comment #1

JapAdapters says ...

Actually, they were talking about the Lakers being in the Finals again, but assuming she likes basketball because she's black was pretty racist too, so point taken.

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

Good thing you got out of there before Pumpkin and Honey Bunny robbed the place.

comment #3

Stephe96 says ...

RICH S,

That's perfect!!!!

Anyway, I agree it's totally racist for those guys to assume the waitress supports Obama because she's black. I mean, she could be voting for McCain. But then, of course, that would make HER a racist!

My head hurts....

comment #4

dangovich says ...

Is that where that scene was filmed?

comment #5

Wrecktum says ...

Richard Cohen is a nasty hack. His hand-wringing and finger waggling throughout this campaign has been nauseating.

comment #6

admiralmpj says ...

Honestly, Jeff. It's your fault for reading Richard Cohen. After his sterling defense that Washington D.C. area stoes having every right to refuse to serve young black men, I've pretty much labeled him a racist jagoff.

comment #7

jghoward says ...

What was "racist" about what they said? Does anyone even know what that word means anymore? They assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that a black woman supports Obama. With Obama's support among blacks running around 90 percent, it's a fairly safe assumption. No, the only error these "rubes" made was being tactless in the era of political correctness.

comment #8

Krazy Eyes says ...

I definitely think assumptions like this are racist. There was also a good chance she enjoyed fried chicken and a big juicy slice of watermelon but you wouldn't just go up and automatically offer her some.

comment #9

drgogol says ...

"the only error these "rubes" made was being tactless in the era of political correctness."

Wrong: they were rude. Being insensitive about the feelings of another person has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with how you were raised, how you think about others, how you think about yourself. It never fails to amaze me how people can act like complete cvnts and then blame the person they offended for "being PC."

comment #10

Wrecktum says ...

Did she like to shuffle and sing the blues too, Krazy Eyes?

comment #11

jghoward says ...

"Wrong: they were rude. Being insensitive about the feelings of another person has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with how you were raised, how you think about others, how you think about yourself. It never fails to amaze me how people can act like complete cvnts and then blame the person they offended for "being PC."

The only reason they were being "rude" is because everyone has been conditioned to be offended whenever someone makes a comment that takes into consideration one's race -- which is a ridiculous state of existence.

Let's assume she is among the 10 percent of blacks who don't support Obama. Why couldn't she have just said, " no fellas, I don't support Obama. You guessed wrong!" Why? Because she has been conditioned by society to feel as if she was victimized for their statement, which was probably at its worst, an assumption with a 10 percent risk of being wrong.

It's quite possible that these "lugs" are racist. But what they said gives no indication of that, only that they made a statement without regard to the rules of PC.

comment #12

drgogol says ...

You did a helluva job, Mrs. jghoward'smom

comment #13

anti-sardine says ...

How do we know that these guys were not regulars if they called her by name, and knew that she was suppporting Obama by previous conversations? How do we know that the response by her was due to her disdain for galumph glass-installing racists, rather than the fact that she was just in a hurry to do her job? How do we know they were even talking about the presidential race? We don't, it's just weak supposition. Perhaps Jeff has more information than was revealed concerning this encounter, but I certainly wouldn't convict 2 guys of racism with no more than that.

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

This is what's going to be unbearable about this election.

Congratulating someone you know by name on their candidate (and if they know her name, they could easily know her preference in the election) is racist.

Making a hate-whitey sermon, on the other hand, is NOT racist. In fact you're racist for bringing it up.

And the Obama supporters are going to mau-mau every incident, no matter how puny (and this is very puny indeed, if it's even an incident at all), in order to score Smugness points.

What an irritating five months we're in for.

comment #15

Arizona Joe says ...

Rich S beat me to the punch, but I was going to say that it was a good thing that Jules Winnfield , nee Samuel L. Jackson, was not there.

This incident is just a tiny tip of an iceberg which soon will become palpable. Did you know that Oprah's rating have had a significant dip since she endorsed Obama? I guess a sizable demographic of racist white housewives finally figured out that Oprah is black.

I just hope the unutterable does not happen. I think that is on a lot of people's minds.

comment #16

twicks says ...

Maybe they assumed she was from Detroit and was a Red Wings fan.

comment #17

T. S. Idiot says ...

What I want to is, did Wells have fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, with plenty of coffee? That's what middle-aged white men eat, isn't it?

comment #18

jghoward says ...

"You did a helluva job, Mrs. jghoward'smom"

that was kinda funny.

Though an attempted personal insult is also an admission of defeat.

comment #19

bents75 says ...

You can't assume they already knew based on the name thing.

I've never been to this place specificaly, but a lot of old school diners like that, and really, restaurants in general, make their waitresses wear name tags.

They might have sat down, immediately saw that little tag that said "name" and went from there.

comment #20

le corbeau says ...

