Damn

[trinityvixen]

Awesomesauce.

I ::heart:: Jay Smooth. There's something to be said about boiling down complex issues to analogies reducing our ability to hold meaningful dialogues, but that's usually because the analogies in question are faulty. In this case, he's absolutely right.

Comments

[jendaby.livejournal.com]

That was awesome! Also, it applies to any sort of bigotry someone may be spouting, so it is a cool way to think of, approach the subject of bigoted remarks. That said, as many people mentioned in the comments there, most people have a hard time hearing "What you said sounded like a racist comment" as anything but "you are a racist", so the conversations might prove difficult.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Good point, but he's still performing a useful service in suggesting the frame for the conversation. Because the people who use intolerant language or wish to restrict freedoms in the name of God/GOP have really gotten good at re-framing discussions so that you can't argue against them without (more or less) assuming the position of being evil. (Guiliani was a master at this--"decent people think..." means if you don't, you're indecent).

And it is hard to take criticism without taking it personally. But I have to believe that encouraging more specific addresses to specific offenses will work better than calling names. That has always been true but often gets forgotten in hot-button issues.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

That's a good piece. Personally, though, I think he should just skip the whole "racist" issue and just say, "As a black man, I find that offensive." It's hard to argue that, since Jay Smooth or whoever is the best judge or his or her own feelings. Then the white person can say "I'm sorry I offended you" and the whole issue is taken care of.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It's tricky using the race trump, though. The last thing you want poisoning the dialogue is the idea that you're an angry minority with issues. Look at what hash the conservatives have made of hopeful statements from Michelle Obama.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's absolutely true, but I think that's because people can easily fill in the blanks. "As a black man I find that offensive" > "that statement was racist" > "you are a racist." I suspect that's unavoidable, though.

As for Michelle Obama and the supposed Whitey! speech, I'd say that's a different set of issues (with "Republicans lying" on the top of the list).

[jendaby.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. I like the fact that he gets right to the point- that you cannot know someone's intention, and thus cannot prove it, etc. And I also like the fact that this is a piece that will make people think - about how they approach issues, and how they deal with it when people step over the line.

And, yeah, it is really maddening when people who get caught misbehaving try to make it the fault of the person who calls them on it. Uncool. I'm just saying that some of those people are so fervent about never admitting they are wrong, that any statement might spark a spurt of extra-obnoxious behavior. But, you know, one can hope that deep down they know they are a bigoted turd, and they will feel like a jerk later on and maybe watch what they say and rethink their statements in future.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Well, since the person who "broke" the "story" on the Whitey! speech (by which I mean "spread the false rumor") was firmly in the Clinton camp, you'll have a hard time blaming lying Republicans. But hey, whatever works. We all know that most of the hate and bigotry in America comes from right-wingers anyway, so why let facts get in the way?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Well since Larry Johnson's story was "confirmed" by three "senior Republican" sources, I'm sure they deserve their share of the blame.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Plus, this is just an updated conservative rumor that gets resurrected every election cycle.