LBJ, The Ides of March, and Voting Rights
The 15th of March, known as the ‘Ides of March’, has been characterized as a politically or socially charged calendar date ever since Shakespeare chose to highlight the date in his dramatic presentation of the momentous death of the Roman dictator.
The assassination of Julius Caesar on March 15th in 44 BC, made the Ides of March a turning point in Roman history.
Much like when any given Friday falls on the 13th day of the month, the ‘Ides of March’ give us pause to think and ponder some of the ‘what ifs’ of our personal political and social life experiences…
56 years ago today, March 15, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson gave this speech during a joint session of Congress:
There are 250 voting suppression measures that have been introduced by Republicans in 43 of the 50 state legislatures.
This is being done in the name of protecting, securing, and preventing fraud in the voting, election, and electoral process.
In a ‘whites only’ America, the votes of nonwhite citizens are fraudulent by definition.
Anyone who believes that current legislative attempts to limit, curtail, or suppress opportunities and access to the right to vote are nonracist and nonpartisan is about as politically knowledgeable and socially adroit as a 3 year-old infant.
A while back, I was excoriated for suggesting that “most” white Americans would be OK with waking up one morning to discover that the voting rights of nonwhites had been eliminated.
Apparently, most white Republican state and federal legislators clearly seem to believe that this is true of most white folks in the general population….
“Beware, the Ides of March.”
03/15/2021 @ 2:34 pm
What makes you think that voter suppression legislation is being introduced on behalf of constituents?
03/15/2021 @ 3:47 pm
I don’t and I didn’t say that it was….
03/15/2021 @ 10:35 pm
Then what indication do we have that legislators believe that most White people in the general population would be fine with the elimination of the Black vote? It seems to me that even the perceived belief of most White people is irrelevant to legislators if they can legislate their way to reelection.
03/16/2021 @ 2:09 am
“It seems to me that even the perceived belief of most White people is irrelevant to legislators if they can legislate their way to reelection.”
You could be right. However, If you are correct, then why even bother with articulating a rationale or justification at all. Why not simply do it without telling the accompanying lie that the legislation is about election and voter fraud?
It seems to me that if ‘most of the white people in this country’ weren’t complacent or indifferent re the continuous and repeated attempts to disenfranchise people of color, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
01/24/2022 @ 6:04 pm
“…Then what indication do we have that legislators believe that most White people in the general population would be fine with the elimination of the Black vote?…”—K/S
I certainly hope most white people would not be ok with it, but I think there may bear a different way to look at the question. While I am not certain that this is so, I think it may depend on the choice presented to them. It is often reported about how many current Republicans have previously voted for voting rights bills. Now, none do so. There must be a reason for the change. Maybe they see it as a choice between that and something else that we don’t know about. The same could be the case for each individual citizen.
News just broke recently that investigators believe they have determined who betrayed the Frank family of Anne Frank fame. The investigation revealed that Anne Frank’s father may have discovered himself who the man was, but kept it to himself…for his reasons. The man did not betray the Frank family until he was essentially given a choice between that, and something else. Republican legislators clearly appear to be doing this sort of choosing between democracy and career. What is to keep that from spreading to everyone else?
01/24/2022 @ 6:59 pm
One thing that’s changed is the narrative. You’re likely to find a major overlap between people not voting for voting rights and people thinking the 2020 election was stolen. That’s what happens when it becomes OK to dismiss mainstream media as sources of information. It used to be the Establishment vs. whoever the rebels were but the mainstream media was dismissed from the center of the Establishment, the White House.
Another thing that’s changed, in part because of a difference in news beliefs, is the introduction of White person as victim. I happened to come upon a group in Quora talking about how it was OK to be proud to be White and it was kind of eye-opening what they thought about Whites being demonized. Now minorities aren’t people to be helped to a population like this, they’re competitors trying to delegitimize their kids in school. They see a statue of Thomas Jefferson come down and they’re terrified that everything they value is being demonized. Some of them view talk about voting rights as nothing more than phony demonization. That’s kind of how McConnell views the issue – he didn’t vote for voting rights because he claims that voting rights aren’t under threat. (What’s interesting here is he’s using the same argument that we use against voter ID laws – that there isn’t fraud – only we have our facts right and he doesn’t.)
From what I’ve heard of who ratted out Anne Frank, it was a local Jewish official trying to save his own family. I don’t know if that’s accurate.
01/24/2022 @ 7:20 pm
That is the report about the guy who betrayed the Frank family. He was some sort of local Jewish council member, responsible for matters concerning the Jewish community, but set up by the Nazis. So, this guy worked the middle until the ultimate choice was put to him. I can’t see why that same process can’t be applied to any American where they see split loyalties. People either choose to wield power, or line up behind it. This is my great disappointment with what seems like the vast majority of humans.
You may underestimate how much this is so, but you are somewhat aware of it. At the risk of complimenting you, I’ll use something that I know about how you conduct yourself as evidence. You yourself tend to stick to what you know to be true irrespective of who approves of the facts as you see them. Sometimes they are comfortable and others they are not. Most people are not that way at all. Most take the path of least resistance, no matter the question. While I think this is commendable about you, I am embarrassed that it may appear that I am offing it as a way to gain your agreement. I am not. My point is that people are far more corruptible than I previously thought. I think think the people who stand proudly and belt out the National Anthem, and speaking terms of freedom, care a whit about anyone else’s freedom. They don’t get that it is interconnected. They will line up behind power, not only to save their own skin, but to save their wealth, comfort, status, and peace of mind.
01/25/2022 @ 12:00 am
Bitey, I don’t suspect you of trying to curry favor with me because you have no reason to. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don’t. I respect what you have to say because I understand your process. I find it personally very familiar. We’ve watched each other for years so we have a good idea of what drives the other and what drives the other nuts.
As regards the National Anthem, like with flags there are people who love America’s symbols and people who love what the symbols represent, though first you have to understand what they represent and before that you have to want to understand what they represent. In that respect nationalism is no different than Christianity. (Oddly, the closest thing currently existing to what Jesus was trying to establish is Reform Judaism, though our formation is absolutely not about him. We just got there a couple of millennia later.)
03/16/2021 @ 12:04 pm
They are complacent or indifferent and they’re willing to accept bogus rationales for the actions. They can rationalize it as long as they can frame it in non-racist terms. I’ll go back to the Anatole France quote, because it may be the first on the subject and is probably the best. (I don’t know about anything else he wrote, just that this is great.) He said that the rich and the poor are equally prohibited from sleeping under bridges.
Voter ID laws or necessitating addresses looks reasonable. Sure, let’s make fraud more difficult. You have to know – and you have to be interested in finding out – that fraud is statistically insignificant, voter ID laws cost millions to administer, and the rationale behind these laws is making it more difficult for minorities to vote before you can admit, even to yourself, that these laws are racially motivated. These voters are typically being told that fraud is a problem and it’s comfortable and consistent with their worldview to believe it.
Personally, if I’m wrong I want to know about it. I am not normal in this respect. If I were, there would be many more White anti racists than there are. But these people would rather not know. If they wanted to know about racism, they’d seek out sources that actually knew something about racism rather than sources whose main concern with racism is denying it. This makes denial easy. Not just denial to us, denial to themselves, which is at least as important.
