7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dismal seems to think we are posting our comments because we are just a lot of rabble disappointed because our welfare checks from the rich are not big enough. He refuses to admit there is such a thing as racism and this fine country came into being because the American (white) people were especially perceptive and wise. He appears to have a Republican agenda of locking things in place so social change cannot occur. He could easily change his moniker from "dismal" to "stasis."

In a way, dismal performs a function here, providing a con argument for every suggestion of social change and every recognition of social or environmental problems.

Whose welfare cheques? Who is this "we" you are speaking of? Are you saying only those who need welfare make trollish posts like the OP?

Regarding him not believing racism exists, lets ask him that.

Dismal, does racism exist?

 

[arkirk]

You've gotten the examples. And, hilariously, called the sky green when reviewing them.

Reminder:

Athena DID NOT SAY "all whites" (dismal even admits this, eventually)
dismal pretends that she did
so that he can say "not all whites, (and Davka says so, too!)"
This is #6 under glass. Picture perfect. With a splash of "tu quoque" for bonus.

There is your example. Own it. It's hilariously perfect and unabashed.

Given that this thread has turned into a confused melee in a mud pool, its understandable for folks to have mistaken assumptions about other posters opinions. The Davaka, Dismal, Rhea, "etc." war over Athena's comments as "an example" is of no interest to me. This dust up started long before I entered this "conversation". What caught my eye was Davaka's comment on my (and others) 'semantic games' and 'failure to own up' (etc.).

When I entered the conversation I expected Davaka to converse - to defend his definitions and ideas, to provide substantive examples, to clarify his terms. Habitually he does not. If he has answered any of my point by point rebuttal, perhaps you will be good enough to point it out?

I believe #5 applies here...hyperfocus on minutiae. You need to admit, you simply have failed to understand the content of the OP. It was a set of examples to show how racialism is operative, not a list of "once and for all's." I had no trouble understanding what he was writing about and each of his points, I could see real examples in my own life. If you are not seeing these examples, then you either are living a very sheltered existence in Western Washington or you are not paying enough attention to what is going on around you.

 

[connick]

I believe #5 applies here...hyperfocus on minutiae. You need to admit, you simply have failed to understand the content of the OP. It was a set of examples to show how racialism is operative, not a list of "once and for all's." I had no trouble understanding what he was writing about and each of his points, I could see real examples in my own life. If you are not seeing these examples, then you either are living a very sheltered existence in Western Washington or you are not paying enough attention to what is going on around you.

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Since when is it valid to argue by way of a made up list? As far as I can tell, "hyperfocus on minutiae" means "if you have questions about my position you are stupid, ignorant or racist".

 

[arkirk]

I believe #5 applies here...hyperfocus on minutiae. You need to admit, you simply have failed to understand the content of the OP. It was a set of examples to show how racialism is operative, not a list of "once and for all's." I had no trouble understanding what he was writing about and each of his points, I could see real examples in my own life. If you are not seeing these examples, then you either are living a very sheltered existence in Western Washington or you are not paying enough attention to what is going on around you.

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Since when is it valid to argue by way of a made up list? As far as I can tell, "hyperfocus on minutiae" means "if you have questions about my position you are stupid, ignorant or racist".

Or...you are hyperfocused on some personal hangup you might have and you desire to see no more discussion. Do you deny that you have seen examples of each of Davka's points? What Davka was pointing to was the many permutations of what could be called racism. These examples exist and there really is no universality to them. That is why he had seven points and not just one. They are examples, not universals...and need to be dealt with separately...with the goal of eliminating their negative effects...not denying and definitely not sustaining them.

 

[Davka]

dismal seems quite personally affected by the OP, almost as if he thought it applied to him.

What a repulsive rhetorical tactic. If you don't care to defend your position just say so instead of insulting people. Are you just trying to goad people in this thread? Do you stand behind your list or not? If you do, how about you start answering some questions and explaining your position? It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

I've answered plenty of questions. I'd be happy to answer yours. Dismal, however, has demonstrated that all he wants to do is play "gotcha," and that he's willing to do whatever it takes in order to tell himself at the end that he has won.

