To all the "Good Liberals": A Rant for our Times.

[LordKiran]

Why is it Athena's responsibility to make anyone else more comfortable?

Because if you want people to actually listen to and consider deeply what you have to say, then the onus is on you to put it in a way that doesn't immediately put people on the defensive and lessen whatever sympathy they might have had for your position.

AA has the privilege to say whatever she wants here but that doesn't mean she's entitled to an amicable audience.

How do you see AA's OP as putting anyone on the defensive?

Well lets think about that.

The content of the post is an accusation of "Good Liberals" Do you think there are people here that accusation is meant to apply to? Hard to say going off of JUST the OP as it doesn't stipulate on who the accused is. One can be forgiven I think for perhaps thinking it refers to them, which perhaps might serve AA's point but then perhaps not.

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How do you see AA's OP as putting anyone on the defensive?

Well lets think about that.

The content of the post is an accusation of "Good Liberals" Do you think there are people here that accusation is meant to apply to? Hard to say going off of JUST the OP as it doesn't stipulate on who the accused is. One can be forgiven I think for perhaps thinking it refers to them, which perhaps might serve AA's point but then perhaps not.

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Or maybe the people here could have taken her words within the context of years of her posting here.

 

[Toni]

How do you see AA's OP as putting anyone on the defensive?

Well lets think about that.

The content of the post is an accusation of "Good Liberals" Do you think there are people here that accusation is meant to apply to? Hard to say going off of JUST the OP as it doesn't stipulate on who the accused is. One can be forgiven I think for perhaps thinking it refers to them, which perhaps might serve AA's point but then perhaps not.

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Sure, AA could have given the complete background on the incident that inspired her post. But that would have supposed that incident was an isolated one, pertaining only to those particular individuals involved in the particular incident that AA described later. In which case, this would just be something for the Rants thread and we could all commiserate with AA about how clueless some people are and how frustrated she must have felt.

But I would postulate that this is a broader issue—and applies more widely to people who are perhaps well meaning but either not given to or willing to do the hard work of examining our own hearts and minds—and behaviors. Talk is cheap, after all and it is always easier to see the fleck in someone else’s eye than it is to recognize the log jammed in our own eye.

That’s my take away, fwiw.

I think it is fascinating that AA drew a very general garment yet some have declared it to be designed to their own particular measure.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Or maybe the people here could have taken her words within the context of years of her posting here.

I think we tried to give her a little more benefit of the doubt than that. Had we read in her previous posting history, we would have been a lot more harsh. But black people can't be racist, right?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But I would postulate that this is a broader issue—and applies more widely to people who are perhaps well meaning but either not given to or willing to do the hard work of examining our own hearts and minds—and behaviors.

Where are you getting this from? It isn't what she wrote.

This is what she wrote:

People who will march with you in the big rally in the Capitol, but will not hear your truth unless you preface every single sentence with "but not all ______ people" (fill in the blank with whatever privileged group applies) People who will fight the fight until they feel a slight then watch out.

Incidents of hatred are on the rise and frankly, I don't have time to constantly make "good liberals" feel warm and safe and praised for their goodness. We're in a fight for our lives and if the only thing you have to worry about is a bruised ego, count yourself blessed and keep it moving.

She wrote, in general, about people who set out to help her then turning on her when she spouts off and fails to exclude them as her targets by noting "not all X people", not wanting to have to make them feel warm and safe.

I responded to that OP. I didn't know and I still don't find it relevant what inspired her to write it. I dealt only with the text itself since it typifies a common attitude I have seen and had to counter on both the right and now also emerging on the left. And even if she is now distancing herself from that text, and perhaps meant it differently, the text still exemplifies the problem and I encourage discussion of it. Its a ground root of prejudice, and you will see it easily in other contexts. Are you willing to do the hard work of examining your own heart and mind?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Or maybe the people here could have taken her words within the context of years of her posting here.

I think we tried to give her a little more benefit of the doubt than that. Had we read in her previous posting history, we would have been a lot more harsh. But black people can't be racist, right?

*zing*

 

[LordKiran]

How do you see AA's OP as putting anyone on the defensive?

Well lets think about that.