If a trusted Republican (or someone whose conservativism is trusted) were to go to the population of any given state and say “We’re writing a bill that will result in all Black people being unable to vote,” we don’t have evidence that the majority of White people in that state would approve. I don’t mean California, I mean Wyoming. Telling them “You can have this vote but you have to admit to yourself that you’re racist to get it.” I think that’s over the line for the majority of White people. If it weren’t, more of them would be open about racism.
That’s why legislators can’t get away without telling the accompanying lie. My point is that they can’t get away with that, and certainly that they think they can’t. To understand American racism it is important to know that at this point it is largely unacknowledged by racists about themselves. Not completely, but we’re talking the majority here. When someone White tells you that they’re not racist, it isn’t you they’re lying to.
03/16/2021 @ 7:44 pm
“…we’re talking the majority here. When someone White tells you that they’re not racist, it isn’t you they’re lying to.”
I rest my case.
03/17/2021 @ 3:14 pm
The majority of racists, not Whites
03/18/2021 @ 1:59 am
Understood…
03/17/2021 @ 6:27 am
Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is true that “most would be ok with…”. Is that the issue? What does that mean exactly? Is there something to be done about it? Or, rather is the legislation itself the point? Is the right to vote the point? If most white people are racist, what is the point of telling them? I can see the point in telling everyone else because they could organize against a racist force. I’m not declaring that to be your purpose. I am just searching out what the purpose actually is.
03/18/2021 @ 2:17 am
How do you pursue the search for the ‘common ground’ of healing, reconciliation, and unity, with people who seem to be unable to acknowledge the mutual commonality of our humanity?
White folks must acknowledge and come to terms with their racism whether it be open, overt, and purposeful or unconscious, subconscious, subliminal, and unintentional.
Simply ignoring and/or denying the fact and consequences of racism both historically and contemporaneously cannot and will not suffice where acknowledgement and accountability are absolute conditions precedent to a just resolution of the issue and achieving national unanimity and equanimity in laying the matter to rest…
03/18/2021 @ 6:49 am
I agree, but I am someone who desires that change. You are probably talking to someone who does not want that change. If they already choose to be racist, what is the point of telling them that they are racist? It works for them.
03/18/2021 @ 9:14 am
The overt racists are a small, but growing, minority of the white folks who might be characterized as ‘racial bigots’.
Most white Americans are racists by dint of the fact that they unwittingly subscribe to the institutional and systemic racism that is percieved as the political, societal, and cultural norm in this country…
We won’t rid ourselves of the toxic and cancerous affliction of the racism that is an existential threat to the democracy unless we root it out and call it out whenever and wherever it appears and manifests itself….
White folks who choose to ignore or deny their subliminal, subconscious, unconscious, unwitting, and unintentional, racism are choosing to deny our humanity as they refuse to acknowledge and be accountable for the fact and consequences of their own racism…
As Koshersalaami has said:
“When someone White tells you that they’re not racist, it isn’t you they’re lying to.”
03/18/2021 @ 8:10 pm
That’s interesting.
I think white people are perfectly entitled to their racism. As long as they are private thoughts or feelings, and they do not affect actual public assets or activities, I have no problem with them. If they have a private pool, or a private club, and they want to refuse any group of people, it is theirs to do so for their own reasons.
To deny someone their private racism is to deny their self determination. So, you qualify someone a racist based upon what they buy into oversteps the mark. Thoughts and feelings aren’t, nor should they be, crimes. And the problem with “racism” as a concept is that if someone tells you that they are not, they may not be lying. They may mean it in a way that is entirely different from how you define it. If you mean it as a matter entirely of thoughts or beliefs, and not of actions…that is no one’s business but theirs.
03/19/2021 @ 4:27 am
“If you mean it as a matter entirely of thoughts or beliefs, and not of actions…that is no one’s business but theirs.”
You would be correct if public policy and private thoughts and beliefs were never intertwined and interlocked as they are here…
I said:
“We won’t rid ourselves of the toxic and cancerous affliction of the racism that is an existential threat to the democracy unless we root it out and call it out whenever and wherever it appears and manifests itself….”
When racism “appears and manifests itself” it does so in overtly racist speech, behaviors, and actions…
Systemic and institutional racism exist because they are reflections and manifestations of the private thoughts and beliefs that have been held and adhered to by the majority population and which have been perpetrated, perpetuated, promulgated, and projected onto the framework of this society since day one…
There must be zero tolerance for racists and their racist ideologies.
You may be flexible on the matter, that is your right and prerogative.
However, be that as it may, for me, there is no common ground, no compromise, and no peaceful coexistence with people who will not acknowledge and respect our humanity, our dignity, our civil liberties and our human rights…
03/19/2021 @ 10:03 am
You also said: “ Most white Americans are racists by dint of the fact that they unwittingly subscribe to the institutional and systemic racism…”
If they are “unwittingly subscribing” to something, they are not acting based upon an aware conscience. This standard makes it possible for a baby, an animal, or an inanimate object to be a racist. My definition of racism is not a “compromise” or “coexistence” with people who “will not acknowledge”… My definition involves what they do versus what they think.
Your own statement says it. On one hand they are condemned for being “unwittingly.” Then you make the higher standard of what they “will”. You can see the discrepancy yourself. You created it. To claim that “most white people” are racist, you have to leave it at what they apparently feel, based upon what exists in society.
Ok, replace the subject of race with math. Imagine you are teaching someone algebra. My original question could be stated as, why tell someone that they are opposed to math or learning algebra? If they are opposed, what good does saying that to them accomplish? On the other hand, if they are willing to learn, but merely do not understand, are they actually anti-math? I think the answer to that is no. One in three people doesn’t understand algebra. That does not mean that they are opposed. And the position that they are not opposed is not a compromise or a lower standard.
Here is a better one. The force of gravity exists everywhere on Earth. All people are subject to it whether they know it or not. Most of those people have probably never flown in an airplane. Does it stand to reason that all people who have never flown are opposed to flying merely because they are subject to the force of gravity? No.
03/19/2021 @ 2:21 pm
Interesting analogies but, false equivalencies..
An individual’s opposition to, or ignorance of, math has no substantial social or cultural consequences.
“My definition involves what they do versus what they think.”
“This standard makes it possible for a baby, an animal, or an inanimate object to be a racist.”
None of these have the capacity for critical thought or analysis… None of these are capable of racism….
Your point is that your definition is a variant of what/who I would characterize as “racist”.
It’s your “working definition” which is somewhat limited and narrow but adequate and acceptable nonetheless….
03/19/2021 @ 5:30 pm
You skipped over the part about, “White folks who choose to ignore or deny their subliminal, subconscious, unconscious, unwitting, and unintentional, racism are choosing to deny…”
If it is unconscious and unintentional, they are not choosing. But, that’s just my view. I think I understand you. White people are just plain racist deterministically.
03/20/2021 @ 11:46 am
If you can understand and appreciate the concepts of ‘latent racism’ and ‘aversion racism’, we’re on the same page.
