Jump to content

Menu

Dr. Seuss Books pulled for racist images


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Well, I think we are a century ahead of everybody else, and I speak from a very personal experience. And if we continue on the same trajectory, we will one day get to the destination. 
I disagree that religion or color somehow excludes you from being identified as an American. I think that could prevent you in other places, but here, I do think we don’t have to give up religious identity to belong. And yes, while we have ways to go, racial identity also isn’t what will exclude one from being an American. Really does anybody here dispute that being black makes you not be an American? Well I can tell you it would in Eastern Europe exclude you to ever become Polish for example. 
I don’t think people here realize how racist the rest of the world really is. Chinese, Easter Europeans.... I will stop naming. 
We really need to understand how much we have accomplished over the past century and attempt to stay on that path. I hate the group politics because I strongly believe it is putting us on a much more divisive path. 
One identity to me that comes in different colors and religions but is unified by language and values is a must for a functioning of a society. 

Talk to Rashida Tlaib or Keith Ellison or anyone else on the receiving end of deliberate voter disenfranchisement efforts. You may hate group politics but it’s not minority groups who have used group identity to withhold power and constrain the rights of others. It is only because of those identity groups collectively organizing that we have as many rights for women, racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities as we do.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Talk to Rashida Tlaib or Keith Ellison or anyone else on the receiving end of deliberate voter disenfranchisement efforts. You may hate group politics but it’s not minority groups who have used group identity to withhold power and constrain the rights of others. It is only because of those identity groups collectively organizing that we have as many rights for women, racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities as we do.

And you know very well that I more than approve of those groups collectively organizing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And you know very well that I more than approve of those groups collectively organizing. 

Clearly, you don’t. You just said that assimilation is the way, the truth and the light for those who can and ??? For those who can’t. In addition, the very use of the term ‘minority’ is meaningless and inutile b/c it doesn’t represent the minority of a minority of a minority that you know is doing just great.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Clearly, you don’t. You just said that assimilation is the way, the truth and the light for those who can and ??? For those who can’t. In addition, the very use of the term ‘minority’ is meaningless b/c it doesn’t represent the minority of a minority of a minority that you know is doing just great.

I didn't say that. I didn't say any of that 😕 . I don't want to assimilate myself and I don't think it's the right way forward for society. And I don't think it's a meaningless term, but it's not a cohesive group. I think this conversation is clearly showing that it's not a cohesive group, frankly, since you, me and Roadrunner are all very visible minorities and we have fundamental disagreements.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I didn't say that. I didn't say any of that 😕 . I don't want to assimilate myself and I don't think it's the right way forward for society. And I don't think it's a meaningless term, but it's not a cohesive group. I think this conversation is clearly showing that it's not a cohesive group, frankly, since you, me and Roadrunner are all very visible minorities and we have fundamental disagreements.

1st/2nd gen immigrants are a VERY, VERY small population of people in America. I get that you think our experiences should be similar but we lack common history and understanding of how this country works. That is true even for immigrants who look like me. I have not found that to be the case with my multiethnic/religious friends whose families have been here for much longer stretches. The fundamental understanding of what America is and has been is sometimes insurmountably different.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

1st/2nd gen immigrants are a VERY, VERY small population of people in America. I get that you think our experiences should be similar but we lack common history and understanding of how this country works. I have not found that to be the case with my multiethnic/religious friends whose families have been here for much longer stretches.

No, I don't think our experiences are similar -- I agree with that. It's a very different perspective on being a minority. In some ways, my husband's perspective is more similar (the fact that he's Jewish is really obvious -- you're going to have to trust me on that one), although of course it's not the same. And he also thought of me as naive when we started dating more than a decade ago, although I don't think he thinks of me that way now. As you say, I didn't know how the culture worked. 

I believe you're wrong about immigrants being a small population. Quoting from here: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/

The foreign-born population residing in the U.S. reached a record 44.8 million, or 13.7% of the U.S. population, in 2018. This immigrant population has more than quadrupled since the 1960s, when the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act took effect. Though growth has begun to slow in recent years, the number of immigrants living in the United States is projected to almost double by 2065.