The content of the post is an accusation of "Good Liberals" Do you think there are people here that accusation is meant to apply to? Hard to say going off of JUST the OP as it doesn't stipulate on who the accused is. One can be forgiven I think for perhaps thinking it refers to them, which perhaps might serve AA's point but then perhaps not.

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Sure, AA could have given the complete background on the incident that inspired her post. But that would have supposed that incident was an isolated one, pertaining only to those particular individuals involved in the particular incident that AA described later. In which case, this would just be something for the Rants thread and we could all commiserate with AA about how clueless some people are and how frustrated she must have felt.

But I would postulate that this is a broader issue—and applies more widely to people who are perhaps well meaning but either not given to or willing to do the hard work of examining our own hearts and minds—and behaviors. Talk is cheap, after all and it is always easier to see the fleck in someone else’s eye than it is to recognize the log jammed in our own eye.

That’s my take away, fwiw.

I think it is fascinating that AA drew a very general garment yet some have declared it to be designed to their own particular measure.

What I don't understand is why "Liberalism" is tied inherently to understanding the plight of those less privileged than yourself. Doesn't follow if you ask me.

 

[Toni]

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Or maybe the people here could have taken her words within the context of years of her posting here.

I think we tried to give her a little more benefit of the doubt than that. Had we read in her previous posting history, we would have been a lot more harsh. But black people can't be racist, right?

Can you point to me the part in her OP that mentioned race? I think you were the first person to mention ‘black,’ and it wasn’t until post 55 that AA describes the specific incident and mentions African Americans. Yet right away, she’s accused of racism when there was no mention of race at all. She could have just as easily been talking about marching for LGBTQ rights, or Asian immigration, or against gun violence or any number of other issues.

You and others made an assumption —or several—early on. Why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we tried to give her a little more benefit of the doubt than that. Had we read in her previous posting history, we would have been a lot more harsh. But black people can't be racist, right?

Can you point to me the part in her OP that mentioned race? I think you were the first person to mention ‘black,’ and it wasn’t until post 55 that AA describes the specific incident and mentions African Americans. Yet right away, she’s accused of racism when there was no mention of race at all. She could have just as easily been talking about marching for LGBTQ rights, or Asian immigration, or against gun violence or any number of other issues.

You and others made an assumption —or several—early on. Why?

Toni, you are mistaken. Jolly is the ‘true liberal’ here. Everyone else are just haters.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can you point to me the part in her OP that mentioned race? I think you were the first person to mention ‘black,’ and it wasn’t until post 55 that AA describes the specific incident and mentions African Americans. Yet right away, she’s accused of racism when there was no mention of race at all. She could have just as easily been talking about marching for LGBTQ rights, or Asian immigration, or against gun violence or any number of other issues.

You and others made an assumption —or several—early on. Why?

You may want to read the thread again. In my initial response I kept it as generic as she did, talking about people who are X. We talked about Noam Chomsky, flickering lights, and other things. Later on page 5 to try to drive the point home I did relate it to Athena as a black person who usually posts about racism against black people, as an analogy to help her see what she sounded like. Had I read the OP in context of her posting history then yes, I would have immediately assumed this was about her treatment of white "good liberals" who want to help black people. But it doesn't matter who it was about. My point didn't hinge on that. I don't care if we are talking about black people, white people, LGBT people, or whoever. We shouldn't be surprised or whine when people who are X but not Y complain about us saying to them that X are Y without excluding the if they are not Y. The only exception to that would be an ideology in which case you could say X ideology includes Y, so they are too if they adhere to it (So if they are not Y then they are not X either).

BTW, I note you are still talking about me and not the topic. I'm flattered.

 

[LordKiran]

Truth be told AA I've thought on this a bit, and I think you may have to decide what the real issue is for you.

Prejudiced people or Unfair/Unjust law and legislation? Prejudice isn't something specific to right leaning political ideals even though its definitely more prevalent there. Hell there's probably plenty of democrats out there who probably don't think very highly of other races even if they think they should have the same legal protections and/or safeguards against unjust treatment of marginalized elements of our society.

 

[Toni]

Can you point to me the part in her OP that mentioned race? I think you were the first person to mention ‘black,’ and it wasn’t until post 55 that AA describes the specific incident and mentions African Americans. Yet right away, she’s accused of racism when there was no mention of race at all. She could have just as easily been talking about marching for LGBTQ rights, or Asian immigration, or against gun violence or any number of other issues.