03/20/2021 @ 5:58 pm
Respectfully, Ron, my aversion is to accuse the entire population of white people of being racist. That’s never going to happen. Now, if you think waving some concepts in front of me that I admittedly am not aware of, will get me to go…oh, I guess all white people are racists. Well, bless your heart.
03/21/2021 @ 10:32 am
“I guess all white people are racists.”
Certainly not by your “working definition” which applies to a relatively small , but growing, percentage of the population.
03/20/2021 @ 11:31 pm
If all White people are racists, should I accept that and stop trying?
I think it’s the wrong question. Well, to be more specific, I think whether all White people are racist is the wrong question. I also think it’s the wrong way to approach the issue. Go to the post itself. Look at the Johnson speech in front of Congress. The occasion was passing landmark civil rights legislation. You might notice something looking at that video. The room was full of White guys. The guys who passed the legislation were White guys.
That tells you something. A whole lot of White guys had to be reachable. How?
What bothered the White guys enough to change America? What kept other White guys from being bothered enough to agree with changing America?
What’s different now? Why do some White guys want to change America while other White guys don’t?
If you’re looking to change policy, these are important questions. Telling us that racism is ridiculously pervasive doesn’t tell us how to reduce it.
I worry a lot about how White guys think. I worry about who is reachable, how they’re reachable, and how they’re difficult to reach. I want to know what I have to work with. Do they have to be beaten or converted? Or some of each? Those are critical questions.
A long time ago, on Open Salon, I once wrote a post. People thought it was about Bitey and about people saying racist things to or about him, which a shocking number of people did. But it wasn’t. I made that clear at the time. A lot of people didn’t believe me, but I meant exactly what I wrote. I didn’t name names. I didn’t fail to name names because I was being sneaky or trying to take shots at guys without looking like I was taking those shots. In actuality, I wasn’t taking shots at them, I was taking shots at everyone else. My question wasn’t Aren’t these guys sons of bitches? My question was Why are we tolerating this phenomenon? We were in a mostly liberal space that turned out to have a whole lot of people acting racist and a majority of people not caring. Well, that’s not consistent. What it said was a lot of people weren’t exactly the sort of people they thought they were.
People don’t like finding out that they’re not the kind of people they thought they were. They will do what they can to avoid facing that, to continue to claim what they are – or are not – in the face of behaviors that don’t add up to what they think of themselves. It makes them look not principled to themselves.
Is that the secret? I think so. I think the secret is to create that cognitive dissonance, to make them uncomfortable with not meeting their own standards such that they do more to meet those standards.
At the time of Johnson’s legislation, there were a lot of guys who didn’t experience that dissonance because they had no problem thinking of themselves as racist. That’s not true now like it was then. Now guys who do racist things are typically offended to be thought of as racist. The difference between being completely comfortable with one’s own racism and being in denial about it is a substantial difference, and it suggests that the way to deal with these two populations – avowed racists and racists who don’t think of themselves as racist – is very different.
03/21/2021 @ 10:40 am
“I think the secret is to create that cognitive dissonance, to make them uncomfortable with not meeting their own standards such that they do more to meet those standards.”
BINGO!!!
03/21/2021 @ 10:53 am
The two of you are talking about two entirely different things. You can’t create a cognitive dissonance within someone by telling them that they are a racist because you say so. That assumes that they care what you think about how they think. That is not even in the same ballpark as a persuasive argument.
03/21/2021 @ 3:15 pm
“That assumes that they care what you think about how they think.”
They care about what somebody thinks of their hypocrisy.
That’s why there are an over-abundance of platitudinous, euphemistic, and disingenuous dodges and denials….
White reporters, commentators, and pundits are calling out racist bigots with a degree of regularity and repetitiveness that would have been unheard of 10 years ago.
And, they’re naming names in the process along with the usual ‘film at eleven’…
03/21/2021 @ 5:42 pm
Ron, that is proof that they don’t. If they care about your assessment, they take it to heart. If they don’t, they give you a dodge. The proof is in what they do, not what they say.
03/21/2021 @ 10:54 pm
I disagree and would go with Kosh’s ‘revelation’….
Can you give us an explanation of why White people are so self conscious about being called or characterized as racists?
03/22/2021 @ 6:52 am
Don’t answer that bullshit, Kosher. That’s just throwing dope to a junkie.
03/22/2021 @ 8:26 am
Bitey, I agree that they don’t care about my assessment or the assessment of any other black person who may be engaged in the war of words, concepts, and ideologies.
White folks are indifferent, complacent, defensive and even dismissive re the articulation of the arguments made by black people. Some may even become hostile and violent in response to an accurate and truthful assessment of their attitudes, rhetoric, actions and behavior…
However, “White reporters, commentators, and pundits are calling out racist bigots with a degree of regularity and repetitiveness that would have been unheard of 10 years ago.”
I have repeatedly taken the position that:
“If social justice is to be achieved it won’t be because black and brown people persuaded or convinced conflicted and ambivalent white people of anything at all.
It will be because white people make the case to reluctant and recalcitrant white folks that a just society and more perfect union isn’t about bestowing the benefits of freedom on black and brown people at the expense of white people, it’s about ‘liberty and justice for all’. ”
03/22/2021 @ 10:29 am
Bitey,
We are absolutely talking about different things. Creating cognitive dissonance entails bringing about introspection, and calling people racist will not accomplish that, it will make them defensive which will shut down introspection.
There’s also the issue of White people magically listening to other White people. That’s not the secret, because White identity is not analogous to Black identity. For one thing, White identity is too varied. In my comment above, I talked about how a whole lot of White guys had to be reachable, but it wasn’t Johnson who reached them. By and large it was King. It was the guy who pointed out to them that they were writing bad checks. It was the guy who led a peaceful march met in front of television cameras with biting police dogs and fire hoses while White people watched their screens and thought Wait a minute, whose conduct is wrong here? It’s the same question asked about George Floyd and Derek Chauvin.
The White people who want to talk about this often blow it. They lapse into PC. All that does is virtue signal and make conservative Whites not only defensive but indignant and instead of introspection we get a massive reaction to “cancel culture.” If you want to bring about introspection, the best way I know is to draw a parallel with their action (or lack of action) where they would go the other way and ask What’s different? That’s why King talked about bad checks. There are promises in the Constitution, why isn’t it important to you to keep them? When you say “with liberty and justice for all” have you started off every school day of your life by lying?
That’s what worked in the sixties. It doesn’t work as well now, even though it’s still the most effective choice, because the facts themselves aren’t agreed on. Now the answer would be “There is liberty and justice for all and I’m colorblind, not racist.” Now things are trickier, but the same truths apply: we still have to create that cognitive dissonance and we can’t get there by making people defensive. What a lot of people don’t seem to get about this is that not making people defensive is not a moral consideration but a practical one. Whether they deserve to be made defensive is beside the point. That’s a really difficult concept for liberals to grasp. Unfortunately, it is an impossible concept for the Far Left to grasp because their morality doesn’t include practical considerations at all.
Will everyone here understand what I just said?