That's many more than there are Jews (which there are 7 million of) and I think is similar to the number of Black people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

No, I don't think our experiences are similar -- I agree with that. It's a very different perspective on being a minority. In some ways, my husband's perspective is more similar (the fact that he's Jewish is really obvious -- you're going to have to trust me on that one), although of course it's not the same. And he also thought of me as naive when we started dating more than a decade ago, although I don't think he thinks of me that way now. As you say, I didn't know how the culture worked. 

I believe you're wrong about immigrants being a small population. Quoting from here: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/

The foreign-born population residing in the U.S. reached a record 44.8 million, or 13.7% of the U.S. population, in 2018. This immigrant population has more than quadrupled since the 1960s, when the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act took effect. Though growth has begun to slow in recent years, the number of immigrants living in the United States is projected to almost double by 2065.

That's many more than there are Jews (which there are 7 million of) and I think is similar to the number of Black people. 

First of all, you specifically singled out Asian Americans as the model minority that values education so they’re Gucci. Then you said Russian Jews can assimilate and want to do it so they’re Gucci. Now you want to compare the percent of immigrants to the number of self-identified black people (which is not, BTW, all URMs)? What is your point? It’s a minority of a minority, just as I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Talk to Rashida Tlaib or Keith Ellison or anyone else on the receiving end of deliberate voter disenfranchisement efforts. You may hate group politics but it’s not minority groups who have used group identity to withhold power and constrain the rights of others. It is only because of those identity groups collectively organizing that we have as many rights for women, racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities as we do.

I think we have a common ground - we agree on the past. We don’t agree on how to move forward. That’s OK. We don’t need to agree. It’s important though to have those conversations. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

First of all, you specifically singled out Asian Americans as the model minority that values education so they’re Gucci. Then you said Russian Jews can assimilate and want to do it so they’re Gucci.

I didn't say Russian Jews want to fully assimilate -- in fact, most don't, they want to stay identified as Jewish. I didn't call anyone Gucci, and I'm sure I could have picked less charged examples of minority communities at loggerheads -- honestly, I am now very sorry I mentioned that one, because it's so loaded. It didn't mean much of anything except that I don't think the minority community is monolithic and I knew of that one without doing any research. 

 

Quote

Now you want to compare the percent of immigrants to the number of self-identified black people (which is not, BTW, all URMs)? What is your point? It’s a minority of a minority, just as I said.

My point is that there are a heck of a lot of first generation immigrants. There's no deeper point there. You said it's a small number. I'm pointing out it's more than 10 percent of the population. I should have probably not compared it to any other numbers. 

This conversation is definitely making me feel like the opinions of first generation immigrants don't matter to people for whom the minority designation is an important concept. Because I'm feeling like there's no room for anything I may have to say in this conversation. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I didn't say Russian Jews want to fully assimilate -- in fact, most don't, they want to stay identified as Jewish. I didn't call anyone Gucci, and I'm sure I could have pick less charged examples of minority communities at loggerheads -- honestly, I am now very sorry I mentioned that one, because it's so loaded. It didn't mean much of anything except that I don't think the minority community is monolithic and I knew of that one without doing any research. 

 

My point is that there are a heck of a lot of first generation immigrants. There's no deeper point there. You said it's a small number. I'm pointing out it's more than 10 percent of the population. I should have probably not compared it to any other numbers. 

This conversation is definitely making me feel like the opinions of first generation immigrants don't matter to people for whom the minority designation is an important concept. Because I'm feeling like there's no room for anything I may have to say in this conversation. 

Contribute away! I’m simply saying that, as a recent immigrant, you make a lot of broad, sweeping statements about how this country works that are difficult to back up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Contribute away! I’m simply saying that, as a recent immigrant, you make a lot of broad, sweeping statements about how this country works that are difficult to back up.

I actually haven't said things about how this country works. I've only made some observations using my own narrow experience. Most of the things you've quoted me as saying I didn't actually say. I believe that PEOPLE say them, but I didn't. 

