About those peaceful antifa protests...

[Berkut]

Attempting to avoid, if possible, the personal stuff (probably doomed), I will simply say this:

I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.

It's a presumption, sure. Which doesn't mean a white person never has been confronted with prejudice (obviously). I am sure people, including on the forum, have had to contend with all other sorts of prejudice, and surely that informs the understanding of being placed in a position of judgment and inferiority. But I tend to assume there is something about racial prejudice that does not lend itself well to comparisons to other forms of prejudice, as all those stories of black people arrested for driving luxury vehicles they couldn't possibly own, in the minds of the cops. In any other circumstances, in the United States, wealth should have insured these people from discriminatory treatment, and yet, have not.

It doesn't mean either that white people are incapable of thinking seriously about issues such as racism, or articulating a profound understanding of it. But is garbon's habitual snarky answer  *that* different from the snarky answers given to, say, Marty, or BB, posting stuff about the United States, and being dismissed as foreigners - regardless of how informed they may be? Apart from the fact that it's clearly more offensive to be dismissed as a racist than as a "foreigner"?

The difference is that the snarkys answers are just that - trolls, and nobody takes it seriously when Seedy calls BB a Canadian - it isn't part of the actual discussion.

Garbon told us that we should ignore Del's position because he is a white person, and that was not a joke, or a troll, or a snarky response. It was a completely serious response to a serious discussion.

This isn't about challenging someone's perspectives and demanding that they step outside their bubble. This is about the attempt to stifle discussion by invalidating someone's position based solely on their race, rather than the content of their ideas.

I don't think garbon gets a pass, or should not get a pass, because he is "snarky". Or because other people are also snarky, and maybe dismissive in some other fashion.

Now, if you want to argue that garbon should be given as much relevance as lettow because they are equally willing to make racist, snarky comments, then we are probably in agreement.

But the argument, that appears to be being made by you and Jake, that garbon making racist comments towards people he disagrees with is a-ok because other people on languish are trollish, then I suspect that your position is motivated more by his alignment in opinion than any rational or even reasonably fair assessment of his behavior in this case.

It isn't THAT big of a deal, but it isn't nothing. I think the level of angst shown by garbon in bringing it up in a completely unrelated context, and Jakes hysterical reaction and your own careful attempt to divert the basic issue suggests rather strongly to me that you all know perfectly well that I am right.

But if this is just no big deal, then let it go. So garbon is all edgy racist, I am sure me and Del are just being overly sensitive - I am, after all, well known for being some kind of radical conservative ready to be offended by supposed "reverse racism", right?

[Zoupa]

I agree with Berk but mostly because I find garbon annoying 

[derspiess]

Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,

Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here?  I can't think of any.

[HVC]

Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,

Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here?  I can't think of any.

Voting for trump.

[derspiess]

[Berkut]

Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,

Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here?  I can't think of any.

The better question is why when you post something that he thinks is racist, he is happy to confirm his perception of you as such.

Yet he just compared garbon doing that to others, and yet his conclusion is that we should NOT draw any conclusions from garbon's post - that it is perfectly fine and not to be discouraged. And in fact, the response to anyone questioning it should be the thing that warrants a significant reaction!

Jake is engaging in Trump supporter levels of "whataboutism"!

[Jacob]

Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,

Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here?  I can't think of any.

Too much work to dive back through old posts, but it's a fair point. I'll point it out the next few times I see it, but until then (so maybe never, if your implicit claim to not troll/ joke with racism is true) I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.

[Admiral Yi]

I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.

[Jacob]

I don't think there is anything quite outrageous to presume a white person, in a white society, has not especially been confronted to racism. It's a pretty well researched phenomenon, actually: members of groups who are placed in a position of privilege have the luxury not to imagine the life of those in an inferior position, because such ignorance carry no great consequences. Whereas the price of ignorance of how the powerful think, from the less-powerful, can be quite high.

I've definitely observed a similar phenomenon with some of the Chinese (Han) people in my wife's family when discussing politics and their perception towards various Chinese minority groups.

[Jacob]

I'll concede that maybe I've let CdM's characterization of your politics colour my memory of your posts.

CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.

[Admiral Yi]

CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.

Perhaps a function of his receptive audience.

[Jacob]

CdM is better at languish agitprop than Hansie ever was.

Perhaps a function of his receptive audience.

That's often the case, yes. That's 101 level stuff isn't it?

[viper37]

Given the amount of racist trolling and just-having-a-laugh posting that happens on languish when CdM, derspiess, Ed, and others get into their various schticks,

Would you please remind me of any racist trolling I've done here?  I can't think of any.

I thought about it, long and hard.  Why is Derspiess always compared to a neo-nazi?  Why is called nigger-hater by Cdm?

I tried searching your post and couldn't find anything relevant.  You don't really go in detail on your political opinions.

So I think I have found the reason.
A lot of people assume that muslims are dangerous terrorists, since a lot of terrorists are muslims.  Unfair assumption, imho, and Jacob will back me on this.  Besides, Christian arabs often get lumped into this group and it's totally unfair, since Christianity is a religion of peace and no Christian ever hurt anyone in the name of his God, it is known.

So, by that same rationale, that all practionners of Islam are terrorists, it stands to reason, that if a certain racist group is composed of White Anglo Saxon Protestants Republicans using religion as the basis of their argument that White Men are superior to all others, because it's apparently written in the Bible somewhere that Black Men are evil, that if you are a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Republican using religion to define your political opinions, it means you are a neo nazi too.

It is, in a way, kinda funny that some of the people who will take time to defend islam practionners from the prejudice they face because of terrorists like ISIS and AQ, going so far as to verbally and physically assault people who think like that, will in turn associate you to neo-nazi because you are a white Republican man.

But really, bullying is a national sport here.  When it's not Tim, it's you, or me, or Berkut now, it seems.  We get used to it.  I'm sure most of them are nice guys in real life.

[Eddie Teach]

Yes, poor Berkut. 

[Berkut]

Yeah, don't fucking lump me in with your lot.