03/22/2021 @ 11:24 am
There’s a difference between calling someone a racist and making someone aware of the racism in society and in themselves….
For a variety of reasons, what MLK did in the sixties cannot be replicated today.
The ascendancy of Trump is testimony to that fact and, as you said, getting people to think and interrogate their beliefs and assumptions is a much ‘trickier’ proposition today than it was back then….
03/22/2021 @ 3:11 pm
I actually think King would be screamingly effective today. We have a disadvantage now in that what racism we see mostly isn’t admitted, but we also have a screaming advantage:
We now have a pervasive public ethos that considers racism immoral.
You may not see this, but it’s the reason people don’t want to admit their own racism to themselves, because then they’d think ill of themselves. In King’s time they felt fine about themselves. There are some who may not think ill of themselves but they hide their racism because they assume most people around them would think ill of their racism.
The question is no longer whether racism is bad, the question is what constitutes racism.
Now the conversation has to shift and it is up to us to figure out how. We’re asking the wrong questions. If I were in an argument now with someone who said that there was no racism involved in whatever case involving the killing of an unarmed Black male is in front of us, the first question I’d ask is: When you hear about a case like this, is your first reaction to ask who was right or is your first reaction to ask exactly how the suspect screwed up? Follow up: If the second, why are you willing to decide a case before examining evidence? Why are you behaving like a prosecutor instead of like a juror? 2nd question: If you’re looking into the character of the suspect, why? Murdering a bad man is no more legal than murdering a good one. Why are you trying to discredit the suspect?
Where we have to go now is different. If they’re knocking the mainstream media, ask them to evaluate their own media. Where are your sources getting their information? We know mainstream sources have to vet their sources, confirm their information, etc., both because it’s what they’re trained to do in journalism school and because it’s news department policy. How careful are your sources? Do you have any evidence they’re careful at all? What makes them reliable?
This parallels the Greens when Jill Stein was their candidate. They worried about how the other candidates were but they didn’t critically examine their own. I eventually did and I was surprised by how incredibly unqualified she was. The didn’t look. Conservatives aren’t looking at what they’re defending either. Don’t leave it off the table.
Another, perhaps more topical, question about sources: When you want to know what Black people actually go through in the United States, who do you ask? Who do you watch? Who do you read? Have you bothered to figure out how reliable your source is and why? Are you choosing your sources because of what you want to know or because of what you’d rather not find out? If over 90% of Black people are liberal, are you going to seek out a Thomas Sowell or a Clarence Thomas and then pretend they’re representative? On the contrary, you’re seeking them out because they’re not representative. They’ll tell you what you want to hear, but why is it what you want to hear? Don’t you want to know what the problems on the table really look like?
What enables them to hold onto their myths? If we know that holding onto their myths is where the biggest problems come from, then go after the mechanism of holding onto those myths,.
This is the same mindset as people who don’t want to wear masks and don’t want to talk to their own doctors about COVID. Who does it make sense to talk to when you want to know about infectious diseases?
But the thing about the questions is that they’re questions, not accusations. Turn them into accusations and lose.
03/24/2021 @ 1:48 pm
I disagree that King would be more effective today. I’m afraid that view of the world contains a number of anachronisms, and results in an over-simplification of the problems we face today.
First we have vastly more information streams today, and much less agreement about what is real. King’s success was due in large part to a nation viewing a problem in much the same way, described by a relatively small set of people. Today, any description would have a much broader range of description, and much more denial. Today we fight “forever wars” which are never declared. Denial of science, which used to occupy the kooky fringe, has bled into the mainstream in ways that most of us never thought possible. Sidney Powell just stated that she should not have been believed regarding her voter fraud assertions because they were obviously outlandish, and placed the onus on the believer while trying to deflect accountability. Fox News did that as well, just weeks ago with Tucker Carlson. This happened twice in a matter of weeks. Name one time when it happened previously, to say nothing of twice. If you can name one, it is not in an environment where social justice was expanding.
We have been constructing a disinformation machine to destroy social justice since, at least, Reagan. “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” The matter was a population fooled by disinformation. That main lie, “supply side economics”, has remained for decades. The opposition to social justice, and even the support of the middle class, relies entirely on voter suppression and disinformation now. The apparatus for wielding this power is firmly in place. King succeeded in an environment where denial of reality on this scale was just theory. Also, The GOP and Democrats had a full spectrum from liberalism to conservatism within each party. Legislators from opposing power bases could find moorings in the opposite camps to move legislation. That is essentially impossible now. As one party represents progressivism, and the other represents reactionary politics, cooperation can’t even be found regarding fighting a pandemic.
03/24/2021 @ 2:06 pm
Bitey, of course, it was….
Re the matter of whether or not King would be effective today, Bitey has it right.
03/24/2021 @ 4:09 pm
Regarding King, though you’re right about the factors causing problems, there are too many unknowns. He became a general icon in ways no one else in the movement did. Part of that was his use of language. Now people throw around their own jargon, and it alienates the other side. When I was younger, the communists used terms like running dog paper tiger imperialist lackey. It didn’t matter how valid a point they had, their terminology led straight to the eye roll. King generally didn’t go in that direction. He has a lot of centrist credibility. Of course, had he lived, we don’t know how his reputation would have evolved, nor do we know what other actions he would have taken between his death and now. But King was superb at hitting the nail on the head in ways we don’t see much of now. There are a whole lot of times it would have helped to have had him, particularly during the Reagan years. I think he would have had a more clear understanding of what was being done to labor and how than most others did.
You’re right about the parties becoming firmly ideological, though that ironically happened in the long term as a result of what Johnson did here, and he said so at the time. I lived in places where liberal Republicanism held out the longest.
As to our now not agreeing on COVID, on one hand I’d say a lot of that was on Trump personally but the Republicans backed him so maybe not so much.
03/24/2021 @ 8:36 pm
Incidentally, I think I should add that, by no means was my comment meant as a criticism of King. I think both of you understood that and would have taken me to task if I had come across that way. It was merely a criticism of public discourse.
And as for Trump in this era of disinformation, I agree that he is a propagator, but his level of success would not have been possible 40 or 50 years ago. Roger Stone the “dirty trickster” is a much bigger deal today than he was under Nixon. There has been a general intellectual decay in our society, and this style of politics takes advantage of that.
03/25/2021 @ 10:47 am
I saw nothing that indicated to me that you were criticizing King.
I think the root of what we’re seeing is something else you alluded to earlier, and that’s the move from two ideologically diverse parties to two ideological parties. That works in parliamentary systems but not in this one. It’s the problem with the House vs. the Senate in macrocosm. House districts are often, particularly with Gerrymandering, very monolithic in terms of the majority, so there’s no reason for a candidate to moderate to appeal to the other side. That’s basically what’s going on with national discourse. Republicans aren’t all that worried about the reactions of Democrats, so there’s no political reason for them not to back Trump to the hilt if he brings them power.