I really do need a break, if you don't mind. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PSA: for the newbies, I move in and out of urban slang with ease. Code switching is my way of life. Thanks to my kids, my family history and my husband’s salty sailors, I’m just as likely to use highfalutin words as AAVE and blue humor. If you’re not sure why or how I’ve paraphrased something as I have, the urban dictionary is the best place to look for clues.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m just gonna say this too, for the newbies, I move in and out of urban slang with ease. Code switching is my way of life. Thanks to my kids, my family history and my husband’s salty sailors, I’m just as likely to use highfalutin words as AAVE and blue humor. If you’re not sure why or how I’ve paraphrased something as I have, the urban dictionary is the best place to look.

I'm not having trouble understanding what you said, but I don't think those were actually summaries of what I said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Well, I think we are a century ahead of everybody else, and I speak from a very personal experience. And if we continue on the same trajectory, we will one day get to the destination. 
I disagree that religion or color somehow excludes you from being identified as an American. I think that could prevent you in other places, but here, I do think we don’t have to give up religious identity to belong. And yes, while we have ways to go, racial identity also isn’t what will exclude one from being an American. Really does anybody here dispute that being black makes you not be an American? Well I can tell you it would in Eastern Europe exclude you to ever become Polish for example. 
I don’t think people here realize how racist the rest of the world really is. Chinese, Easter Europeans.... I will stop naming. 
We really need to understand how much we have accomplished over the past century and attempt to stay on that path. I hate the group politics because I strongly believe it is putting us on a much more divisive path. 
One identity to me that comes in different colors and religions but is unified by language and values is a must for a functioning of a society. 

The history of whiteness in the United States is complicated. Who is white and who isn't white? When Jewish people become white? Same question for the Irish and the Italians? In the USA, it has always been about skin color and the important white vs black distinction. Many have written on this topic. Essentially affording non-Northern Europeans the "white" distinction, was a way of enforcing white supremacy in the USA. 

Who is black and who is white? After the Civil War, the southern states established legal definitions of black, e.g. the one drop rule. Although most white southerners have African ancestry. I know from my DNA testing that I have western African heritage and my southern family has always identified as white. 

Who is and who isn't American? People have challenged the ability of Muslims to swear oaths on the Koran instead of the Bible. Many people still claim that Obama isn't a real American even though he was born in the USA. Why birther challenges for Obama but no other American president? 

I think there is a suspicion that Americans, even though born and raised in this country, are not *real* Americans unless they are of European heritage and followers of any religion other than Christianity. The exception for this is for African Americans. There were no birther claims for Michelle Obama, just her husband. There isn't the suspicion that African Americans are not *real* Americans. Rather there is an assumption that they are lessor Americans and due less rights. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was sleeping (and then zooming into Jewish my Torah study) this thread seems to have wandered off its pearl-clutching re Cancel Culture!! and onto another topic entirely, for which I'm actually grateful since the conflation of a private non-profit foundation to drop racist Seuss backlist titles, and a private toy company to relabel plastic potato heads, with government bans and mob book burnings was, TBH, leaving me to really wonder about the "intent" behind such conflation and pearl-clutching. And I am working on that reflex to muse inside my own head about "intent."

(which FWIW is not the same as the exhortation, commonly expressed on these boards although unevenly evidenced even among those who make the exhortation, to "presume good intent."  It is, rather, to focus on conduct rather than presuming anything one way or the other -- good or ill -- about intent.)

But in any event: apologies to the OP. Perhaps the "what constitutes minority status" and the costs v benefits of "assimilation" warrant a thread of its own.

 

re heterogeneity vs common elements of "minorities"

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I do. Yes, they [minorities] are diverse but there are also unifying characteristics and cultural experiences that make group identification not only feasible but, in some cases, desirable. If one hasn’t received any benefits from that identification, which I don’t think applies to anyone really, I can see how that would seem less useful.

 

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think it's useful for people to think of themselves as belonging to SPECIFIC minority communities. But no, I don't think there is a ton in common between all the different minorities, except a certain level of alienation from mainstream culture. ..

 

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Alienation is, indeed, the commonality. Groups that DO NOT feel alienated and are benefiting from the status quo will not share the same views. Your example is not illustrating what you think it is.