Of course, the difference between left and right is that the left would never assume all people of a certain color must march in ideological lockstep, as evidenced by the left's warm embrace of Clarence Thomas.

comment #21

le corbeau says ...

"You can't assume they already knew based on the name thing."

Perhaps, but it's a baby step of an assumption compared to the running jumps in Jeff's post.

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

Okay, I'll stop after my third post in a row here, but-- why couldn't she be for McCain and proud that a black man has been nominated by a major party at the same time? I am.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"as evidenced by the left's warm embrace of Clarence Thomas."

Yeah, people don't like him because he's black. It has nothing to do with sexual harrassment, and it has nothing to do with his obvious lack of qualification, or even more basically a lack of any fundamental curiosity.

I mean, if you were to use the left's warm embrace of Colin Powell, your whole point would completely dissolve, so you pick the black guy who was unqualified and contested on that basis and try to paint it as racism. Super.

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

(sidestepping the steaming political BS) No Dangovich, that was the Hawthorne Grill...which sadly no longer exists.

comment #25

Richardson says ...

"What was "racist" about what they said? Does anyone even know what that word means anymore? They assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that a black woman supports Obama."

So, making an assumption about a person based solely on the color of their skin is *not* racist?

Please enlighten us with your definition of the word racist. That should be pretty funny.

comment #26

Mr. Muckle says ...

1) Jeff's psychic interpretations of half-observed incidents in which he is not even involved are unreliable. (This is universally true, though.) Therefore, any conclusions derived from them cannot be objectively useful.

2) As an excuse to feel depressed they serve as well as any other such reason but, more importantly, ought to bring into question one's readiness to go there on such flimsy pretenses and whether or not it is healthier to avoid such influences.

3) Feeling down is not an adequate response to the human condition in any case. Our predicament is much worse than that, and a little depression is interpreted by the psyche as having paid a few dues so we can go on just as we were when, in fact, the situation calls for a revolutionary overhaul in consciousness.

4) A lot of superficially dumb working-class people have much better hearts than we might give them credit for at first glance, once you get to now them and interact with them personally, provided you bring an excellent heart of your own to the conversation.

Well, I won't go on, but suffice it to say that I hope we don't have to put up with continual misanthropic rantings about the election for the next five months. Let's take our cue from Obama, if we support him (which I do at this point), who seems to have an excellent handle on the whole affair and will not be well served by anything less.

comment #27

CinemaPhreek says ...

cjKennedy - alas, you have to stand in an Autozone if you want that Jules and Vincent vibe. It's like 1/4 mile from me.

Richardson - thanks for saving me post, my points exactly.

Mgmax - no, but it does mean we have to endure 5 months of Wells' knee-jerk posts about assumed racist incidents like this.

TS Idiot - replied to your LOCAL HERO post.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

No, YOU have to run Thomas down personally in order to justify the Democratic party's shameful treatment of him. I'd say he was at least as qualified... as a first-term senator fore the presidency.

"So, making an assumption about a person based solely on the color of their skin is *not* racist?"

Like I basically said above, the new definition of tolerance is, you on the left can bring up race in any context to use as a bludgeon, and it's never racist no matter how over the top crazy or spiteful or hateful it is, but the moment someone else brings up race in any context-- such as a simple, friendly comment of congratulation toward a person of the same race that one of theirs has done something truly impressive-- that's racism beyond the pale.

Well, sorry, I find that just a little too convenient for your side, and so I reject your definition of racism and tolerance and what's fair and not fair, and refuse to be cowed by you into accepting my "guilt."

comment #29

CinemaPhreek says ...

Mgmax - if you can't grasp the difference between the technical qualifications for being a supreme court judge and the president of the US, then I have tar baby you can fight with.

comment #30

jghoward says ...

"Please enlighten us with your definition of the word racist. That should be pretty funny."

Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. That's from the Merriam-Webster online. Laughing yet?

I see nothing inherently racist in assuming that, based on the fact that black support for Obama is around 90 percent, that a black person in a diner would be among those 90 percent. I see no denigration, I see no belief in the inherent superiority of another race. Sorry. I just see a somewhat risky assumption.

Perhaps you could explain exactly why their actions prove that they are, in fact, racist, according to the Merriam-Webster definition.

comment #31

supertaster says ...

I'll quote Wells again:

The human drama is so much more interesting if you don't try and reduce it to this or that, if you catch my drift. Give it a little thought, think it through, weigh the pros and cons

Why is Wells a democrat? He hates the middle and lower class...could it be that going gung ho for a young, black candidate is a way to show the world he himself is thoughful, hip, and young at heart? His attitudes are in direct conflict with Obama's liberalism...makes no sense... in one breath these chowderheads barely deserve to live, but in November Wells will vote for a candidate who thinks we should all pay for their healthcare...whaaa???

comment #32

le corbeau says ...