03/22/2021 @ 8:49 am
Kosh, you have articulated an apt explanation and assessment of what I have thought about as an approach to exchanges with racists about racism:
‘Nonviolent confrontational militancy’:
Creating severe psychological, and emotional conflict by challenging and attacking the self image of racists with reality and the truth to the point of making the ambivalence and self doubt too painful to bear…
This includes the weaponization of the pain in the internal conflict to the point where the only way to relieve the pain is to eliminate or reduce the conflict between the fantasy of self image and truth and reality….
Or, to put it in a word, ‘accountability’.
03/22/2021 @ 9:11 am
BTW Bitey, you may be right because at the end of the day, words and phrases that express concepts and ideas like:
All men are created equal.
Equal Justice under law;
With liberty and justice for all;
Innocent until proven guilty;
Jury of peers;
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Protect and Serve….
are all nothing but ‘bullshit’…
03/24/2021 @ 1:51 pm
Now that was some bullshit.
03/31/2021 @ 5:41 pm
Regarding this, you really should not venture into areas like these. Some people take concepts and oaths like these very seriously. Some people apply the same seriousness to their statements wherever they are made. Your view is much more cynical than most. Your level of seriousness is much less than most. Your character is deficient if your “this is only social media” excuse is to be taken seriously. Frankly, you make it difficult to tell when you should be taken seriously. That is not a good thing. But, that is a reflection of yourself, Ron. Don’t take a slogan like “protect and serve” into your world. It does not belong there. You can’t reach it.
03/21/2021 @ 8:02 am
No one thought it was about Bitey because Bitey wasn’t on Open Salon. Ever.
03/21/2021 @ 9:23 am
You have a point.
03/23/2021 @ 5:57 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-covid-19-world-systemic-racism-is-deadly/2020/07/14/aabe1672-c601-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html
If you can, read this.
03/24/2021 @ 1:54 pm
For the record, Ron, the bullshit I was referring to is branding an entire race with racism. That is bullshit. I was not referring to concepts as bullshit. If that is how you read that, I pity you. And if you are capable of understanding that and tried to pass off that bullshit anyway, I condemn you.
03/25/2021 @ 1:57 am
I was being facetious…
However, please take note of the fact that I did not include this quote from Chief Justice Taney in his majority opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision:
“The black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect.”
This expression of the political and social reality of the period is one of the reasons why most contemporary legal scholars and the modern legal establishment consider Taney’s opinion to be one of the worst Supreme Court opinions ever written…
Most would consider it “bullshit” without challenging the accuracy, efficacy, or applicability to the nature and extent of race relations in America today…
03/25/2021 @ 6:21 am
Ron, there is no question that racism exists. There is also no question that among the many racists, and within an oppressive system of racism, there are terrible racists. No one really doubts that. Where w separate is in seeing and declaring all white people to be racist. There is a big difference between those ideas, and if yours were true, discussion would be entirely pointless.
03/25/2021 @ 10:37 am
Yup. The issue is generalizing.
Generalizing has to be handled with extreme care because generalizing is the root of bigotry.
03/25/2021 @ 11:08 am
Bitey, I didn’t say that: “All white people are racist.”
I said that, “most white people are racists”…
Within the context of what I characterized as your ‘working definition of who/what is racist’, which is predicated on overt, intentional, and purposeful behavior your assessment works quite well.
Though your definition seems to me to be narrow and limited it is nonetheless acceptable for purposes of discussion and debate…
My definition is broader and inclusive of the unconscious, subconscious, subliminal, unintentional, covert and latent racism that can be manifest in many ways without concomitant actions or behavior….
In law we are required and trained to consider the thinking behind the actions of defendants such that expressions and utterances become evidentiary elements re intent.
We’re on the same team but at different positions.
03/26/2021 @ 12:36 am
The law is all about concomitant actions and behavior. The law does not regulate feelings. It can’t. Motives, yes; feelings, no, because feelings are not under the individual’s control. That’s not a useful definition. If a racist thought has ever crossed your mind, you’re a racist? That’s like saying that if you ever thought yourself more capable or less emotional than a woman, you’re a sexist. I can go farther than that: If you’ve ever had a negative thought because of race about someone in another race that isn’t dominant, such as Asians, you could be defined as a racist.
I don’t think law is what’s involved here at all. Law defines responsibility carefully.
03/25/2021 @ 6:29 pm
Ron, with your conditions for what determines that most white people are racist…ALL would have to be racist. Your conditions cover all. If they do not cover all, you can’t claim that the conditions cover or determine any. All you have is that racism exists, and that some admit to it. Your conditions CAN NOT reach most without covering all.
You said all, Ron. And it was bullshit.
03/26/2021 @ 7:52 am
Kosh / Bitey;
Hate is an emotion or feeling that, when expressed in violent behavior targeted against an individual or group, raises the criminal action or activity to the level or threshold of a ‘hate crime’ which carries a heavier burden of proof, a higher standard of prosecutorial performance, and stiffer penalties than the ordinary or garden variety of similar criminal behavior…
Bitey if I said.’all’ please copy cut and paste the quote here…
I don’t recall using a hyperbolic universal in this conversation.
Either I said ‘all’ or I didn’t. Your convoluted, tortured and twisted logic doesn’t alter the fact that I didn’t say that which you claim I said.
You and Koshersalaami have a habit or tactic of misinterpreting and misrepresenting what is stated in order to suit your opposing approach, assessment, or perspective…
Bitey, if you insist on saying that I said something that I didn’t say and then quoting your interpretation as though it came from me there’s but one response I have for that:
03/26/2021 @ 8:22 am
Ron, you must think about what you said. You put forth some conditions about culture. Those conditions (according to you) make “most white people” racists, whether conscious or unconscious. You recognize that so far, right?
Ok, if the terms that you use as a premise make your statement true, it must be true for ALL. There is no set of conditions that limits your assertion. It can’t be true for most without being true for all. Also, built in to your assertion is denial of those who actually deny the claim. Your assertion claims that those who deny being racist do so because they are ashamed…or whatever word you chose.
Third, your conditions allow for those who claim racism, and the fact that racism exists generally is not disputed. So, you have agreement that racism exists…and some white people are racists. You go so far as to claim at least 51%, with no way of determining whether that number is 51% (most)…or 49% (some), without an assumption based upon nothing. You can’t even say if it is 4.9%…or .49%. The “bullshit” is in the assumption of “most” with nothing to make that case. Nothing. Not a shred of evidence or demonstrated reason.
THEREFORE…if your assumption applies to some (or most), in order to be true, it must apply to all. That is how your assertion implies all…whether you realize it or not. It is either true for all, like…all humans have blood, or it is true for none. Your assertion is analogous to, most humans are hemophiliacs. The assumption is based upon something like, all humans have blood, and hemophilia is a blood disorder, so most humans must be hemophiliacs.
That is actually false. Hemophilia is a blood disorder. Hemophilia does exist. But hemophilia is more rare than the general population. It exists with limits. It can not be assumed to be more common than not merely because it exists. The only way it can be assumed (without other evidence) that hemophilia exists among most humans is for it to exist among ALL humans.
03/28/2021 @ 11:06 am
“…Without a shred of evidence…” Bitey?
From genesis to the nightly news, and all the programs and commercials in between, the message that white people are superior and entitled is repeated incessantly within the framework and context of America’s culture of white supremacy.