Right. Minority status is defined by some dimension of alienation. We can test this by considering aspects of difference that in our society don't evoke meaningful alienation. I have blue eyes (about 10% of the population); the statistical minority dimension of that does not differentiate me in any meaningful way from the rest of my (equally white, green or hazel eyed) family. My son is left-handed (also about 10% of the population); in today's world that does not differentiate him in any meaningful way from the rest of the population (though in prior cycles of history it would have). 

Whereas my LGBT kid (>10% of the population) DOES experience substantive alienation from society because of THAT dimension. As does our Jewishness.

 

Another important element of "minority status" is that that alienation is thrust upon us, exogenously, whether we choose it or  not.  The option of "just American, I don't even notice race/religion/orientation/etc, I only see the individual" is not available in the face of redlining/ patterns LEO misconduct/ church/mosque/synagogue terrorism and etc.

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I also think there's a question about how much people assimilate versus how much they stick to a specific and separate culture. If you fully assimilate, you can expect there to be no cultural benefits. If you don't assimilate, like has been the case to some extent for the secular Jewish community and I'm sure some other communities as well, then there can be an uneasy relationship between your community and mainstream culture. 

One of the implications of this issue -- whether or not it is possible to "assimilate" out of exogenously-driven alienation -- has to do with the extent to which it is even possible to "pass."

It is *theoretically possible* for white-skinned Jews, and other white-skinned immigrants, and LBGT, and white-skinned Muslims who opt out of clothing markers, and -- where the term originally arose -- a small subset of very light-skinned "blacks" (!!) to "pass" for the mainstream and dominant culture. Such "passing" can only come at immense cost -- a personal suppression of an element of identity and the loss of community with others of that identity. It may be close to impossible for white heterosexual Christians to understand how great is that cost: a severance of self, an exile into a sort of half-life unmoored to community and traditions and support, a permanent dwelling in some version of a closet or other furtive place.

Yet in response to those relentless exogenous threats and pressures, some individuals do choose such permanent cleaving of the soul. And always have.  And the relationship between the segments who opt to "pass" vs the segments to choose to... or whose skin color  or commitment to visible religious markers precludes them from being able to choose... "assimilate" can be very uneasy indeed.

 

And that uneasiness is immensely exacerbated by the Melting Pot Myth, that exhorts and encourages "everyone" to Blend In and become Just American, No Hyphens.

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m going to back away now because this is really not coming across well to me, at all. There’s a TREMENDOUS amount of history in this country of mainstream culture coopting and including various minority groups to increase/maintain majority power...Irish, Italian, etc. They use groups as needed to divide and conquer. As political or ethnic groupings, the designation is only fragile for that reason. 

Except that invitation / exhortation / commandment is not, actually available to all...

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't think it's a "white people" thing. It's a "dominant culture" thing. Ashkenazi Jews like myself are pretty white, and it really doesn't help that much in terms of assimilation. The options are either to stop identifying as an ethnic minority (which, yes, is an option for me and not you -- I understand that this is unfair!!) or to have issues. 

In the US, of course, the dominant culture is white. So you could argue it's the same thing in this specific case. 

 

56 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I want you to stop promoting the ridiculous notion that because something worked for you and yours it’s universally available to others and therefore a valid response to systems that disadvantage people and pit them against each other. Jewish isn’t stamped on your damned forehead.

 

 

 

 

And also that who the f@ck wants to "assimilate" the Most Precious Treasures of heritage, or the Most Precious Insights of an orientation that has until, like, ten minutes ago, been locked tight into closets, into oblivion anyway? 

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

The fact that you, and others, continue to offer up assimilation and cultural erasure as an option/the solution to these ills is...something. 

Assimilation (of the white-skinned) (into the white Christian dominant power structure) is the goal of the white Christian dominant power structure.  Because increasing the "numbers" of the white Christian power structure sustains the power structure.

That in a nutshell is the history of white people.

 

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

...This conversation is definitely making me feel like the opinions of first generation immigrants don't matter to people for whom the minority designation is an important concept. Because I'm feeling like there's no room for anything I may have to say in this conversation. 

