Stats

Comments Posted By KevenSeven

Displaying 331 To 360 Of 1,300 Comments

Words that make you cringe

Does Reid understand that Negro used in this context is “racist”?

I know what you look like. I know of a semi-famous person that you look like. If I wrote it out, you might be offended. Even if I meant no offense.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:33 am

Some people think I’m fat. I don’t care to join them in this analysis.

I accept that this is complicated, but at some point words need to lose some of their impact in a discussion.

Are we to no longer use the term “negro spirituals”?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:29 am

Um. White man gets elected president of the US is a dog bites man story. In what way is that comment worthy?

Black man gets elected president of the US, that will tend to produce comment and analysis, some of it referencing race and racism and its impact on politics.

Reid has a tin ear. I don’t know that he is a passive racist, or any sort of racist. I would need to know more of his intentions before I would be prepared to call him any sort of racist.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:25 am

Oh, and the way you phrased the question is indeed a strawman.

If you found my points unclear, then just ask for a clarification.

You were attempting to direct the debate by putting words in my mouth.

There: perception vs intention. Get it?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:19 am

I’m not excusing shit.

I am saying that if you insist on treating all forms of prejudice equally, you undermine the effort to call out people of evil intent.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:17 am

Thank you.

I’m all for consciousness raising. And sensitivity training.

But at some point the old fart gets out of the penalty box. His intentions were not evil.

Negro is certainly not the most offensive description of people of African descent available in the lexicon; it is on the damned census, for crying out loud.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:13 am

OK, at some point you might consider getting off his back.

Short of electro-shock, I don’t think he is ever going to get over this “passive” racism.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:07 am

I am not only in the boat, but I am pulling my fair share on an oar.

How many times do I need to concede that “negro” is abrasive to many AAs? I am all over that. But there is a difference between inference and intention. I am not convinced that Reid’s intentions were evil. At some point people need to take a side on that. If you agree that his intentions were not evil, then at some point you might just consider getting off his back.

Do we want to make this a “learning moment”? OK. It was stupid of Reid to say that it was electorally advantageous that Obama is relatively light skinned and speaks Ivy League English.

Why even make the observation? If one wanted to explain why Obama was a viable candidate and Jesse Jackson was not, both of those points would pertain, but they would be but a few of many reasons that the two of them are very different politicians.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Please, no strawmen. You know I detest that. That is not my point at all.

My point is that when you dilute the meaning so very far, you do not have a useful term.

If an old lady’s hesitation to walk down the same street as half a dozen young black men dressed as gang-bangers is racism, and the Klan stringing up an African American is racism, and Harry Reid sticking his foot in his mouth is racism, you have so diluted the term that it has no impact.

I reiterate: I need to see some small evidence of evil intent before I use the term.

Otherwise, everybody walking on two legs is some sort of “ist”.

Look at the way we all refer to Rethugs on this blog. Does that not indicate prejudice on our part? Aren’t we all “ideologists”?

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:54 am

Now I have read your very expanded definition of racism.

So I turn it back to you: how many black folk assume whatever white person they deal with at any given moment is hostile? Not that they would be wrong more than they would be correct.

If you dilute the meaning so far, you end up with a term with no meaning.

For me, one needs to find some scintilla of evil intent to make such a charge. Or everybody becomes a

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:30 am

Yes, now I have read your very expanded definition of racism.

So I turn it back to you: how many black folk assume whatever white person they deal with at any given moment is hostile?

If you dilute the meaning so far, you end up with a term with no meaning.

For me, one needs to find some scintilla of evil intent to make such a charge. Or everybody becomes a “xxxxist”.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:29 am

All fine and good. But I will insist that his punishment is about run out. His intentions were obviously not evil.

Long ago I was assisting a friend who professionally photographed school classes. We would get a few hundred kids out on a field and try to arrange them in a aesthetic fashion.

On one occasion, in some warm weather, I was working a crowd, and a dark-skinned AA girl insisted on standing in the shade of a tree. I explained to her that the camera was going to be set to capture the image of all the other kids standing out in the open, and that her face would not be photographed successfully with her standing in the shade.

Some kid nearby thought that I had transgressed some rule or other by referencing this girl’s skin color.

Was it wrong to tell this girl (about 16 years of age) that she would disappear if she stood in the shade? I don’t think so.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:23 am

George Will asked rhetorically: what did Reid say that was incorrect?

As I understand it, Reid said that it was electorally advantageous that Obama was light skinned and spoke in Ivy League English, as opposed to Ebonics.