It’s been going on for more than 900 years….
If repeated murders of unarmed black people by white police officers isn’t ‘evidence’;
If continued failure to prosecute or hold white cops accountable by white juries isn’t ‘evidence’;
If voting suppression laws, targeted at black and brown people, introduced by 43 of 50 states without so much as a tepid whimper of disgust and disdain on the part of the ‘silent (white) majority’, much less a robust outcry of protest and righteous indignation from ‘most white people isn’t ‘evidence’;
If the intractable disparities in income and wealth between black families and white families isn’t ‘evidence’;
Then no such ‘evidentiary animal’ exists…and there is absolutely no point to having this discussion.
We should simply aree to disagree without becoming disagreeable, and be done with it.
03/28/2021 @ 11:30 am
Kosh, Re the ‘magic’ of white people speaking to white people:
If LBJ doesn’t engage in some of the shrewdest political maneuvers and arm twisting ever witnessed, and make this speech before the joint session of Congress, shown here, the voting rights legislation doesn’t pass, despite King’s masterful and impassioned oratory on the matter.
03/28/2021 @ 1:42 pm
Bitey didn’t claim that racism isn’t pervasive. You’re moving the target. If you have specific evidence that a particular proportion/percentage of America’s White population is racist by some specified definition, it’s up to you to present it. Given the details of this conversation, it would also help if you defined it.
I was not aware that 43 out of 50 states introduced voter suppression legislation, nor that White people haven’t expressed opposition to such legislation. Please elaborate.
03/28/2021 @ 2:35 pm
“State legislative sessions often see an uptick in the introduction of restrictive voting bills following an election year, but legislation that aims to limit who can vote, where, when and how has reached unprecedented levels this year.
The Brennan Center, an independent nonpartisan law and policy organization in New York, found that more than 253 restrictive voting bills had been introduced in legislatures across 43 states just this year through Feb. 23 — up from 35 bills across 15 states in all of 2020.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-record-2020-election-turnout-states-look-to-limit-voting-options
03/28/2021 @ 6:21 pm
Ron, you do an interesting thing. It either involves not paying close attention, or only responding to portions that you want to respond to. I’ll point to the important part for you.
“Without a spread of evidence” refers to no evidence which would indicate whether your observation represents MOST or merely SOME. At one point I used numbers to represent minimums and maximums for MOST or SOME. Those numbers were 51% for MOST, and 49% for SOME…or less than most.
In your response, you mention “from Genesis to the “Nightly News”. That is the wrong way to address MOST versus some. That represents consistency over time, and not level of penetration at any given time. You are sort of sideways on it. “From Genesis to Nightly News” could be 1 person from 5000b.c.e until now. That does not say MOST. MOST would require over 51% within any given era, or moment, preferably this one. What you lack is “any shred of evidence” that your observation exceeds 50% at any time, or now. You are assuming most, when all you can assume is that it exists. You lack evidence to show HOW MUCH, Ron.
03/28/2021 @ 7:15 pm
“…If voting suppression laws, targeted at black and brown people, introduced by 43 of 50 states without so much as a tepid whimper of disgust and disdain on the part of the ‘silent (white) majority’, much less a robust outcry of protest and righteous indignation from ‘most white people isn’t ‘evidence’;…”
The answer is NO. That is not evidence that MOSY white people are racist. First of all, your 43 of 50 states statistic is not an indication of number of people. It specifically references the number of states, but does not address the number of people within each state, or any accumulation which would indicate most. Also, those votes that you reference were taken by legislatures and not populations. A majority of legislatures does not equal a majority of people. Not even close.
Your statistic does not take into account how many people are even aware of the votes by those legislatures. I could go on and on. You assertion piles assumption on top of assertion to make a statement that goes off with a loud bang. “Most white people are racist.” I will grant you that it has a bigger splash than merely saying, racism exists, or some white peoples are racist. No one doubts those statements, so it doesn’t get much attention. The thing of it is, honesty matters. And you can’t say honestly that “most white people are racist.” You don’t have evidence to support that. Not only is it an assumption, it is a poor assumption.
I have known people who are pacifists and conscientious objectors to war. They abstain from fighting. Many still serve in the armed forces, only without taking up arms personally. You can not say that because they refuse to fight FOR something, that they oppose that thing. People may abstain from being involved in politics, or fighting racism, but still may not be racist. You can not assume their abstention to be approval of one side or the other. Your assertion about the “silent” makes that assumption.
Frankly, at any given moment, you are yourself abstaining from some social justice question. You posted a photo of that woman who said that Trump could grab her…etc. Now, since at least two people asked you to remove that citing respect for women ( I was not one of them), and you refused to remove that photo, can they say that you DO NOT respect women? I would argue no. Abstention does not go that far. Conversely, your argument regarding “the silent” in racism could be used against you in this question.
03/29/2021 @ 8:22 am
If you can understand and appreciate the concepts of ‘latent racism’ and ‘aversion racism’, we’re on the same page.
When racism “appears and manifests itself” it does so in overtly racist speech, behaviors, and actions…
White folks who choose to ignore or deny their subliminal, subconscious, unconscious, unwitting, and unintentional, racism are choosing to deny our humanity as they refuse to acknowledge and be accountable for the fact and consequences of their own racism…
I have been consistent throughout these discussions and debates…
Kosh, If anyone is guilty of “moving the target” it’s you and Bitey.
You said: “I don’t think law is what’s involved here at all.”
In a “free and open democratic society” there should be no question about the fact that the ‘law’, and the enforcement of it, are reflections and manifestations of the beliefs and attitudes of the population that promulgates and adopts the laws that govern their behavior and their relationships.
My ‘assumption’ is predicated on my belief that systemic and institutional racism could not exist or be sustained over time without the acquiescence or compliance of ‘most’ of the white people in this country.
While ‘most white people’ may not be directly complicit in the perpetration or perpetuation of the laws that reflect the racism that is extant in this society, ”most white people” have been and continue to be the collateral beneficiaries of the institutional and systemic racism that have been at the foundation of the social, political, and cultural life of this country for more than 400 years.
If we are a nation governed by laws and the democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ it seems to me that ‘most white people’ are OK with the fact that their government and the system of governance is, and has been, fraught with racism since day one. This is so whether white folks admit or acknowledge it or not. Or even, whether white folks are aware of it or not.
If hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, voter suppression, and racial profiling aren’t sufficient ‘evidence’ for you then this conversation must end before it becomes ugly.
I find these forays down the rabbit hole of arguments about syntax and semantics to be sophomoric, boring and tiresome.
Kosh’s revelation re cognitive dissonance is the high point and highlight of this thread and essentially on point with the purpose and intent of this post….