Don't mistake disagreement for dismissal. You're better than that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Don't mistake disagreement for dismissal. You're better than that.

I'm not. I feel like what I said was very seriously misrepresented. And I don't feel like defending things I didn't say, since I don't agree with them either.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Russian media and groups have made common cause with conservative Jewish ones.

Oh, now I know what you meant. 

Fwiw, the journalist I posted isn't conservative. Is Russia also dangling the strings of centrist Dem voting Russian Jews?

This kind of 'theorizing' slides really close towards anti-Semitism to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mitten said:

Yes, it was.

And that's fine. I understand why these are charged conversations and that people can absolutely use the same examples as I used in bad faith. I generally don't have conversations in bad faith, though, and I'm tired of explaining what I mean. 

 

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

These groups share the American conservative view of race and culture.

For the record, conservative Jews are very heterogeneous in terms of culture. I know lots of conservative Russian Jews and they have very different preoccupations from conservative Orthodox Jews. 

If what you're saying is that they vote Republican, you'd be right. But I do think they vote Republican for different reasons. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Oh, now I know what you meant. 

Fwiw, the journalist I posted isn't conservative. Is Russia also dangling the strings of centrist Dem voting Russian Jews?

This kind of 'theorizing' slides really close towards anti-Semitism to me.

 

It’s not a pure alignment. It’s situational, arguably, opportunistic. I don’t see that as an anti-Semitic observation at all but YMMV. I’ve stopped caring about that designation b/c it’s so easily tossed about. Our views of what ‘centrist’ means don’t usually line up so I can’t say.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not a pure alignment. It’s situational, arguably, opportunistic. I don’t see that as an anti-Semitic observation at all but YMMV. I’ve stopped caring about that designation b/c it’s so easily tossed about.

Uhhhhh. I don't appreciate that statement at all. I don't think you've said anything anti-Semitic, but I also would rather people not decide they don't care about the designation. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re immense difficulties of trying to communicate across great chasms of difference

15 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

...Don't mistake disagreement for dismissal. You're better than that.

 

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not. I feel like what I said was very seriously misrepresented. And I don't feel like defending things I didn't say, since I don't agree with them either.

It is hard work, and it is not for the faint-hearted or the thin-skinned.

And there are definitely moments that the effort WILL be irritating.

And sometimes it *is* necessary to step away to cool off or re-group; or figure out a different vantage point on which to try to stand or direction to approach the issue at hand.  Fair enough.

 

I mean this as a compliment: I believe you are up to the task.

I know that @Sneezyone is.

And that doesn't mean it will be easy or pleasant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

I mean this as a compliment: I believe you are up to the task.

Well, thank you 🙂 . I'm not sure I have a ton more to add to this one, though. And right now, I ought to be doing my work and I'm instead being sucked into this thread again!!! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not a pure alignment. It’s situational, arguably, opportunistic. I don’t see that as an anti-Semitic observation at all but YMMV. I’ve stopped caring about that designation b/c it’s so easily tossed about.

 

I think describing the experience of Russian Jews, en masse, as opportunistic, rather than as informed by life under totalitarian communist rule as a people who have suffered anti-Semitism for centuries is ????

Are Russian Jews, en masse, right about everything? They are not. Are they worth listening to on issues that touch on cultural authoritarianism? They absolutely are. 

You can insert you own descriptor of what it means when you attribute a descriptor 'opportunistic', to a group of people with shared characteristics. 

Edited by Melissa Louise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Uhhhhh. I don't appreciate that statement at all. I don't think you've said anything anti-Semitic, but I also would rather people not decide they don't care about the designation. 

Just like ‘racist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ is entirely overused. That’s my opinion. I don’t actually use either with regularity.

 

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

 

I think describing the experience of Russian Jews, en masse, as opportunistic, rather than as informed by life under totalitarian communist rule is ????

Are Russian Jews, en masse, right about everything? They are not. Are they worth listening to on issues that touch on cultural authoritarianism? They absolutely are. 

You can insert you own descriptor of what it means when you attribute a descriptor 'opportunistic', to a group of people with shared characteristics. 