Tar baby? RACIST! RACIST!

What part of the Constitution are the technical qualifications for the Supreme Court in? For most of its history it was a place to stick cronies (Bush recently tried to revive this practice), by historical standards Thomas, with his Ivy League law degree and high-level experience in two cabinet departments including as chairman of a major agency (the EEOC), would have to rank in at least the top third by qualifications, if not admittedly toward the very top. So I do believe that the attacks on him have always been primarily racial, not substantive, by nature. Dems created the idea of a black seat, the black seat fell open during a Republican administration, any black legal figure a Republican chose was likely to be attacked in ugly and largely racial fashion by Dems. And so he was.

comment #33

Richardson says ...

"YOU have to run Thomas down personally in order to justify the Democratic party's shameful treatment of him."

I have to run him down personally? he wasn't seriously investigated for sexual harrassment? Wow, awesome, glad that didn't happen.

The reason I say he is not intellectually curious is because he has, as far as I understand,virtually never asked a question from the bench, and has literally never deviated from voting according to whatever Scalia votes for. That's embarrassing.

"I'd say he was at least as qualified... as a first-term senator fore the presidency."

Comparing two people who have nothing in common other than their race? Too easy. Too obvious. This must be a trap.

"Like I basically said above, the new definition of tolerance is, you on the left can bring up race in any context to use as a bludgeon, and it's never racist no matter how over the top crazy or spiteful or hateful it is, but the moment someone else brings up race in any context-- such as a simple, friendly comment of congratulation toward a person of the same race that one of theirs has done something truly impressive-- that's racism beyond the pale."

I didn't say it was beyond the pale. The problem is, there are degrees of racism. Assuming that all black people are the same because they are black is not as bad as assuming that all black people are bad because they are black, but it is still racism.

As for the rest of your comment, it has nothing to do with me or anybody i know, so I can't really respond to it, other than to say, let's put aside the word racism for a second. The fact that you have no problem lumping *all* liberals together is just as intellecutally lazy as lumping *all* black people together. So, in my mind, it's just as bad. The extra factor of race isn't worse, to my mind.

"so I reject your definition of racism and tolerance and what's fair and not fair"

I did not offer a definition of tolerance or what's fair and not fair. I would like to repeat the definition of racism which you just rejected:
"Making an assumption about a person based solely on the color of their skin."

Now, if that isn't racism, I say again, please enlighten us with *your* definition of racism. It should be good for a laugh.

comment #34

Richardson says ...

"Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. That's from the Merriam-Webster online. Laughing yet?"

I always laugh when people use on-line dictionaries as the final word on definitions, yes.

However, that said, it's a reasonable defintion... as long as you don't believe that broad generalizations based solely on race are inherently dehumanizing to the individual (which is, obviously, negative), whether the generalization itself is positive or negative.

By your definition, "all black people are lazy workers" would be racist, but "all Chinese people are good workers" would not. Personally, I disagree with that definition, which is why I prefer the dictionary.com one:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"

the "usually" being the key difference between that and yours; a positive stereotype is still a stereotype.

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

"I have to run him down personally? he wasn't seriously investigated for sexual harrassment? Wow, awesome, glad that didn't happen."

When was he convicted? I thought liberals believed in due process, not one-sided, politically motivated allegations. I'm sure Juanita Broadrick will be glad to have your support.

"I did not offer a definition of tolerance or what's fair and not fair. I would like to repeat the definition of racism which you just rejected: "Making an assumption about a person based solely on the color of their skin." Now, if that isn't racism, I say again, please enlighten us with *your* definition of racism. It should be good for a laugh."

Does the content of the assumption matter? I rather think it does. In fact I think it makes all the difference in the world, and congratulating a black woman on the historic triumph of a black candidate is pretty much the opposite of racism. Where your definition seems to be that taking any notice of another person's race is, by definition, racist.

Except, of course, when you do it.

comment #36

Major Calloway says ...

Possible explanations? Take your pick:

1) These guys knew her, and therefore acted very reasonably in this situation. Someone who knows nobody in this equation then filtered it through his own particular prisms. And surpisingly (oh my god, who would have thought!) his interpretation reaffirmed his beliefs rather than challenging them.

2) They did not know her, but are themselves Obama supporters (they are "working-class", after all) who made the commonly-held hegemonic assumption that all other reasonable people they regularly encounter also support Obama.

3) They are racist rubes of the sort so clueless that they will make assumptions about the personal preferences and philosophies of a stranger just because of her "race" (which doesn't exist, according to higher education -- can we get that MW definition, please? then debate why it doesn't coincide with what is taught by "whiteness studies"?) as small talk.

The biggest problem with 3 is that, from this telling, they are in agreement with the sentiment they expect her to have. Racist rubes for Obama!

comment #37

Major Calloway says ...

