I believe Bruce.

People arguing that "racist" is being wrongly applied when they're demeaning a group of people like Mexicans - are probably missing the larger point.

I don't see any reason not to accept that Bruce didn't mean the analogy to be offensive. Both as a practical matter (because I believe there should be a path forward, i.e via apology) and because people are complex enough to have prejudicial and objectionable views without consciously intending direct harm. That's pretty much what we mean in distinguishing between "prejudice" and some more strict definition of "racist". But this is all part of the insidious difficulty of addressing "white supremacy" when the term is intended to reflect something that is deep, often subtle, and which implicates an entire culture and its history.

There is also the fact that this isn't the only objectionable post. My opinion is that beyond an apology for the cockroach post there should be a recognition and acceptance that posts like the "race hustlers" post express an ugly prejudicial sentiment, and that this kind of sentiment shouldn't be tolerated in 2+2 discussions.

Open discussion is a worthwhile principle, but it's possible to investigate the issues involved in the possibility of systemic racism in law enforcement, and even to question its extent or reality, without asserting that everyone who sees racism is either a hustler or a dupe. We're sensitive about prejudicial language about racism for the same reasons we are sensitive about prejudicial language towards gay people: the real history of oppression and injustice warrants the extra scrutiny. That isn't something that is borne out by statistics or purely abstract argument, it's a moral argument that recognizes an ugly history. The reality of the injuries caused by racism is not abstract or statistical.

So my opinion is an apology for the cockroach post is a good place to start, but not really a good place to end.

I'm willing to believe Bruce didn't intend to compare Mexicans to cockroaches. However, that's just one part of why the post that contains that sentence is racist, and there are a lot of other racist posts. Bruce, however, insists on focusing on just that one line and faulting us for misreading him, when I've been talking about the racism in other posts.

What about the 10 other racist things he said? You accept that he's sorry we got offended by what he said on those too? That it was just our mistake and no, really, he's a super nice/smart guy who's helped some folks around here so we'll just overlook overt racism?

Definitely making a MoveOn petition.

Yeah that's why I don't believe Bruce. He's not apologizing for posting all that racist ****, he's apologizing if any of us silly politards were dumb enough to "misinterpret" his story about the Mexicans ruining his neighborhood as comparing cockroaches to Mexicans. That post is still super racist without the cockroach part!

I thought his posts were horrifically racist, but I don't really see the objection to this part or why you're focusing on it. Seems to me like he was saying black people riot a lot because of race baiters, not because black people are dumb but because people in general are dumb and can be baited into protesting or rioting easily. The only reason it's black people rioting is because they're the ones being oppressed and therefore they're the ones race-baiters will target. It's no secret that rational thought goes out the window when mobs are involved and it snowballs from there.

Obviously he could have actually meant something worse, but in a few posts full of straight up racist bull****, I find it weird that you are focusing so much on this one part that could easily be a commentary about riots in general.

Yeah this, and tbh I think it's a pretty boring discussion in general. Anyone who tries to claim they never have any racist thoughts/reactions is a moron, that's part of what humans do and you can't change the way your brain will snap-react in certain situations. Your beliefs and behaviour are different, and it should go without saying that's what we are judging people on when we call them racist or not

He uses racially charged language and offhandedly dismisses the fact that they have a legitimate reason to be protesting. Presuming that they are only protesting due to "race-baiters" discounts not only the legacy of racism but the very real racism they still experience on a regular basis.

And he uses a misleading statistic about black-on-black crime to minimize or try to overshadow the real issue.

He did not directly say blacks were gullible though. I got his post mixed up with a very similar post from yesterday.

In 1990 Mat was attending Columbia University in New York just a few blocks from almost all black Harlem. He got a part time job with the US govt. canvassing for the 90 census. His base of operations was in the middle of Harlem and he was the only white guy among hundreds. The employees were separated into groups of twelve or so. This was about the time when black people, especially the younger ones, were finally starting to feel not like second class citizens. They could be doctors, lawyers, and middle managers and no longer had to feel under the thumb of white people. This new feeling of pride and elation was undoubtedly felt in an especially strong way in Harlem.