So dismal gets nothing but mockery and barbs from here on in. He's earned it.

 

[arkirk]

Dismal seems to think we are posting our comments because we are just a lot of rabble disappointed because our welfare checks from the rich are not big enough. He refuses to admit there is such a thing as racism and this fine country came into being because the American (white) people were especially perceptive and wise. He appears to have a Republican agenda of locking things in place so social change cannot occur. He could easily change his moniker from "dismal" to "stasis."

In a way, dismal performs a function here, providing a con argument for every suggestion of social change and every recognition of social or environmental problems.

Whose welfare cheques? Who is this "we" you are speaking of? Are you saying only those who need welfare make trollish posts like the OP?

Regarding him not believing racism exists, lets ask him that.

Dismal, does racism exist?

It is possible to deny racism when in reality one knows it exists and simply doesn't care. Denial need not be based of whether or not a person believes, but rather whether or not a person cares to deal with it.

There is the reality of what happens to those who experience severe racism... They become hungry and poor and remain uneducated. These are the realities some of us seem perfectly willing to accept as long is these things aren't happening to us personally. They accept their racialism on the basis of just deserts. ie. People of that race are unable to learn, are unskilled, and don't deserve a place in our society (no job, no education, no permanent home, no voice in society, etc.) Most subscribers to this kind of thinking (just deserts) always waffle when it comes time to consider what that means for those being discriminated against. They mouth concepts like charity....but that always leaves their victims dependent and still on the bottom rung of the ladder. You know this; I know this. So let's quit trying to dissect Davka as if he were some strange troll.

 

[connick]

Or...you are hyperfocused on some personal hangup you might have and you desire to see no more discussion. Do you deny that you have seen examples of each of Davka's points? What Davka was pointing to was the many permutations of what could be called racism. These examples exist and there really is no universality to them. That is why he had seven points and not just one. They are examples, not universals...and need to be dealt with separately...with the goal of eliminating their negative effects...not denying and definitely not sustaining them.

Are you kidding me? I have been asking Davka to discuss a number of aspects of his list but he hasn't yet. Do you really think that questioning this list means you are either stupid, ignorant, racist or have a personal hangup? Why isn't the possibility of a having a legitimate question on that list of options?

To answer your question I have seen some examples like some of the items on the list but, most of them are caricatures of real people extrapolated into some apparently made up group of individuals. I won't go point-by-point here (because I already did that pages ago and never got any substantive response) but take the very first item as an example.

"Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it." It's a false bifurcation and an obvious strawman. To suggest that someone could only pretend not to understand is fallacious reasoning. A person may genuinely not understand a definition or what it means. More importantly, another option omitted is that someone may have a legitimate reason to object to accepting a particular definition. Much of the list is rife with spurious reasoning.

Davka didn't say "here are some examples of racism". Davka put forth that there is a group of people called "Highly Affected Racialists" and that these are their regular habits (e.g. "Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment."). He even goes so far as to tell us exactly what things they say, how they feel about it in their own heart of hearts and their motivations for doing so. He didn't suggest that this was one or a couple people. He wrote in universal terms about a class of (presumably made up) people. I think it sounds like horseshit but, just thinking something doesn't make it so so I asked some questions. I never got any real answers so as far as I can tell this is just a made up list based on some strawman stereotypes.

 

[maxparrish]

Or...you are hyperfocused on some personal hangup you might have and you desire to see no more discussion. Do you deny that you have seen examples of each of Davka's points? What Davka was pointing to was the many permutations of what could be called racism. These examples exist and there really is no universality to them. That is why he had seven points and not just one. They are examples, not universals...and need to be dealt with separately...with the goal of eliminating their negative effects...not denying and definitely not sustaining them.

Are you kidding me? I have been asking Davka to discuss a number of aspects of his list but he hasn't yet. Do you really think that questioning this list means you are either stupid, ignorant, racist or have a personal hangup? Why isn't the possibility of a having a legitimate question on that list of options?