Everything else is little more than rhetorical bullshit…
03/30/2021 @ 4:26 pm
“In a ‘free and open democratic society’ there should be no question about the fact that the ‘law’, and the enforcement of it, are reflections and manifestations of the beliefs and attitudes of the population that promulgates and adopts the laws that govern their behavior and their relationships.“
Absolutely not. That is not how America works at the moment. There are several things that the majority of Americans want that they cannot get through their legislatures because those who contribute more have more influence on policy. We are already at the point where the will of the majority does not make policy but the will of the wealthy does. The Washington Post at one point did a study on this and found that the numbers proved this point. We already are not representative. For example, the majority of Americans has wanted more gun control for years and can’t get it. To state that when a legislature goes off the rails it represents the majority of the population is way off base. This is true in a lot of policies. The public favors social programs, including in education, more than the wealthy do. The public worries about climate change more than the wealthy do. The wealthy worry more about the deficit than the public does. Policy, at least until Biden because of COVID, followed the wealthy almost entirely.
The legislature doesn’t necessarily even represent the majority of the population. That’s what Gerrymandering does, and that’s in place in an awful lot of states. In fact, a lack of proportional representation is how Trump got into the White House.
Do you really think a majority of Georgians think it should be illegal to bring someone waiting on a voting line a drink of water? That’s not voter craziness, that’s legislators looking for more control over elections so they can decide the results, the public be damned. Georgia had an exemplary election in 2020, extremely clean, and yet it’s just gone through a whole lot of expensive “reforms” to make it dirtier. You can’t blame policy on the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans don’t have a say in policy.
You’re making a numbers case without having the numbers. There’s also a ton of ambiguity about numbers of what. Maybe I’m a racist by your numbers. I can’t tell.
03/30/2021 @ 9:53 pm
“…have been and continue to be the collateral beneficiaries of the institutional and systemic…”
I intentionally left out “white people” and “racism” from the quote above to take a closer look at it. By what standard does not condemn any person or group of people for being “collateral beneficiaries”…of anything? What standard are you using here? A moral authority might say, I condemn anyone who…let’s say…sells alcohol. If the sale of the alcohol is legal, who are you to condemn it, unless you stand on a moral principle? Also, let’s say someone receives stolen property. IN that event, they have contributed to a criminal act, and that is prohibited by law. But, in a free society, like you prefaced, who are you to label anyone with wrongdoing when they have not broken the law? Are you claiming a moral authority?
03/29/2021 @ 5:10 pm
“…it seems to me that ‘most white people’…”
This is the weakest standard of proof possible. “It seems to me that”…is utter bullshit. That is the bullshit, Ron.
03/30/2021 @ 4:28 pm
“It seems to me that” is something that does not belong before an accusation.
03/29/2021 @ 5:20 pm
It seems to me that the following post is an exercise in misogyny. https://bindlesnitch.com/55-percent-of-white-women-voted-for-trump/
When it was posted and discussed, I admittedly did not think so. But given your view of “most white people”, and the fact that the woman in the photo is a white woman…
…it seems to me…
That this post is a swipe at white women. It seems to me that you want to belittle her. When I stated that she was of age and made the choice herself, I did not consider that you had any additional responsibility to her…you know…vis a vis social justice. However, if you take into account your theory about a pervasive issue, racism or misogyny, and people benefitting from those issues whether passively or actively associated with the actions, and wrap that all up in the convenient, “it seems to me” standard, well, it seems to me that you are definitely taking a swipe at white women here.
03/29/2021 @ 10:38 pm
Changing the subject and the post in order to engage in more nitpicking about syntax and semantics.
What kind of bullshit fuckery is that?
It seems to me that you have missed the point of this post entirely. Just as you clearly seem to have missed the point of the post you’ve cited and have chosen to misinterpret and misrepresent…
That’s really too bad because I thought you would make a meaningful and substantive contribution to the discourse.
Now, however, it seems to me that you can’t…or won’t.
03/30/2021 @ 6:56 am
Jesus, Ron, it is not changing the subject. It is the same subject, using different terms, to examine the principle involved. It is directly analogous. You can’t possibly fail to see that. I used your “it seems to me” standard of proof. You can loom at it and say, that standard is not fair to me (you). You wold be correct. THEREFORE, it is not fair to use it. Now you get it.
Also, regarding misogyny, all of the conditions that you applied to racism as a social concern also apply to misogyny. One group affected differently from another. One group benefitting from the negative treatment of another. One group blind to the results from their inaction and ignorance. All of the conditions apply in exactly the same manner. In this particular case, the elements point to you as the malign force rather than the victim. By analyzing this, you can say that it is not your intent to be misogynistic by posting the photo…EVEN THOUGH some see the posting as detrimental in exactly that way. Understanding that helps you to understand that those who you claim are racists while being ignorant of their actions are not actually racists. OR…you must concede that you are actually a misogynist. You can’t not get that. 2+2=4. 3+1=4. And an infinite set of positive integers and negative integers can result in the answer 4. Changing the numbers does not change the subject. It is merely a different perspective on the SAME subject.
You can’t claim that “most white people are racist”…without conceding that you are a misogynist…USING YOUR PRINCIPLES.
03/30/2021 @ 10:55 am
“You can’t claim that “most white people are racist”…without conceding that you are a misogynist…USING YOUR PRINCIPLES.”
As products of the society and culture in which we live, most men carry latent misogynistic tendencies that are deeply embedded in our psyches and subconsciouses.
This is especially true of the men in my age group.
In this regard, I am guilty as charged…
However, I’ve been working on eliminating this personality and character flaw for the better part of my adult life…
BTW
While there are parallels and similarities and shared characteristics between misogyny and racism, they are not the same and ought not be treated as such….
The phrase; “It seems to me” is an idiomatic figure of speech. It is not a ‘standard of proof’.
03/30/2021 @ 4:17 pm
Ron, there do not have to be any parallels between racism and misogyny. The comparison is the likelihood of an analysis being fair and accurate when using standards like “it seems to me”…”most are whether they know it or not”…etc. The comparison is about how you determine something to be true or not.
As for idioms, I did not ask you for an idiom. I asked you, how can you know that you are not referring to some white people, or most white people? Remember, when I said your assumption that it is most white people, it might as well be all white people. There is no difference according to how you stated it. It is merely an “it seems to me” standard. Why EXACTLY would it be most and not all, Ron? There is…remember this…not a shred of evidence that they consist of most rather than some. Nothing you said indicates most. And the fact that racism is pervasive in society does not mean most are racists. That could be carried by some…depending upon who they are.
It is too serious of a statement to make in such a vague way. Here is an idiom for you. How do you figure? That means, exactly how do you come by that number. Your figures do not add up. (Another idiom). Nothing you have said indicates that most white people are racist. It goes without saying that some white people are racist.
03/30/2021 @ 11:50 pm
“You can’t possibly fail to see that.” Are you sure?
03/31/2021 @ 2:25 am
“Nothing you have said indicates that most white people are racist. It goes without saying that some white people are racist.”
Perhaps, I should have said: “In my opinion”, or “In my view” instead of, “It seems to me”, but you both have convinced me that it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to you or your so called “argument to the contrary”.
Nothing you have said indicates that most white people AREN’T racists.
I’m reasonably certain that if either of you had any empirical data, compiled, published, and disseminated by a reliable source, you would have cited it in an effort to cram it down my throat long before now.
The fact that racism is as pervasive and as ubiquitous as the air we breathe isn’t sufficient evidence for you is not my issue or my problem.