After a week or so on the job, each group was told to elect a group leader who would essentially be their boss. Of course it would be inconceivable that they would elect a white person in this environment even if he was the most qualified. After all it could be misconstrued as some kind of admission that whites should be in that position over them. Even if they thought he was a great guy (and obviously not racist) as well as being the most qualified, electing him would not only make them feel funny but would also subject them to the derision of the other two hundred black people who didn't know that white guy as well as they did. Those 200 would be appalled that those eleven would pick a white person to report to and wouldn't let them hear the end of it.

In spite of all that he won.

There's a lot of question begging in this. To start with, the legitimacy of the term "race-baiters".

And that man was Einstein

Yeah fair enough

Please explain why it wouldn't be legit? Seems to me that there are people on the fringe of every social movement that either take advantage of it or simply take it too far due to not being able to think. I don't think you can possibly deny that there are people who will unfairly accuse others of racism due to either being morons or opportunistic ****s wanting to take advantage of human hysteria.

That said this is going off-topic and probably not important. I just found a particular part of bruce's post not very offensive compared to almost everything else in those posts and wanted to know why jbrochu was bringing it up frequently

edit: I assume race-baiters are the opportunistic ****s, not sure why I included morons in there but they still exist imo

edit 2: Unless there's some other reason why race-baiters isn't a legitimate term, I also find this conversation fairly uninteresting and not really worthy of taking up much space in a thread. Either people agree that yeah occasionally false accusations are thrown around and we are no closer to figuring out how often this is or whether it's at all relevant to the situation at hand, or I get labelled a racism-apologist

I guess it depends on how you're defining "race baiters". It's most commonly used by white people saying that no matter what happens between a white person and a minority the white person is right, the minority is wrong, and another minority saying otherwise is one or all of lying, self-aggrandizing, or otherwise stirring up trouble where it's unwarranted.

Also, using language like "take advantage of" and "take it too far" is really presumptuous. If the accused is actually innocent and the "race baiter" knows it, then sure. You can't just assume those are true though.

I'm drinking and took too long to post. As to this edit, I would say that "race-baiters" is almost never a legitimate term. Unless you believe people storm into an otherwise completely innocent situation and start throwing around racial accusations where it's irrelevant I guess.

Yup thought might be the case, a term that makes sense taken literally but has been almost exclusively by a certain group of people (I was unaware of this use fwiw) so it's associated with racism. Kinda similar to the term 'white knight'. Also re: your second paragraph, I was talking specifically about situations where people will knowingly accuse someone innocent, or not care whether they were innocent when making the accusation. So we're pretty much in agreement.

Got it. The only thing I'd add is that I can't even remember a situation where someone came in, knew someone was innocent or didn't care, and then accused them. That's why people tend to assume the term is used by racists.

Mat, if you're looking for a prime example of how the misapplication of the term racism by so many in this forum destroys all productive conversation, check out the treatment of Jman in the Mike Brown thread. It's a case in point.

It's inconceivable that black people would be able to see past race and elect the best candidate?

That's why black people are racist when they're witnesses too. They just hate The Man so much they'll lie, usually without even noticing they're doing it!

/racistson2p2

Bruce, it looks to me like you saw the topic of this thread and made a first move apology, which appears spontaneous and genuine. I do hope you consider the quality of your other posts and consider feedback from people here on 2+2 who offered knowledgable and well thought responses.

I mentioned in another thread that a simple choice to be aware of factoring racial information when considering an opinion is a kind of a small step in a do it yourself approach to solving racism or prejudice personally and intellectually.

Yeah I'm assuming it happens on a bigger level - certain news anchors, people who can benefit from hysteria in some way. Maybe I've just got the tinfoil hat going on? I've known 1 irl troll race-baiter who did it for the lulz, but yeah apart from that I don't think I've ever seen it in personal situations

Snarky people who miss satire crack me up.

Black people can suffer from the same biases that white people have; it's entirely possible that black voters might see the white candidate as being more competent.

I don't want to be too hard on David, because I think he's trying to be thoughtful, but the idea that black people will automatically vote for their own is a little bit patronizing.