To answer your question I have seen some examples like some of the items on the list but, most of them are caricatures of real people extrapolated into some apparently made up group of individuals. I won't go point-by-point here (because I already did that pages ago and never got any substantive response) but take the very first item as an example.

"Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it." It's a false bifurcation and an obvious strawman. To suggest that someone could only pretend not to understand is fallacious reasoning. A person may genuinely not understand a definition or what it means. More importantly, another option omitted is that someone may have a legitimate reason to object to accepting a particular definition. Much of the list is rife with spurious reasoning.

Davka didn't say "here are some examples of racism". Davka put forth that there is a group of people called "Highly Affected Racialists" and that these are their regular habits (e.g. "Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment."). He even goes so far as to tell us exactly what things they say, how they feel about it in their own heart of hearts and their motivations for doing so. He didn't suggest that this was one or a couple people. He wrote in universal terms about a class of (presumably made up) people. I think it sounds like horseshit but, just thinking something doesn't make it so so I asked some questions. I never got any real answers so as far as I can tell this is just a made up list based on some strawman stereotypes.

Frankly, at this point I think it would be more constructive to diagnose Davka's narrative as a pathology, rather than treat it as an actual argument. It smells of another form of mysticism, post modern literary criticism.

 

[Rhea]

You deny any racism even exists. Oh, sorry, "not much of a problem."
What's even to say, really, to that?

You define racism. If I object you show me in error. You refute my empirical evidence and give me empirical evidence of substantive racism. Etc. Or you just declare the world is flat and walk away.

The first is a conversation. The second is denial. Your choice.

Max, you say this as if this is the first-ever thread about systemic, institutionalized racism. You say this as if there was not a history of discussion going back almost 10 years with you and me reading and participating in the same threads (15 years with me and others). You say this as if me "walking away" is my first response ever on the topic.

Each of you (except perhaps the one who just joined in Dec 2014). We have YEARS of examples. YEARS of conversations about current events, news, history. A DECADE of discussion.


I'm not walking away with a refusal give you even one example and you know it. I am looking at your post and saying, "oh, for the love of reason, not again." You are claiming that I've never written any example ever?

You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

 

[Davka]

Frankly, at this point I think it would be more constructive to diagnose Davka's narrative as a pathology, rather than treat it as an actual argument. It smells of another form of mysticism, post modern literary criticism.

You've already admitted that you believe black people are genetically predisposed to criminal activity, Maxiepoo. I don't think you should be using hard words like "pathology."

 

[Rhea]

No! That falls under number six.

There is one connection I don't think was adequately explored. That is the expropriative power of one's racism. That is the willingness to take something from another and use it as one's own on the basis of the other party being not of the right race to possess it. But then in a way, that is what all racism is about...selfishness and greed. The racism just provides the justification. Perhaps I am pointing more to a causative factor, but all too often this goes unnoticed due to the more obvious racial differences. That's the basis of slavery...then and now.

How much actual cultural expropriation is still going on? Sure, Elvis stole Rock 'n' Roll, and everyone ripped off Jazz, but since then it seems that most adoption of black culture has included an openness about where it came from. Surely nobody was playing funk in the 70s and pretending it was originally a white thing?

Or am I missing your point?

This was very common in the context of science against both people of color and women. The minority does the science, the white male appropriates the results and conclusions since the minority is not of the right race to own it.

Has also happened with land and personal effects. Bus seats. ...lives.

 

[arkirk]

Somehow the words..."I can't breathe" seem to resonate in my ears... You know you can say that about eleven times before you run out of air? People who demonize others claim that they don't and then they go right ahead and do just that. Rhea points to years of examples. That's right for here, but in reality it is centuries of examples. The problem is some of us just cannot open up and be more inclusive and feel they own society and it will be however they care to define it, leaving out those they choose to leave out. These folks are pretty much always questioning any effort to promote human rights. They seem to support letting the huddled masses continue to huddle and suffer. Their argument is always the same..."I'm fine thank you...now leave me alone."