Opening comments of Semiotics for Beginners, by Daniel Chandler:
Structuralist semioticians tend to focus on the internal structure of the text rather than on the processes involved in its construction or interpretation. Where those working within this tradition do theorize beyond the text, they tend to argue that communication (particularly mass communication) is a primary process of reality construction and maintenance whereby positions of inequality, dominance and subservience are produced and reproduced in society and at the same time made to appear 'natural'.

From HWE:
Nonetheless, I took their their comment to mean...

comment #38

drgogol says ...

jghoward: "an attempted personal insult is also an admission of defeat"

Actually, it's an admission of not giving a shit about your opinion or, indeed, of this whole thread.

/engagement in silly discussion

comment #39

Richardson says ...

"When was he convicted?"

Right before I said that he was "convicted".

"I thought liberals believed in due process, not one-sided, politically motivated allegations."

And I thought conservatives hated Bill Clinton for forcing them to talk about sex in public. I guess ridiculous stereotyping isn't limited to race!

"Does the content of the assumption matter? I rather think it does."

To an extent, sure. That's why I made the distinction that "all black people are the same" is not as bad as "all black people are bad". But they're both assumptions based solely on race, so they're both racism. Just that there are degrees of it, as I mentioned.

"congratulating a black woman on the historic triumph of a black candidate is pretty much the opposite of racism."

The opposite of racism would be talking to her as a human being about her own individual interests, not saying, "Oh, you're black, you must love Obama."

"Where your definition seems to be that taking any notice of another person's race is, by definition, racist."

I thought I expressed it pretty simply. Perhaps you're having difficulty with the word "assumption". Contrary to your statement, "assumption" does not mean "taking any notice of". It actually means "something taken for granted". If my definition is too complicated for you to understand, I encourage you to visit dictionary.com, which offers reasonable definitions of all the words, so that you don't have to interpret what I say. I don't mind interpretation, but you bent my words completely to say something they simply don't mean.

"Except, of course, when you do it."

Again, I find it lazy to just say, "Oh, this person responding to me is a liberal. Rather than responding to their points, I will simply assume that all liberals are the same, and will respond to the straw man points that Liberal Person [who exists only in my own head] would say in this situation."

It's funny, but it's also pretty lazy. Isn't it easier to just read the words I *do* say and respond to them? Or, at least, you should brush up on what actual liberals think, because, so far, everything you've said is the sort of straw man liberal I see debunked on Fox News all the time.

comment #40

jghoward says ...

"By your definition, "all black people are lazy workers" would be racist, but "all Chinese people are good workers" would not."

I disagree. The latter is racist because it assumes that the Chinese are superior.

" a positive stereotype is still a stereotype."

I agree.

Was what the "lugs" said a positive stereotype? I think not. It wasn't positive or negative. It was an assumption based on personal observation.

comment #41

goodvibe61 says ...

Jeffrey:

You're just getting a whiff of this? Are you kidding me?

Think of it like this: You know how you hate, how you absolutely cannot stand all those brainless, mindless popcorn flicks that end up making boatloads of cash? You know, the Ghostriders, The Norbits, The Chuck and Larry's? And how the smart, challenging, life affirming works of art get released to little interest. Go ahead and translate that to this election. Is middle America really ready for this?

Those of us raised in a place like Los Angeles, it's different. But I go back home (Indiana in my case), it's another world entirely.

It's gonna be interesting, that's for sure...

comment #42

Richardson says ...

PS: I notice you *still* haven't offered a personal definition of racism, but I don't expect you to have actually read the several times I've asked you to explain your definition of racism, since that would involve reading what I say, processing it, thinking of a response, and then responding.

Yeah, I guess your way is easier, now that I think about it. You should just go ahead and have the conversation in your head, fill in my parts the way you've been doing.

comment #43

Josh Massey says ...

Richardson, I'll explain it in words so small even you can understand: There are differences between prejudice, stereotyping and racism. "Racism," which you so love throwing around, is a belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another.

Nothing - I repeat, nothing - those two guys said this morning fits that definition. They may have been insensitive, but insensitivity does not equal racism.

comment #44

Major Calloway says ...

The opposite of racism would be talking to her as a human being about her own individual interests....

Docked 2 points for use of the word "individual".

comment #45

bents75 says ...

I Love Lamp !

comment #46

Richardson says ...

"The latter is racist because it assumes that the Chinese are superior."

I might disagree there, but it's really semantic (good vs. superior), and we're close enough to agreement that I prefer not to argue.

"Was what the "lugs" said a positive stereotype? I think not. It wasn't positive or negative."

In that sense it was neutral; I meant it was "positive" because it was friendly, like if a black person walked into a restaurant and they said, "hey, we LOVE you guys here! Sit down and have some watermelon. I'll fetch you our finest grape soda."