Not that he put it in just those terms, but my understanding of his meaning was just that. And Reid is obviously correct, if insensitive. It was indeed electorally advantageous that Obama does not comport to the various ignorant stereotypes of the half of whites in America who are flaming racist assholes.

Reid is experiencing exactly the amount of repercussion that his clumsiness deserves: he is embarrassed. This will be old news by Wednesday. Despite the glee of the Repug opportunists.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:12 am

I had not seen that. I like it.

Pretty much my attitude to everybody who claims to know the mind of God.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 9:02 am

I don’t know if it has the rhetorical impact when I am accusing a racist of being a negro lynching asshole.

AA just does not provide the same punch.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 8:58 am

I am aware of the racist history of the Mormons, thanks. That does not mean that every Mormon walking on two legs is a racist.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 8:56 am

I really need to step in here and endorse and expand on this.

At some point we need to agree what is and is not a racist insult. The N bomb qualifies.

How is it that “Negro” qualifies? At the time it was current and the accepted appellation, there was no disrespect associated with it.

Is it even remotely reasonable to declare that only one term is acceptable and that all previous terms, including Afro-American, are insulting and racist?

Seriously. Reid is tin-eared, but this is not a case of racism.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 8:52 am

In “God is not Great”, Hitchens has a full chapter devoted just to the Mormons. He has a pretty full narrative of Smith and his history as a snake oil salesman. It is pretty funny.

Mormonism is a uniquely American cult. It really is the product of an all American mountebank.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

Indeed he should, and he is experiencing just exactly the amount of embarrassment that he deserves.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

Regarding the term Negro, I certainly use it when I want to make a point in debate:

To challenge a reactionary about lynching, I am not going to say black, but rather Negro, as the two go together in history.

Actually, the N bomb would deliver even more sarcasm, but it really is going too far. Despite the fact that I detest reactionaries.

But this is a deliberate rhetorical flourish, not what Reid did. Bet he does not even know what the word Ebonics means.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

Respectfully, I don’t think that you have sufficient evidence to convict Reid of being a Racist.

Although declaring all Mormons to be racists is perhaps not something I would have published….

I think Reid is an old codger whose experience goes back to when calling black folk Negros was the most respectful form of reference in use.

You need to give me more examples to get me to condemn him as more than tin-eared.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 8:26 pm

Know what else is heartening?

Interracial marriage is on the upswing. Some of the best looking kids I know have parents of different race. Drab looking Germans like me have to get lucky to have a kid as cute as mine.

You are right as rain about the hope that the next generation is not going to buy into White Supremacy.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

On this morning’s This Week, Evil Spawn Cheney was not at all reluctant to exploit this, and she was slapped down pretty fiercely by Gorge Will, who insisted that there was not an ounce of racism in this.

And I agree.

Will asked rhetorically: what did Reid say that was incorrect?

As I understand it, Reid said that it was electorally advantageous that Obama was light skinned and spoke in Ivy League English, as opposed to Ebonics.

Not that he put it in just those terms, but my understanding of his meaning was just that. And Reid is obviously correct, if insensitive. It was indeed electorally advantageous that Obama does not comport to the various ignorant stereotypes of the half of whites in America who are flaming racist assholes.

Reid is experiencing exactly the amount of repercussion that his clumsiness deserves: he is embarrassed. This will be old news by Wednesday.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

Weekly Seminar, Winter Quarter

Yawn. No, I was being ironic in my disdain for Puritans.

Who indeed are all pissed off at not getting their pony. I find them very tiresome. I find everybody too pure to find the way forward to be very tiresome.

Here is a test I offer and never get a response to: Describe the elements of a HCR bill that would satisfy you and gain 60 votes in the Senate.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 11, 2010 @ 8:47 am

No.

That there are few that are worth having hang around longer, and we will get by OK.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 9:20 pm

Examples that prove the rule.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

Quisling!

Why did I not think of that????

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

Ageist!

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

I am not utterly closed to term limits, say a maximum of 24 years in Congress?

It was an easy sell to limit the president to ten years, max, as that one person is always very powerful compared to the rest of the govt. I would not want to see that change.

One idea I have had for a while is that an incumbent would need to win by better than 50% at some point. Say a senator standing for a third term or a congressman for a fifth term?

Say needing to win by 52%? Call it a handicap.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

Oh, I understand the frustration of the armchair Puritans who are all upset at not getting their pony.

» Posted By KevenSeven On January 10, 2010 @ 7:21 pm