You want numbers and statistics have at it… Do some research of your own and get back to me.
But, don’t look to the collected works of the likes of MLK, James Baldwin, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, et al. You won’t find much in the way of numbers and/or statistics ensconced in the written and spoken word of folks for whom the difference between 49% and 51% re the nature, scope, impact and effect of racism in this country was rhetorically negligible or even non-existent.
At the end of the day, what I have expressed here is merely my opinion which is couched in my perspective or point of view and, all you have is yours.
Neither of you have the creds or the chops, either experientially or academically, to challenge the veracity or verisimilitude of my observations with any degree of authority…
I believe you are quite willing to engage in nitpicking over syntax and semantics ad infinitum, without the slightest hint of a substantive contribution to the discourse…
I find this juvenile dorm-room exercise to be tedious, tiresome, and unproductive.
I have repeatedly suggested that we terminate this thread amicably by agreeing to disagree without becoming disagreeable…
As I said before, we’re on the same team, but at different positions…
Why don’t we just leave it at that?
03/31/2021 @ 6:47 am
Two things about that, Ron. If you had said that it was merely your opinion that most white people are racist, that would have made all the difference in the world.
Secondly, it is not our job, or anyone else’s to provide proof that people aren’t racist. You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone. You do understand that, right? Furthermore, I have said multiple times that racism exists, it is unquestionable that SOME white people are racists, racism is pervasive…etc. No reasonable person denies the existence of racism as a fact. Likewise, no reasonable person states that most white people are racist…as a fact. Opinions do not require proof.
03/31/2021 @ 8:16 am
It is, and has been, my understanding and assumption that what is posted here is ‘opinion’ as it might be published on the editorial pages of a newspaper.
Why would you see it as anything other than that?
In my view, saying that you are expressing your opinion here is a bit redundant and unnecessary…
This is, after all, ‘social media’ and, as such, it is ever thus…
03/31/2021 @ 4:45 pm
“This is, after all, ‘social media’ and, as such, it is ever thus…“.
Let’s call this, Ron Powell’s law of perfect unaccountability.
Conversely, Emmanuel Kant stated a concept of perfect duty. According to Kant, we have a perfect duty to not act by maxims that result in contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. For example, if someone stated that it is permissible misrepresent reality, the universalization would result in contradictions. Taken to its extreme, nothing could be communicated as a fact, which would render the maxim impossible.
Take this:
“ Bitey, I didn’t say that: “All white people are racist.”
I said that, “most white people are racists”…
If, as you say, this is just social media, how can you tell the difference between your statement and my interpretation? If fact do not matter…what is the difference between your statement and mine? Like I said originally…and like I say now…there is no difference. If your statement is not anchored to facts and reason, then it is infinitely malleable. If you are assuming most, you might as well be assuming all. There is no difference in a world devoid of facts. Your “social media” umbrella…sometimes called a “it seems to me” umbrella…and sometimes called “my opinion” umbrella, are all devices to not be accountable to facts (evidence), and a reasonable construction. So, what is the result? I’ll give you a hint, it emanates from the southern end of a northbound bull.
03/31/2021 @ 3:45 pm
“Why would you see it as anything other than that?“
It is a question of character, Ron. There are many reasons why saying something like “most white people are racist” is wrong.”
The primary reason is credibility and reasonableness in the effort to combat racism. To make outlandish claims which appear to be dressed as facts, or if you prefer, opinions supported by facts, and then to not be able to support the opinion, takes away from people who care about fighting racism. The way that it takes away is that it drains credibility from anyone, in you will, on your side. Proponents of racism can point to a statement like yours and say, this is proof that they are just “playing a race card”…or whatever. It is all emotional claptrap, and zero facts and reason.
Secondly, it besmirches hundreds of millions of good people. Just like dark skin does not make one corrupt and evil, neither does white skin make one corrupt and evil. You raised the subject of a free society. Well, a free society, and freedom, do not exist without self determination of the individual, and free thought. To postulate that one’s skin determines their mind is counter to that freedom that you otherwise claim to value. With reason so challenged as it currently is in the world, “why would you see it as anything other than that”? I see it as other than that because if there is only room for opinions and excuses, no advances can ever be made. The world is still flat because…”it seems to me…”.
Early on, I referred to the assertion about white peoples as bullshit. You took exception to that. Now you say it is “only opinion.” Ron, opinion is bullshit. “Bullshit” is the colorful expletive that separates it from being regarded as thought consisting of facts and reason. Opinions unsupported by facts, and refusing any accountability to reason is bullshit. You can’t deny it, and then later claim it. That’s bullshit, Ron. That is why facts and reason matter. They are immutable.
Here is why stating something as opinion is not redundant and unnecessary. Let’s say, someone expresses a bullshit opinion about the Covid vaccinations. They say something like, based upon the Tuskegee experiment with Black men, government directed vaccinations can not be trusted.
If someone were to say something irresponsible like that, and another person read that and did not know the history, they might hesitate to get vaccinated, or refuse. They would endanger themselves and others. Making public statements about such things, especially when they are not supported by facts, should be labeled as opinion to protect the reader. It is an injustice to say such a thing. It exacerbates a public health threat. A reader could weigh your opinion against a doctor’s opinion and choose more widely. Modesty and decency dictate that a person label their unsupported opinions differently from supportable facts. (Incidentally, I am scheduled to get my second vaccination in 6 days. (I can say now from personal experience that the vaccine is not a trick by the government.)
Donald Trump’s preferred means of communication was social media. Donald Trump was not moored to facts, or even reality. Did it matter that he was making his statements on social media? Of course it did. People are dead because of thing that Trump said on social media that were not true. And you delayed (or refused) to be vaccinated because of statements that Trump made on social media. Does that matter? Absolutely.
04/01/2021 @ 6:56 am
“Modesty and decency dictate that a person label their unsupported opinions differently from supportable facts.”
Nothing here rises to the level of a doctoral dissertation or a master’s thesis…
When I make a statement which is offered as a statement of fact, I have always provided citations and references in support of the assertion.
Not that that would matter to anyone who insists on eschewing anything or everything I say here out of sheer incredulity…
The phrases ‘in my opinion’ or ‘in my view’ are used by me profusely and where such prefatory or qualifying phraseology is absent and there is no citation or reference in support of the utterance you may discount or disregard it if my ‘opinion’ carries no weight or has no value for you…
Every time you begin a sentence or phrase with “you” I tend to disregard or discount what follows because your ad hominem criticisms of me are meaningless and without merit…
You don’t know enough about me re who I am, what I’ve experienced, what I’ve achieved, or what I’m capable of, to make any credible statement about me or my character….
The people who do know me personally and professionally, would read what you have to offer in the way of criticism and conclude that you’re either full of shit or full of yourself…
I can’t take what you have to say personally or to heart because I can’t, don’t, and won’t function on that level…
I’ve graded too many essay exams in my life to do that.
04/01/2021 @ 11:24 am
Resolve: Are most white people racist?
As a statement of fact, in an absolute sense, no. As a matter of Ron Powell’s opinion, obviously so.