But a neutral stereotype is also still a stereotype.

comment #47

Richardson says ...

"Docked 2 points for use of the word "individual"."

I don't get it, but I meant to say earlier that your Semiotics for Beginners was pretty funny. And also a good point, that Jeff's assumptions are just as lazy as that of the guys he is criticizing.

comment #48

Richardson says ...

"Nothing - I repeat, nothing - those two guys said this morning fits that definition."

If that's your personal definition, I agree, it doesn't fit that. However, personally speaking, I find your definition as limiting as when liberals say that only white people can be racist or only men can be sexist, because the phrase is inherently tied to power structure.

But at this point, we'd be getting into pretty serious discussions of why racism and stereotyping is evil, how words influence the subconscious, and all sorts of stuff that (a) would be boring to argue over, (b) this wouldn't be a good place to argue over, and (c) nobody, including me, would be interested in reading.

However, one thing:
" "Racism," which you so love throwing around "

That's a pretty strong claim to make based on one thread in which I have simply offered a definition which is generally -- though not universally -- accepted as racism. Should I read your one post and say, "Racism, which you so love to dismiss any and all claims of"?

You seem really angry about this. You should explore that with a therapist or, I don't know, a gun club? What do stereotypical conservatives do in lieu of therapy?

comment #49

DarthCorleone says ...

Somebody fooled me. I was told someplace down near the airport (perhaps this Norm's joint) was the Pulp Fiction site. It really looked like it, and they even had a bunch of publicity photos from the movie on display. Sad to hear the real place no longer exists...

comment #50

Major Calloway says ...

Richardson:
- "Docked 2 points for use of the word 'individual'."
- I don't get it

"Liberalism has faults, certainly, but not these. Its failure is rather that it has never repudiated the philosophy of Cartesianism or modern philosophical idealism. It holds to a myth of the individual (usually a white male) as the locus of an independently functioning objective reason."
- from God and Her Survival in a Nuclear Age by Susan B. Thistlethwaite

Here we find a wonderful example in academia of how having your own opinion now can be equated with "acting white". Viva La Revolución!

Glad to hear you thought that previous post funny, by the way.

bents75: I Love Lamp!

I don't think you really mean it.

comment #51

dinther says ...

MgMax, dude, no serious lawyer would ever contend that J. Thomas was anywhere near qualified to be nominated at the time. Prior to his appointment, he exhibited no great command of the law, his writing was de minimus and lacked intellectual heft, and his political appointments were pedestrian. There may have been other motivations in challenging his nomination, but he was plainly one of the least qualified candidates of the 20th Century.

That's not to say he could not have risen to the seat for which he was selected, but his writing since on the bench has been, with due alacrity, stunningly simplistic. His opinions (with a couple exceptions) are tinged with an abstentive judicial agenda that specializes in pounding round fact patterns into square jurisprudence - like Judge Scalia, only without Scalia's self-satisfying wit. Thomas is not the worst justice the Court has ever seated, but his opinions are so local and unhelpful as to make him the least significant justice of the last 50 years, easily.

comment #52

George Prager says ...

Your mother is a Cartesian.

comment #53

Richardson says ...

"no serious lawyer would ever contend that J. Thomas was anywhere near qualified to be nominated at the time"

I think you mean, "when judged against the available pool". I mean, he was qualified in a basic sort of way, if "qualified" is just something you either are or you're not, as opposed to a sliding scale on which you compare individ-- uh, I mean people.

comment #54

Richardson says ...

"It holds to a myth of the individual (usually a white male) as the locus of an independently functioning objective reason."

Thanks for the explanation. When did she write that? I ask because, to my eye, it seems as if the "myth of the individual" conforms more with stereotypical conservative beliefs (you know, "by your own bootstraps" and all), rather than stereotypical liberal ones. But maybe I don't understand the myth she means...

comment #55

Josh Massey says ...

Richardson: I say that you love throwing around the "racist" label because you seem so bent on making its umbrella as big as possible.

Assuming a black waitress in Los Angeles supports Obama? RACISM! Voting for McCain? RACISM! Not interested in watching the NBA playoffs? RACISM!

And I'm not sure why you're so hung up on "personal" definitions - what I gave you was the actual definition of the word. No matter how much you try to cast your own slant to it, the definition stays the same.

comment #56

le corbeau says ...

Richardson, I'm so terribly sorry I went and lived my life for an hour while you were busy responding even more often that I did to this stupid thread. To cut to the chase, I think my definition of what racism actually is, is more than amply indicated by my statements of what it isn't above, so you'll just have to look through those, and if instead you want to yell gotcha for the next 24-72 hours in this thread, be my guest. Or Titus Pullio's guest.