It’s opportunistic on the part of the Russian government and the conservative movement, yes. The Russian government seeks to sew chaos in American life. The Conservative movement needs new voters. And, no, I don’t think recent immigrants as a whole are especially well positioned to comment with authority on the history of these issues in the US.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Just like ‘racist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ is entirely overused. That’s my opinion. I don’t actually use either with regularity.

 

It’s opportunistic on the part of the Russian government and the conservative movement, yes. The Russian government seeks to sew chaos in American life. The Conservative movement needs new voters.

Uh-huh. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Just like ‘racist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ is entirely overused. That’s my opinion. I don’t actually use either with regularity.

Fair enough. But I don't think you'd love it if a white person said they are now going to ignore that designation because it's overused. Maybe you wouldn't care, I don't know. I know that'd sound a little off to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Fair enough. But I don't think you'd love it if a white person said they are now going to ignore that designation because it's overused. Maybe you wouldn't care, I don't know. I know that'd sound a little off to me. 

They already say that regularly right here and I do, regularly, ignore it. The term itself is not a hill I choose to die on.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re immense difficulties of trying to communicate across great chasms of difference

 

It is hard work, and it is not for the faint-hearted or the thin-skinned.

And there are definitely moments that the effort WILL be irritating.

And sometimes it *is* necessary to step away to cool off or re-group; or figure out a different vantage point on which to try to stand or direction to approach the issue at hand.  Fair enough.

 

I mean this as a compliment: I believe you are up to the task.

I know that @Sneezyone is.

And that doesn't mean it will be easy or pleasant.

Pam, this actually comes across as condescending to the poster you address, and I'm not sure it achieves the drawing into that it was aimed to do. 

You're 'calling in'. I get that. I just don't think it worked this time. Tone matters. You can't 'call in' when contempt seeps through ( and contempt is the root of condescension). 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re shifting/ cynical instrumentalism of labels

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Just like ‘racist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ is entirely overused. That’s my opinion. I don’t actually use either with regularity...

 

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Fair enough. But I don't think you'd love it if a white person said they are now going to ignore that designation because it's overused. Maybe you wouldn't care, I don't know. I know that'd sound a little off to me. 

To my mind, it's not quite that the labels "racist" and "anti-semitic" are overused; more that both terms have been co-opted and weaponized as instruments of the dominant power structure.

When the label "racist" is thrown out in a sentence like (as was recently aired by a major TV host), you know what's racist? Talking about race, that's what's racist!  the term is not merely being overused: it has been weaponized, so as to further-erase POC and further-suppress even the possibility of "discussion." More structurally and insidiously: you know what's racist?  Collecting and aggregating and publishing data on the race of folks arrested for subjective infractions like "loitering" and "disturbing the peace."  Why would you even collect information about race, when race doesn't make any difference, it's only the individual that matters?  See how that misuse of the label operates, instrumentally, to sustain the existing Order?

Similarly, when the sitting President addresses a convention of Jews and says any Jew who votes for the opposing party is "disloyal to Israel" -- well, there are a number of tropes going on there, but it's not merely that the label is being overused. It is being weaponized. For a purpose.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re "calling in"

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Pam, this actually comes across as condescending to the poster you address, and I'm not sure it achieves the drawing into that it was aimed to do. 

You're 'calling in'. I get that. I just don't think it worked this time. Tone matters. You can't 'call in' when contempt seeps through ( and contempt is the root of condescension). 

 

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

re shifting/ cynical instrumentalism of labels

 

To my mind, it's not quite that the labels "racist" and "anti-semitic" are overused; more that both terms have been co-opted and weaponized as instruments of the dominant power structure.

When the label "racist" is thrown out in a sentence like (as was recently aired by a major TV host), you know what's racist? Talking about race, that's what's racist!  the term is not merely being overused: it has been weaponized, so as to further-erase POC and further-suppress even the possibility of "discussion." More structurally and insidiously: you know what's racist?  Collecting and aggregating and publishing data on the race of folks arrested for subjective infractions like "loitering" and "disturbing the peace."  Why would you even collect information about race, when race doesn't make any difference, it's only the individual that matters?  See how that misuse of the label operates, instrumentally, to sustain the existing Order?