 

[Rhea]

Davka didn't say "here are some examples of racism". Davka put forth that there is a group of people called "Highly Affected Racialists" and that these are their regular habits (e.g. "Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment."). He even goes so far as to tell us exactly what things they say, how they feel about it in their own heart of hearts and their motivations for doing so. He didn't suggest that this was one or a couple people. He wrote in universal terms about a class of (presumably made up) people. I think it sounds like horseshit but, just thinking something doesn't make it so so I asked some questions. I never got any real answers so as far as I can tell this is just a made up list based on some strawman stereotypes.

I think he was clear that the size of the group that can be called "Highly Affected Racialist " equals the number of people with these behaviors. If you don't have these behaviors, perhaps you can stop worrying that he's talking about you? Perhaps you can conclude, "wow, those Highly Affected Racialists are a tiny group and I'm glad I'm not one of them!"

Instead, several people have made great pains to say, "hey! Stop calling me that!" which is rather baffling since the OP did not call out names, only behaviors. So if no one does those behaviors, what's the big deal?


Right?

 

[Rhea]

3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

This is just a strawman perversion, and not a view remotely held by 99.9% of the people the OP is trying to defame. Their actual view is merely that not every single instance of any minority person having a negative outcome is due primarily to racism by the people with the most direct impact on that outcome. They need to point this obvious fact out, because race-baiters leap to a conclusion of such racism in specific instances without a shred of evidence or even in the face of strong evidence of other causal factors. This leap of faith only can be a bridge of reason if one starts with the premise that all negative outcome to all racial minorities are due to racism. Racism is not denied . What is denied is that racism is always the only plausible explanation for every negative outcome for minorities. Sadly, race baiters don't understand the difference between these arguments that are

Or is it?

Racism, as traditionally understood, is not much of a problem. In regards to race, people can buy homes where they want, eat where they wish, attend whatever college they qualify for, vote in any election, and stay at any public accommodation. All firms of any size are hyper sensitive to employment diversity numbers, promotions, and EOC policing. Much to the regret of the race hucksters, the days of Bull Conner and Lester Maddox are long gone.

edited to add,

Racism against every race exists in America.

The question is how big a problem it is. I see the actual problem as far smaller than it's made out to be, most "racism" being an excuse for failure, not a cause of it.

 

[dismal]

Examples to support your argument would be nice. We already know you can fling feces at people, and are not impressed.

You have demonstrated on this thread your willingness to lie, play word games, and weasel out of any semblance of honest discourse. You spent two whole pages pretending that you couldn't understand what a strawman argument is, because admitting it would have meant admitting your vicious little attack was baseless. Therefore, I give you YOUR POSTS on THIS THREAD as all the evidence anyone with eyeballs and a brain (and a dollop of intellectual honesty) will ever need.

I'm sure as fuck not going to waste any more of my time being civil with you, or attempting honest debate. Your behavior leaves me no rational, freethinking option other than the "point-and-laugh" approach.

Oh, and if it's not about you, you ain't got nothing to worry about. So why does the OP worry you so very much?

Hey thanks for providing those examples to support your point.

Oh, wait those are just more personal attacks.

Do you think people find that impressive?

 

[dismal]

Dismal seems to think we are posting our comments because we are just a lot of rabble disappointed because our welfare checks from the rich are not big enough. He refuses to admit there is such a thing as racism and this fine country came into being because the American (white) people were especially perceptive and wise. He appears to have a Republican agenda of locking things in place so social change cannot occur. He could easily change his moniker from "dismal" to "stasis."

In a way, dismal performs a function here, providing a con argument for every suggestion of social change and every recognition of social or environmental problems.

Can you provide a some examples where I did that?

Mostly I feel as if I have been providing very cogent arguments demonstrating the absurdity of Davka's OP post and asking him to provide examples to support it. Which he can't.

- - - Updated - - -

Dismal seems to think we are posting our comments because we are just a lot of rabble disappointed because our welfare checks from the rich are not big enough. He refuses to admit there is such a thing as racism and this fine country came into being because the American (white) people were especially perceptive and wise. He appears to have a Republican agenda of locking things in place so social change cannot occur. He could easily change his moniker from "dismal" to "stasis."