Really, nothing you've said does anything to change my private impression that practically no one can discuss racism in good faith any more. And so you attack me for smearing you personally as a liberal when it's quite clearly your attitudes I'm dissecting.

Josh said it all. You want racism as a cudgel to beat the other side with, on your terms only, and are frustrated that we won't play along.

comment #57

bb says ...

Gee Jeff, on top of everything else, you're a goddamn misanthropic psychic.

For somebody like you, who is so completely removed from the "lugs" and working class, to venture to guess what was really behind their innocuous statement is the height of idiocy.

I will give you credit though for actually making your increasingly ignorant and elitist remarks concerning politics, this election, Hillary, regular folks around the country etc. with your real name attached. Most people would be too embarrassed.

comment #58

Richardson says ...

"Assuming a black waitress in Los Angeles supports Obama? RACISM! Voting for McCain? RACISM! Not interested in watching the NBA playoffs? RACISM!"

Ah. See, i thought you were talking, I didn't realize you were just straw manning what I said so that it didn't matter.

"what I gave you was the actual definition of the word."

Very, very few people would agree with you, that's why I say it's your personal definition (neither dictionary quoted in this thread agrees with you).

Under your definition, enforced racial segregation is not racist as long as the places are equal as well as separate. Even the Supreme Court rejected that one. That's why I say your definition is as ridiculous as when liberals say only white people can be racist.

comment #59

Josh Massey says ...

Actually, my definition and the Merriam-Webster one align almost perfectly, just using different wording.

And again, I remind you that the definitions of the words "bigotry" and "racism" are quite different. "Racism" may be an easy word for you to use, but you are quite incorrect in applying it to all forms of racial prejudice.

The more you know...

comment #60

Richardson says ...

"To cut to the chase, I think my definition of what racism actually is, is more than amply indicated by my statements of what it isn't above"

So your definition of racism is whatever you didn't say racism wasn't? that seems unusually broad, as (as far as I can tell) you didn't say that sexism wasn't racism, or white-on-white violence, or corporate crime. I still think it would be easier for you to just simply express what you mean by racism, but I certainly can't make you do that.

"nothing you've said does anything to change my private impression that practically no one can discuss racism in good faith any more"

I'm not trying to change your closed mind, I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous the thoughts it expresses actually are to other people.

"And so you attack me for smearing you personally as a liberal when it's quite clearly your attitudes I'm dissecting."

That didn't happen, though. What I said was, rather than responding to the attitudes which I am expressing, you are instead delving into your bag of "Straw Man Liberal beliefs" and responding to those as if they are what I believe. The only reason you think it's "clear" that it's my attitude is because you're judging me solely as a liberal. I can tell you, factually, that 90% of the beliefs you ascribe to me are not mine. The fact that you believe them to be mine says a lot about your preconceived notions in this conversation; it says nothing about me, because it is unconnected with me in any way except that, broadly, both are "liberal".

"You want racism as a cudgel to beat the other side with, on your terms only, and are frustrated that we won't play along."

Would you agree that it's *possible* -- just hypothetically -- that the reason that it's impossible for you to have a conversation about racism in good faith is because, given that you already believe the above statement and refuse to bend on it at all no matter what the other person says, you yourself are not entering into the conversation in good faith? Because that's certainly how it looks to me.

comment #61

Richardson says ...

"Actually, my definition and the Merriam-Webster one align almost perfectly"

No, they really don't. Your definition aligns with half of it (the half which other dictionaries disagree with), but completely ignores the part about "race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities".

Since the whole conversation we're having is based around that half of the definition, leaving it out seems like a big omission.

comment #62

Howlingman says ...

Boy ... this is gonna be a real interesting election, huh?

comment #63

Richardson says ...

"I remind you that the definitions of the words "bigotry" and "racism" are quite different"

That's a dodge, though. Breaking down the argument to just which word is the exact right word for defining the problem seems like a convenient way to ignore actually discussing the problem by focusing solely on what to call it.

comment #64

le corbeau says ...

"...but completely ignores the part about "race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities". Since the whole conversation we're having is based around that half of the definition, leaving it out seems like a big omission."

So what part of "Hey, you must be happy about Obama winning, huh?" has to do with human traits and capacities, as opposed to simple fellow feeling toward someone who is part of a widely recognized group? That's why your detection of racism everywhere you want to find it seems so ridiculous to most of the people in this thread. And, no doubt, why you've sunk to ad hominem attacks and playground insults.

comment #65

le corbeau says ...

This would be racist, except I found the link to it on Andrew Sullivan's site, and he too always has the moral high ground no matter which side he's on today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pGTOquif7E

comment #66

George Prager says ...

Spot the movie line that doesn't belong with the others:

"Guy comes home, finds his wife in bed with another guy. She says:`look who it is..big mouth..now the whole neighborhood will know.'"