You and others made an assumption —or several—early on. Why?

You may want to read the thread again. In my initial response I kept it as generic as she did, talking about people who are X. We talked about Noam Chomsky, flickering lights, and other things. Later on page 5 to try to drive the point home I did relate it to Athena as a black person who usually posts about racism against black people, as an analogy to help her see what she sounded like. Had I read the OP in context of her posting history then yes, I would have immediately assumed this was about her treatment of white "good liberals" who want to help black people. But it doesn't matter who it was about. My point didn't hinge on that. I don't care if we are talking about black people, white people, LGBT people, or whoever. We shouldn't be surprised or whine when people who are X but not Y complain about us saying to them that X are Y without excluding the if they are not Y. The only exception to that would be an ideology in which case you could say X ideology includes Y, so they are too if they adhere to it (So if they are not Y then they are not X either).

BTW, I note you are still talking about me and not the topic. I'm flattered.

I did read the thread which is how I realized that you were the first person to bring up 'black' anything. And that African Americans were not mentioned until AA's post #55 in this thread.

I've actually been trying to engage you and others in an honest discussion about how/why you read and interpreted AA's OP the way that you did. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you (and others) to do. Nothing that she wrote anywhere was in any way an attack on you or anyone else in this thread.

Unless you see yourself in her OP and that makes you uncomfortable.

So, I will baldly ask: Why is it the responsibility of a group of (fill in the blank) to single out/specifically exclude/thank any individual for joining in a march or a movement or a meeting if that person isn't obviously physically identifiable as the member of that group (fill in the blank)? Must straight, suburban mothers be specifically thanked/excluded from a general statement about anti-LGBTQ bigotry if they march in a gay pride event?

In the case of AA's personal example, why was it the responsibility of a group of African Americans to specifically reaffirm to the 'good liberal' who joined them that they didn't mean that SHE was a racist? Why did the 'good liberal' merit a specific mention of gratitude?

I really don't understand. I used to do a fair amount of volunteer work in communities where I lived, back when I had more free time. I didn't do it for the thanks or for the recognition. I did it because a) I thought it needed to be done and b) I wanted to do it. If not me and others like me, then who?

 

[Politesse]

Truth be told AA I've thought on this a bit, and I think you may have to decide what the real issue is for you.

Prejudiced people or Unfair/Unjust law and legislation? Prejudice isn't something specific to right leaning political ideals even though its definitely more prevalent there. Hell there's probably plenty of democrats out there who probably don't think very highly of other races even if they think they should have the same legal protections and/or safeguards against unjust treatment of marginalized elements of our society.

Legislation alone cannot and will not create social equality, doubly so if those who craft the laws are willfully ignorant of their own prejudices and biases.

 

[LordKiran]

Truth be told AA I've thought on this a bit, and I think you may have to decide what the real issue is for you.

Prejudiced people or Unfair/Unjust law and legislation? Prejudice isn't something specific to right leaning political ideals even though its definitely more prevalent there. Hell there's probably plenty of democrats out there who probably don't think very highly of other races even if they think they should have the same legal protections and/or safeguards against unjust treatment of marginalized elements of our society.

Legislation alone cannot and will not create social equality, doubly so if those who craft the laws are willfully ignorant of their own prejudices and biases.

I didn't say it would. In fact that assertion doesn't really relate to my post at all.

The goal isn't legally enforced equality so much as it is the removal of and safeguarding against laws that enforce inequality or that legally stratify society.

 

[Politesse]

Truth be told AA I've thought on this a bit, and I think you may have to decide what the real issue is for you.

Prejudiced people or Unfair/Unjust law and legislation? Prejudice isn't something specific to right leaning political ideals even though its definitely more prevalent there. Hell there's probably plenty of democrats out there who probably don't think very highly of other races even if they think they should have the same legal protections and/or safeguards against unjust treatment of marginalized elements of our society.

Legislation alone cannot and will not create social equality, doubly so if those who craft the laws are willfully ignorant of their own prejudices and biases.

I didn't say it would. In fact that assertion doesn't really relate to my post at all.