In a way, dismal performs a function here, providing a con argument for every suggestion of social change and every recognition of social or environmental problems.

Whose welfare cheques? Who is this "we" you are speaking of? Are you saying only those who need welfare make trollish posts like the OP?

Regarding him not believing racism exists, lets ask him that.

Dismal, does racism exist?

Sure, racism exists.

 

[dismal]

What a repulsive rhetorical tactic. If you don't care to defend your position just say so instead of insulting people. Are you just trying to goad people in this thread? Do you stand behind your list or not? If you do, how about you start answering some questions and explaining your position? It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

I've answered plenty of questions. I'd be happy to answer yours. Dismal, however, has demonstrated that all he wants to do is play "gotcha," and that he's willing to do whatever it takes in order to tell himself at the end that he has won.

So dismal gets nothing but mockery and barbs from here on in. He's earned it.

Yes, it's the old fashioned sorta "gotcha" where you simply, directly, and repeatedly ask for a single example of anyone anywhere doing something that another poster has described as a common habit to support their claim.

So damn unfair.

You should throw some more feces at people.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead, several people have made great pains to say, "hey! Stop calling me that!"

Cite?

 

[Rhea]

Yes, it's the old fashioned sorta "gotcha" where you simply, directly, and repeatedly ask for a single example of anyone anywhere doing something that another poster has described as a common habit to support their claim.

Dismal we showed you doing it. Live and in person. I get that you donn't understand the example, but that is not the same as no example being given. Right?

 

[dismal]

Yes, it's the old fashioned sorta "gotcha" where you simply, directly, and repeatedly ask for a single example of anyone anywhere doing something that another poster has described as a common habit to support their claim.

Dismal we showed you doing it. Live and in person. I get that you donn't understand the example, but that is not the same as no example being given. Right?

Showed me doing what?

 

[Davka]

If you could explain how you came up with the list I would really appreciate it.

It's a spoof on "7 habits of highly effective people." It could easily have been three, or five, or fifteen. I thought about the behavior I've seen from people who defend racist attacks or deny racism in the media(social and otherwise), and came up with 7 commonly-used tactics. I'm not trying to say that every racialist person indulges in all 7 habits, or that anyone who indulges in any of these habits is a hardcore racialist asshole. These are simply 7 of the tactics I've seen used.

I find spurious reasoning in virtually every item listed..

That's because you're not looking at this as a list of things I've seen people do, you're looking at it as some sort of list of rules, or checklist for determining whether someone is racialist.

First off, as others have mentioned, your definition of racism is by no means universal. If you want to claim that it is the unanimously accepted definition among all sociologists then you have your work cut out for you. Nevertheless, if that's the definition you want to use in this thread I'll stick to it for the sake of discussion.

I appreciate that.

Oddly enough, although it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate that this definition works as shorthand for the sociologically-accepted definition(s) of racism, it would be incredibly easy to demonstrate that it does not. All you would have to do is find a couple of examples that do NOT fit under this umbrella shorthand.

Of course, if someone were to disagree with any given definition it would be a false bifurcation to suggest that they are either "studiously ignoring" or "pretending not to understand".

Of course it would. And that's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying "everyone who disagrees is a racist," I'm saying "dismissing and mocking this definition is one of the things I've seen racialists do."

Let me clarify:

Most Birds Fly. We know this. We've seen it. Not all birds fly, but most do.
Bats fly. This does not say anything at all about whether bats are birds, or whether most birds fly.

It does not follow that, since most birds fly, therefore anything that flies must be a bird.

Similarly, it does not follow that since many racialists dispute the sociological definition of racism, therefore anyone who disputes the sociological definition of racism is a racialist.

Clear?

As far as I can tell, all the rest of your questions are based on this same fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of the OP. If I'm wrong, please let me know where and why.

- - - Updated - - -

Dismal we showed you doing it. Live and in person. I get that you donn't understand the example, but that is not the same as no example being given. Right?

Showed me doing what?

This: