Can we talk about the sterling/silver thing?

[bada]

I guess you could look at some of the stuff that went down with Jim Morrison but I hear ya. I don't really know what "getting away with more" really means in this context or what the opposite of "getting away with more" or the consequences of such are either. If it means black people can bitch about whitey but whites can't bitch about blacks that seems like a shallow reading of our society. I don't know if it's racist as much as poorly thought out.

it may not be racist but it will be construed as racist

Yeah to be honest I wasn't really aware of the full content of the exchange in this thread and others till just reading some of Jorge's quotes. All I knew of Harry was he really was into ghosts and Ryan Gosling.

[Malloy]

Like Malloy said in that other thread, in the written form, you can separate words from "tone" or intent....so show me what harry said that was so fuckin bad.....except to reveal a raw human raw truth that ya'll killed him for.

He made an honest point, ....why should that person have to apologize and you have turned it into a crucifixion.

(granted, there are times when the tone of one's argument may affect the reception of one's claims. but here, where the medium is static and passive, a reader can disentangle the two, tone and claims, quite easily.)

tunes, i think this quote is what you referred to? i want to clarify my point, because applying it to jorge and lament is very different than applying it to harry lime. regardless of jorge or lament's tone, their claims were clearly identifiable. their tone in no way obscured their claims, so daft twat never took issue with the meaning of what they wrote.

in the case of harry lime, it's totally useful to separate his tone from his claims, because there seems to be uncertainty (at least on your part) about the meaning of his posts in this thread. on the whole harry's delivery (not his ideas or claims) is an attempt to imbue his claims with respect, tolerance and good nature. [edit: i'm adding this after the fact: i don't think harry is trying to pull wool over anyone's eyes. i think he genuinely tried to proceed in a sincere, respectful manner. and, while at times he lost his cool, he was always sincere.] lament has in a way already engaged with this problem of self-perception and delivery:

He [Harry Lime] seems to feel that he can attribute personality traits to himself and that, because he's decided he embodies them, his action obviously embody them as well. Harry told us he's a "nice guy" so obviously his treatment and attitudes towards women can't possibly be misogynistic because he's a "nice guy," and nice guys aren't misogynistic. "Nice guys" aren't racist either, so obviously none of his actions and attitudes can be racist, cause "nice guys" aren't racist.

the problem is these aren't traits you get to assign to yourself. They're not traits that define your actions. Your actions define whether or not other people are going to assign you these traits. Not everybody is going to assign traits based on the same things. At a certain point though, if a lot of people seem to look at your words and actions and say "Wow, that Harry Lime guy is a racist," then guess what, there's a good chance you're a racist. In fact, to some people you already are. I'm one of them, and I would stunned if I were the only one who thought that.

now, lament is talking about traits. but, i think his analysis is relevant to tone, too. there's a point in this thread where harry uses the expression "good golly," and his useage of it crystalized the problem that lament raises. while it's partly shtick, harry does perceive himself as a folksy, sincerely good guy. and the language of his posts is stylized in such a way (like when he uses "good golly") to reify his beliefs about himself. or, if you prefer, the language of his posts simultaneously reveals his set of assumptions about himself and betrays those same assumptions. "reveal" is probably a better fit, as it suggests a lack of self-awareness. tunes, you even use "reveal" in your post that i've quoted.

the self-awareness issue seems crucial to the debate. harry is trying to be as self-aware as possible. he acknowledges his past racist behavior, and he regrets the behavior. after the admission, when confronted by lament and others, he tries to rationalize the behavior. and that's when racist claims are delivered in ways that seek to make them as admissible as possible. harry believes he is acting in the name of sincerity, but he loses the bearing of his intent (as he understands it) fairly quickly. the meaning of his intervention in the thread quickly departs from his intention, regardless of tone.

though i don't initially mention it, you bring up the issue of intent when you summarize my point about claims and tone. and i think one tendency of the harry lime account is that meaning is often dislocated from intent. his racist posts were unintentional--harry never understood them to be racist--but their meaning was clear. what's the saying? "trust the tale, not the teller." all that said, i don't think harry is a bad guy, and i feel bad that he left. but his arguments in this thread and the justification for those arguments were shit.

[Jorge]

Maybe singing about Fuck Tha Police ain't a great idea no matter what color you are, no? or am I racist for saying that.

Not racist, but shows a lack of perspective. A poor black man in the 1980s might have legitimate reasons for singing "fuck the police". Anti-establishment protest songs by the downtrodden minority are nothing new. Judging that song with the preconceived notion of what modern hip-hop is ("bling and pussy") fails to recognize that the song, and NWA, and Gangsta Rap as a whole was a reaction to a sociopolitical reality these men were facing.

I am uncomfortable posting any more like this. I never even refer to a person by their skin color. I intentionally don't . My kids would say "the brown Matthew" to differentiate sometimes because they never heard the term "black person"

I'm sorry KT, I think that's a shame. To deny race is to deny important context: issues of identity and heritage. It also denies the fact that, unfortunately, we are not all on equal standing in society. These things don't become irrelevant when you refuse to say "a black person". This is identity erasure, and there are several insightful essays on why it's a harmful and pervasive problem. If you're genuinely interested, I can link you to some. I personally found them very helpful.

[@SkitchP]

harry is to minorities as samwise is to "curvy" women

[broken iris]

Harry was suppose to PM me for backup on topics like this.

[Mecca]

harry is to minorities as samwise is to "curvy" women

Spoiler: show

[---]

[spike]

http://uproxx.com/sports/2014/05/tracy- ... gs-racism/

[knee tunes]

Can we talk about the sterling/silver thing?



no

[harmless]

What a GREAT thread, and all the better because I didn't participate.

But what gave turned2black the impression I was racist?

Edit: scrap that, I'm assuming he did a full 180 on that.

[nyquillyn]

I don't believe I ever called you a racist, harmless.

[harmless]

I've got my eye on you.

[Norah]

mark, why do you hate black people?

[harmless]

I don't, I just have an involuntary negative response to hooded tops.

[nyquillyn]

I've got my eye on you.

I hope it's your sexy eye.

Spoiler: show

[Lament]

No one is ever gonna provide those examples of anti-white Jay-Z lyrics that keep getting referenced, are they?

[harmless]

I doubt it.

I was going to say something about the fallaciousness of the concept of "reverse racism" but I don't want to get flamed.