The goal isn't legally enforced equality so much as it is the removal of and safeguarding against laws that enforce inequality or that legally stratify society.

Whose goal? Not mine. I'd rather have actual equality, than a government which pretends to be neutral but in the end does nothing to prevent abuse and oppression.

 

[laughing dog]

I think AA would have been better to start with the catalyst for these sentiments and then try to relate that experience to the audience rather than the way AA went about it.

Or maybe the people here could have taken her words within the context of years of her posting here.

I think we tried to give her a little more benefit of the doubt than that. Had we read in her previous posting history, we would have been a lot more harsh. But black people can't be racist, right?

Fascinating. AA did not mention the race of those "liberals", yet here you are injecting race into your explanation of your unwarranted personal attack. I guess that is a liberal and egalitarian thing.

 

[laughing dog]

I responded to that OP.

Technically that is true. But you did not respond to the content of the OP at all. She was venting frustration - that was it.

She wrote, in general, about people who set out to help her then turning on her when she spouts off and fails to exclude them as her targets by noting "not all X people", not wanting to have to make them feel warm and safe.

She did not write about people setting out to help her - she wrote about people who joined a rally she attended. She did not write about spouting off. Those are your biased interpretations. Somehow that triggered a nasty personal attack driven by your biases, not the content.
While it is understandable that someone misunderstand a post, you have doubled down your poor reading comprehension and reasoning skill with such apathetic mischaracterizations as "And even if she is now distancing herself from that text," and defending your biased bile with "he text still exemplifies the problem ".

The real problem in this thread to date is your participation.

 

[untermensche]

Social equality only comes as a result of economic equality.

As long as there are masters and servants in the workplace there will be no social equality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Truth be told AA I've thought on this a bit, and I think you may have to decide what the real issue is for you.

Prejudiced people or Unfair/Unjust law and legislation? Prejudice isn't something specific to right leaning political ideals even though its definitely more prevalent there. Hell there's probably plenty of democrats out there who probably don't think very highly of other races even if they think they should have the same legal protections and/or safeguards against unjust treatment of marginalized elements of our society.

Legislation alone cannot and will not create social equality, doubly so if those who craft the laws are willfully ignorant of their own prejudices and biases.

I didn't say it would. In fact that assertion doesn't really relate to my post at all.

The goal isn't legally enforced equality so much as it is the removal of and safeguarding against laws that enforce inequality or that legally stratify society.

What laws exist now that enforce inequality?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've actually been trying to engage you and others in an honest discussion about how/why you read and interpreted AA's OP the way that you did.

Really? Your way of engaging in honest discussion is to engage in a string of adhom attacks and talk about your assumed motives instead of what people actually write?

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you (and others) to do. Nothing that she wrote anywhere was in any way an attack on you or anyone else in this thread.

And nobody in this thread has said the OP was an attack on them. Why do you keep saying that?

So, I will baldly ask: Why is it the responsibility of a group of (fill in the blank) to single out/specifically exclude/thank any individual for joining in a march or a movement or a meeting if that person isn't obviously physically identifiable as the member of that group (fill in the blank)? Must straight, suburban mothers be specifically thanked/excluded from a general statement about anti-LGBTQ bigotry if they march in a gay pride event?

Again, that's not what the OP explicitly stated. It stated a person not wanting to say "not All X" in order to make people who are X that she is speaking to feel warm and safe. Why can you not see that?

In the case of AA's personal example, why was it the responsibility of a group of African Americans to specifically reaffirm to the 'good liberal' who joined them that they didn't mean that SHE was a racist?

I'm not interested in AA's personal example. I was looking at the OP, which lacked that. And you should exclude the people in your company when making a general negative statement about a group you associate them with if you want them to not assume you are including them. Otherwise it is quite natural for them to be defensive. You'll do it too in their place. Why is that hard for you to understand? By the way, have you noticed me mirroring your language in the past few posts? I'm doing that intentionally to show you how how you come across.

Why did the 'good liberal' merit a specific mention of gratitude?

Nobody said that they do.

I really don't understand.

That's fine. And I am more than happy to be patient and civil with you and discuss things with you, but you need to drop the constant adhoms if you want me to take you at all seriously.