"We got short waitresses...makes the drinks look bigger."

"Guy comes into the bar. Asks 'where's the toilet?' I said `you're in it.'"

"These are the jokes folks."

comment #67

Richardson says ...

"So what part of "Hey, you must be happy about Obama winning, huh?" has to do with human traits and capacities"

The waitress was black, and the person determined that she would have the human trait of liking Obama based primarily/solely on that.

"And, no doubt, why you've sunk to ad hominem attacks and playground insults."

No doubt. I'm not calling you closed minded because you have explicitly said that your mind is closed, that's for sure!

comment #68

George Prager says ...

James Earl Jones in "The Man"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4hNZxsHaNW0

So how would these guys vote? I guess they would have to take turns voting (Ray for McCain, Rosey for Obama).:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hImSADHDWy4

comment #69

le corbeau says ...

"The waitress was black, and the person determined that she would have the human trait of liking Obama based primarily/solely on that."

And why is that a bad thing? I agree that it happened, what's wrong with it?

That's the difference, as I said before-- you want to declare any notice of race to be racist. (By others, anyway.) I don't believe that's so. I have the principle, which you insist on calling a closed mind, that that is pernicious nonsense.

comment #70

George Prager says ...

Rosey was probably for Huckabee.

comment #71

Major Calloway says ...

I remind you that the definitions of the words "bigotry" and "racism" are quite different...

I do agree with you here. I just wish people would use the word "bigotry" instead of "racism", when this is what they really mean.

comment #72

Major Calloway says ...

Spot the movie line that doesn't belong with the others.

Yeah, and you punch like you take it up the ass.

comment #73

George Prager says ...

"They say he's a pretty kid. I don't know whether to fight him or fuck him."

"You wanna fuck 'em? Cause I'll put youse both in the ring, give youse both a fuckin' beating and then you can fuck each other."

"But I'll be full of blood."

"You're used to that."

comment #74

George Prager says ...

"Wudja see?"

"Father of the Bride"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dS5eez_f4d8

comment #75

Josh Massey says ...

"Your definition aligns with half of it ... but completely ignores the part about 'race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities'."

Actually, it doesn't. I defined racism as "a belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another." Webster said it is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

So race is the primary cause of traits and capacities (ie. genetics) and that racial differences (ie. differences in genetics) produce superiority in one race over another.

I'm not seeing the difference.

comment #76

Major Calloway says ...

Don't overcook it....It defeats its own purpose.

comment #77

George Prager says ...

"I"m gonna eat your dog Larry!!"

comment #78

Richardson says ...

"I'm not seeing the difference."

I appreciate that you're being less aggressive then you were earlier, and actually seem to be engaging in a conversation.

"So race is the primary cause of traits and capacities (ie. genetics)"

That's the difference right there -- I don't think it's reasonable to limit "human traits and capacities" to just genetics. I would say that it includes, at the very least, culture in addition to genetics. (ie: "All black people listen to rap" would have nothing to do with genetics.

However, here's the thing -- there's two different arguments you might mean, and I'm not sure which. Which fo these are you arguing with?
1) Whatever word you would use to describe it, it is "wrong" to assume that a person will vote a certain way because they are black.
2) The word for that is racism.

Now, if you're only arguing with the second point, it's pretty semantic, and not really worth arguing against.

But it seems as if you're actually arguing against the first point, but using the fact that the definition of the word "racism" can be debated to dodge arguing that there is nothing wrong with making an assumption about a person based solely on their race.

Now, as for Max, I know that he has previously said on this website that he believes all black people will vote for Obama solely because they're black. So I know where he's coming from. I'm just not sure where you're coming from, exactly.

comment #79

Richardson says ...

"I agree that it happened, what's wrong with it?"

It's dehumanizing, for one, and carries with it the obvious implication that black people are incapable of independent thought and all do the same thing solely because they're black, like some sort of inhuman hive-mind..

Now, I know that you have previously said on this site that you believe that all black people will vote for Obama, and do so solely because he is black, so I know that *you* won't see anything wrong with what I just wrote, but I suspect that more rational people will get it, even if they do not agree entirely.

"as I said before-- you want to declare any notice of race to be racist."

And, as *I* said in direct response to that point, I absolutely do not want to declare any notice of race to be racist. There is a fundamental difference that you don't seem to understand between noticing that a person is a certain race and assuming certain conclusions based solely on the fact that the person demonstrably belongs to a certain race. The observation is not the problem -- it is when the observation leads directly to a conclusion with no room in between for individuality. [Maj. Cal - I assume it's okay in that context, right?]

"I have the principle, which you insist on calling a closed mind,"

I didn't say you were closed-minded because we disagree. Josh and I are disagreeing but, even though he came off as a bit of an asshole when he first chimed in, he doesn't come off as closed-minded.

I called you closed-minded in direct response to your statement that, no matter what I tell you that I believe, no matter how often and precisely I express exactly what I believe, you are going to continue to ignore those statements and instead ascribe beliefs to me that I not only do not have, but have actively rebuked. You have explicitly said that I can not change your mind regarding my own beliefs (let alone your beliefs), that you will continue to think that I believe things that I do not believe, no matter how often I tell you that I do not believe them.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, Max, but "closed-minded" is a nice word for that. And it's certainly NOT entering into a conversation In Good Faith. So I say again, I think that you yourself are the reason you are incapable of having a conversation about race in good faith -- your own statements lead me to the conclusion that you are acting in bad faith.

comment #80

Richardson says ...

I hope to meet Clarence Thomas in the next few months and say, "Hey, I'm sure you love Obama, right? GO BAMA! GO BAMA! GO GO GO BAMA!"

comment #81

Richardson says ...

"I just wish people would use the word "bigotry" instead of "racism", when this is what they really mean."

Intersting (to me, at least) is the fact that Merriam Webster does not limit "bigotry" to race (and/or gender), and dictionary.com's doesn't mention race at all.

The MW definition is:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
[dictionary.com is basically the same without the "especially"]

Which means that I'm going to call Max a bigot before he gets the chance to call me one.

But, that said, I don't see how the initial situation we were talking about falls under "bigotry". Which definition did you mean when you thought it did?

comment #82

Major Calloway says ...

"You'd bring her home to dad...if he was a degenerate."

comment #83

le corbeau says ...

Not only did I not say that all black people would vote for Obama, if you look up a little, you'll see that I explicitly said that I see no contradiction between this waitress supporting McCain, and being proud that a black man has been nominated for president. They do not seem, AT ALL, mutually exclusive to me.

Really, we just have to disagree on this. You think it's a terrible indignity that someone should be expected to be proud of black achievement. I think it's a natural feeling. A black person might not care a whit for baseball but still be stirred by Jackie Robinson. Would it be racist then for a white person to come up to them and say "I think it's great that Jackie Robinson broke the color line"? Again, it seems the very opposite of racist to me.

comment #84

supertaster says ...

The waitress was black, and the person determined that she would have the human trait of liking Obama based primarily/solely on that.

You mean like how with blue collar types, Wells determines that they have the human traits of stupidity and ignorance based solely on that??

comment #85

Major Calloway says ...

Sorry, I got distracted on that last post.

But, that said, I don't see how the initial situation we were talking about falls under "bigotry".

I remain unconvinced the initial situation falls under either bigotry or racism. Except intratextually, of course. (Socko! Pow! It's all high camp to me.)

I think "bigotry" snuck in the side door in this discussion. But since no reasonable person these days really thinks that genetics is a determining factor, the definition of "race" and "racism" has been expanded to include cultural, social and political identity. (In some ways it's been shifted rather than expanded.) As a result, what's really bigotry is often called racism. This is because "racist" is a far more politically useful term than "bigot". So now, not only will disagreeing with a given philosophy fit the definition, so will your typical human tribalism.

The problem has become that, depending on the subject, certain assumptions given a particular set of characteristics are seen as entirely benign (though sometimes a political liability) while others are necessarily "problematic". They may be equally wrong and stupid, but no one would be discussing this here if not for the "moral" aspects of this discussion.

Given certain characteristics, almost any assumption might be seen to be harmless, if not justified, while given other characteristics absolutely any conclusion at all - qualitative or not - is seen as "mean" (playground talk for harassing the special ed crowd). Hardly empowering.

"I look at somebody wrong, I get smacked."

comment #86

bb says ...

This entire debate is based on conjecture, on the assumption of what was behind the words that came out of an stranger's mouth. The only clear case of bigotry here(since that term seems to have entered the conversation) is that illustrated by Jeff when he makes grossly negative assumptions about a couple of guys simply because of the way they look.

There is an ugly tendency by a certain class of people to exhibit this type of bigotry and its made more grotesque by their delusions of superiority.

comment #87

Nate West says ...

The incident Jeff describes is not an example of racism per se, but it does, with its presumptions, reduce a person to a "type," and that's insulting. To presume a black person would be happy about an Obama win, or a woman would be happy about a Hillary win, or a very old white man with an incredibly rich younger wife would be happy about a McCain win--however probable such presumptions may be--is bad manners, or worse. It denies a person his or her individuality.

comment #88

le corbeau says ...

I'll start yelling "racist" at everyone who assumes I must give a shit how the Cubs are doing, then.

comment #89

Jay T. says ...

Elections are all about momentum... and Obama has it. It's really that simple. He'll win unless there's a major turning point that shifts that inevitable feeling of momentum towards McCain. It will need to be something pretty big, though.

comment #90

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review