes, we all get angry/frustrated/miserable and this is totally human.

    But on a forum? In writing? Why?

    Just argue your points - (generic ‘your’). Read what you write and, if it comes over as any of those things, delete and write with more reason.

    There is a nice delay when writing our thoughts rather than speaking them - one it’s well worth taking advantage of imo.

  • Come on, it's the internet. It was designed for feeling miserable, bad-tempered, and misrepresenting other people.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Yes, we all get angry/frustrated/miserable and this is totally human.

    But on a forum? In writing? Why?

    Dopamine. Serotonin. Cortisol. Some other hormones.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Despicably, in my view, the shouty men were also acting out their religious views.

    I'm getting more and more convinced that "I was only acting out my religious views" will be this century's version of "I was only obeying orders".
  • Well now you guys have been nice to me and made me cry. I'm at a loss as to where to put my caffeinated, blood pressure surge.

    Dear, kind Simon Toad, who always gives people the benefit of the doubt is close, and as Fineline says I feel a compulsion to state the other side, and if I ever change my username, "Berserker," will definitely be it.

    But RooK, as our omniscient overlord, sussed me out a long time ago and is dead right. Everyone has something they particularly can't abide, maybe racism, maybe men mistreating women, and I don't like those things either, but my number one terror is mob rule. Anytime the internet, late night talk show hosts and CNN have all agreeed to vilify someone, particularly without knowing the whole story and with slanted headlines, I just have to jump in and do a half-assed job of defending them. Rarely have I gotten into a big argument here without someone I perceive as on the bottom of a dogpile as my motive.

    Boogie, I'm sorry. I was mean to you. I put it down to jealousy, of your life, your esteemed position on the ship, but mainly over the dogs.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Despicably, in my view, the shouty men were also acting out their religious views.

    I'm getting more and more convinced that "I was only acting out my religious views" will be this century's version of "I was only obeying orders".
    I think you've got something there.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    True, she seemed to be getting angry/frustrated/miserable. That is maybe a separate issue. And a very human one. We are all inconsistent in what we aim for and what we achieve.

    See, I find that odd.

    Yes, we all get angry/frustrated/miserable and this is totally human.

    But on a forum? In writing? Why?

    Why not? We are still humans interacting, whether reading and writing online or reading and speaking in person. One can equally pause before speaking as pause before writing, but not everyone does, especially not if one feels particularly hurt or angry by something someone has said. And sometimes it's possible to still feel emotional after a pause. Certainly for myself, I can feel hurt and angry online, and sometimes I express this. It's not unusual. I guess I find it odd that you find this odd.

    Twilight wrote: »
    Everyone has something they particularly can't abide, maybe racism, maybe men mistreating women, and I don't like those things either, but my number one terror is mob rule. Anytime the internet, late night talk show hosts and CNN have all agreeed to vilify someone, particularly without knowing the whole story and with slanted headlines, I just have to jump in and do a half-assed job of defending them.

    I get this. I think I experience something similar, though I express it more on FB than here. I get very frustrated with the knee-jerk reactions to certain news stories, where everyone automatically interprets it one way, without stopping to think of the other perspective. Even if the mob perspective if one that I am generally in sympathy with, I will challenge this perspective if I feel people are being reactive, unreasonable or too one-sided. I've actually had someone block me on FB for putting forward a possible sympathetic perspective of someone in the news that was being vilified. And despite being firmly left-wing, I will stand up for Theresa May when I feel she is being dehumanised, or mocked for irrelevant, sexist reasons.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Sometimes mocking humour is a coping mechanism. I certainly use it where politicians are concerned.

    Bring back Spitting Image, I say!
  • Twilight wrote: »
    Well now you guys have been nice to me and made me cry. I'm at a loss as to where to put my caffeinated, blood pressure surge.

    Dear, kind Simon Toad, who always gives people the benefit of the doubt is close, and as Fineline says I feel a compulsion to state the other side, and if I ever change my username, "Berserker," will definitely be it.

    But RooK, as our omniscient overlord, sussed me out a long time ago and is dead right. Everyone has something they particularly can't abide, maybe racism, maybe men mistreating women, and I don't like those things either, but my number one terror is mob rule. Anytime the internet, late night talk show hosts and CNN have all agreeed to vilify someone, particularly without knowing the whole story and with slanted headlines, I just have to jump in and do a half-assed job of defending them. Rarely have I gotten into a big argument here without someone I perceive as on the bottom of a dogpile as my motive.

    Boogie, I'm sorry. I was mean to you. I put it down to jealousy, of your life, your esteemed position on the ship, but mainly over the dogs.

    I'm going to totally piss Twilight off by saying this makes sense of what can often seem confounding behavior and really helps me understand and appreciate her contribution. How very un-hellish.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Despicably, in my view, the shouty men were also acting out their religious views.

    I'm getting more and more convinced that "I was only acting out my religious views" will be this century's version of "I was only obeying orders".
    I think you've got something there.

    Indeed. Can we arrange for the Religious War Crimes Tribunal to be held in Salem, MA? It would put the wind up the accused.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    Sometimes mocking humour is a coping mechanism. I certainly use it where politicians are concerned.

    Bring back Spitting Image, I say!

    I know. I'm talking about really vilifying and hating, to extremes, rather than humour and satire. I'm all for drawing caricatures of politicians on mouldy potatoes.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Twilight, yes, I do admit to consistently seeing you standing up for someone you seeing being picked. What is harder for me to understand is your choice of the one to stand up for.

    This Guardian piece by Julian Brave NoiseCat ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/04/nathan-phillips-his-story-hate-division-covington ) portrays Phillips in a very different light. I don't recall if it came up in the Purg thread. NoiseCat describes Phillips as having, at age 64, four teeth. He relates Phillips' history, as told by Phillips.

    When we set what we know about Sandmann side by side with NoiseCat's portrait of Phillips (I think it's safe to assume we don't have all the potentially relevant details about either person), we get very different lives.

    *One's young and vigorous; one is old and probably not in optimal health.
    *One lives in materially comfortable circumstances; one lives in poverty.
    *While both are male (in this society, a normally privileged group), one is white and one is Native, and these two groups occupy very different statuses legally, politically, and socially.
    *Both can be seen as activists for causes. One opposes abortion (a choice about which he personally will never have to decide); the other is advocating peace and reconciliation between his own people and those who have been mistreating them for centuries.

    I could go on, mentioning Phillips' removal from his family, tribe, traditions, & language; his abuse while in foster care; rejection by his own people after being taken from them and raised "white" through no choice of his own, etc. etc.

    Given all this, can you understand why so many of us are dismayed by your choice of who to stand up for?
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Twilight, yes, I do admit to consistently seeing you standing up for someone you seeing being picked. What is harder for me to understand is your choice of the one to stand up for.

    This Guardian piece by Julian Brave NoiseCat ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/04/nathan-phillips-his-story-hate-division-covington ) portrays Phillips in a very different light. I don't recall if it came up in the Purg thread. NoiseCat describes Phillips as having, at age 64, four teeth. He relates Phillips' history, as told by Phillips.

    When we set what we know about Sandmann side by side with NoiseCat's portrait of Phillips (I think it's safe to assume we don't have all the potentially relevant details about either person), we get very different lives.

    *One's young and vigorous; one is old and probably not in optimal health.
    *One lives in materially comfortable circumstances; one lives in poverty.
    *While both are male (in this society, a normally privileged group), one is white and one is Native, and these two groups occupy very different statuses legally, politically, and socially.
    *Both can be seen as activists for causes. One opposes abortion (a choice about which he personally will never have to decide); the other is advocating peace and reconciliation between his own people and those who have been mistreating them for centuries.

    I could go on, mentioning Phillips' removal from his family, tribe, traditions, & language; his abuse while in foster care; rejection by his own people after being taken from them and raised "white" through no choice of his own, etc. etc.

    Given all this, can you understand why so many of us are dismayed by your choice of who to stand up for?

    As I've tried to explain, I am usually moved to step in and stand up for someone when it looks like everyone else is against him/her. At the time that I first posted in the Purg thread, there had been a long string of posts about how awful Sandmann and his classmates were and the general attitude about Phillips was almost reverential, as is the article you've linked. To me it's that public opinion that makes Sandmann the underdog, not who has the fewest teeth.

    Yes, Phillips has had a very hard life, I don't doubt that, but he is on film calling himself a Vietnam Veteran and telling sad stories about girls spitting on him when he came back from Vietnam. Since he never left the states, both of these things are untrue and the lie about coming home to be spit on is such an obvious attempt to gain sympathy that it makes me question all his stories to some degree. The writer of your article hasn't checked his facts very well or he would know Phillips was simply discharged from the military, not an honorable discharge. They're not the same thing at all and would explain his not achieving any rank above private and give credence to the stories that he went AWOL a few times. Phillips has a criminal record for several misdemeanors, and when he was a young ( presumably vigorous and strong) man he was arrested for assault. Not always so peaceful. I simply don't fully trust his accounts of his life, since he has been caught lying or exaggerating several times.

    That has nothing to do with my sympathy for Native Americans in general, who I admire and know have long been treated badly and have very hard lives. I just think Native Americans, just like all groups come in many varieties and while I think, if anything, the average Native American is probably more honest than any other group due to their cultural emphasis on honesty. That doesn't mean honesty applies to every single one. We all have our bad apples.

    But this was never about who had the saddest life or the most teeth. It was about who was in the wrong on the steps in Washington D.C. that day. Since they both tell different stories we have to watch the video, and there I see more truth in Sandmann's account than in Phillip's account.
  • Excellent. Phillips is a hero it would seem. Trying to distract slavers and slaves from hating each other and finding common ground in despising him.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    ... Yes, Phillips has had a very hard life, I don't doubt that, but he is on film calling himself a Vietnam Veteran and telling sad stories about girls spitting on him when he came back from Vietnam. Since he never left the states, both of these things are untrue and the lie about coming home to be spit on is such an obvious attempt to gain sympathy that it makes me question all his stories to some degree. The writer of your article hasn't checked his facts very well or he would know Phillips was simply discharged from the military, not an honorable discharge. They're not the same thing at all and would explain his not achieving any rank above private and give credence to the stories that he went AWOL a few times. Phillips has a criminal record for several misdemeanors, and when he was a young ( presumably vigorous and strong) man he was arrested for assault. Not always so peaceful. I simply don't fully trust his accounts of his life, since he has been caught lying or exaggerating several times. ...

    Yeah, well, he couldn't afford a PR firm to do his media strategy and thus prevent his "youthful indiscretions" from being held against him for the rest of his life.

    Did Nathan Phillips falsely claim he was a Vietnam veteran?






  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    I'm going to totally piss Twilight off by saying this makes sense of what can often seem confounding behavior and really helps me understand and appreciate her contribution. ...
    Agreed.


  • What I have noticed about the so-called underdogs that Twilight has chosen to defend is that they are uniformly right-wing, even far right.
Sign In or Register to comment.