Similarly, when the sitting President addresses a convention of Jews and says any Jew who votes for the opposing party is "disloyal to Israel" -- well, there are a number of tropes going on there, but it's not merely that the label is being overused. It is being weaponized. For a purpose.

THIS.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

To my mind, it's not quite that the labels "racist" and "anti-semitic" are overused; more that both terms have been co-opted and weaponized as instruments of the dominant power structure.

Yeah, sure, that's fair. However, if I remove all weaponized terms from my vocabulary, I wouldn't have enough words left. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, sure, that's fair. However, if I remove all weaponized terms from my vocabulary, I wouldn't have enough words left. 

Invent some. JERKITUDE is a personal favorite.🤣

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a particular group of Jews are secretly working for a foreign power, because they are opportunist supremacists, is pretty darn close to some classic anti-Semitic tropes, and that's all I'll say about that. 

And no, neither the Republicans nor Putin made me say that...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re "calling in"

Thanks.

You can feel righteous about it, or you can have it work. It doesn't work unless it's done without condescension.

I've been called in and it changed me, when it was done from a position of loving humility. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re the search for an effective response when important words are co-opted and weaponized:

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, sure, that's fair. However, if I remove all weaponized terms from my vocabulary, I wouldn't have enough words left. 

Yes. It's hard to figure an appropriate response.

One option is to sort of give up on the word -- feminism, for example, has been so thoroughly co-opted into Man-Hating Family-Smashing FemiNazis that the term is practically meaningless to my nearly-adult daughters, and that is not because the work is done; it's because the language has been effectively excised.  That would seem to be what Sneezy is suggesting here.

I don't much like that option -- language is a mighty imperfect vehicle to carry the baggage of our society, but still, it's the only tool we've got.

So I tend myself to keep plugging away, plodding along ten steps behind, trying to refine and clarify and ask, over and over, I don't understand what you're saying here, what do you mean with that term... which also, TBH, gets exhausting and tiresome both to others and even to myself, LOL.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The idea that a particular group of Jews are secretly working for a foreign power, because they are opportunist supremacists, is pretty darn close to some classic anti-Semitic tropes, and that's all I'll say about that. 

And no, neither the Republicans nor Putin made me say that...

 

Well, I agree with you, but since that’s not what I said, no problemo! What I actually said was that I didn’t think there was any cooperation at all but that the views managed to line up to the detriment of issues I care about, i.e. situational, and that the government of Russia and conservative movement have been able to use those alignments to their own advantage, opportunistically.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you guys are fascinating to listen to. I wouldn't be able to hear this type of conversation anywhere else. 🙂

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "calling in" mean in this context?

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Indigo Blue said:

I thought the same....fascinating. I also wondered what calling in means. I’m nooooowhere near smart enough to be in that conversation. I just said, “Self, stay in your lane.”

Oh, see, worrying about things like this never stops me 😉 . Maybe it should!! 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Wow, you guys are fascinating to listen to. I wouldn't be able to hear this type of conversation anywhere else. 🙂

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "calling in" mean in this context?

Where calling out is publically challenging someone's perceived to be harmful words, attitudes, behaviours in the moment, calling in is meant to be a response that provides the challenge in a a way that respects the humanity of the person being 'called in'. 

One key aspect of calling-in (the kind that works, imo) is that it's done with a genuine curiosity about the other person's beliefs, and takes place in a more private conversation.

My own very good experience of being called in was full of challenge but equally full of love - shout out to Eliana, if she's still here. Challenging, loving, private, over a long period of time, respectful, empathetic.

I don't particularly resonate with either calling in or calling out as a general practice. I can't imagine I could call out or call in effectively. 

To me, most conversation is just ppl giving their opinions on things, and other ppl agree or disagree, and that's interesting, and sometimes disappointing/frustrating. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

I thought the same....fascinating. I also wondered what calling in means. I’m nooooowhere near smart enough to be in that conversation. I just said, “Self, stay in your lane.”

I'm literally fifty, fat and failed. If I can be in a conversation, anyone can. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...