It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[Sabine Gallais]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Just having diverse ideas does not make a country great or strong.

I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.

The ability to sift through diverse ideas and separate the good ideas from the bad ideas does but not merely the presence of different ideas.

Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch. I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by apretty

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

Yes, apretty, critical thinking is *precisely* what I'm advocating for.

I am, pretty much, a free speech fundamentalist. Outside of advocating immediate violent action (we hate group X, we have bats and knives, they don't, there's a group of them over there let's go get 'em!) and child pornography I'm pretty content to let anyone say, print, write, speak, sing, publish, broadcast or post any damn thing the spirit moves them to do. That does NOT, however, mean that I have to give credence to that idea or treat it as if, on its face, it must be true or valid or worthwhile just because someone else believes that to be the case.

Again, taking segregation and anti-miscegenation as my examples. Firstly, I have to say that one thing I find, ironic, is that people who will reflexively praise Martin Luther King, Jr. for his vision don't understand something very core about his vision (or the vision of my parents). It is this (and it is my vision as well): black people are human beings and deserving of the full package of rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of any citizen. No matter how many people might say that I am not, I am not obliged to give those ideas any kind of quarter. Just because person X thinks that the only reason I am where I am is because I'm an affirmative action hire who is unqualified for their job does not mean that I, at any point, need to sit down and think "maybe their right". I see nothing in Martin Luther King's speeches that ever led me to believe that he thought that Bull Connor or George Wallace might have a point and that he thought SNCC or any other civil rights group should perhaps consider that maybe segregation and anti-miscegenation was correct and best for all parties concerned. King's vision was uncompromising on that point. Today many would call King closed-minded because he wasn't willing to ever grant "well, maybe Buckley is right when he writes that blacks shouldn't have the vote". I don't call that closed-minded, I call it having clarity of vision and the courage of his convictions.

I am really advocating three things--clarity of vision and communication, courage of our conviction, and critical thinking.

I am not interested in pretending that Fred Phelps might just have a point that queers are hell bound. So I won't.

I am not interested in pretending that the ideas that queers are more likely to be child molesters and that this myth (which is wrong) is as valid a point of view as the reality that queers are no more likely to abuse children then anyone else in the population. So I won't.

I am SO convinced that I am a full human being--capable of both good and evil, kindness and malice, member of a species that is, at once, the most beautiful and the ugliest creature on this planet--that I will not give credence to any ideology that states otherwise.

Lastly, I think that ideas are important. If ideas don't matter then it really shouldn't concern us if good ideas are drowned out by bad ideas. We needn't go to the trouble of taking ideas seriously if they don't matter. This idea that having contradictory ideas out there seems, to me, to be a way of not taking ideas seriously. If Fred Phelps' ideas don't matter then what do I care what he says as long as he isn't saying it to me? Who cares how many people listen to Phelps and believes what he says, his ideas don't matter anyway and they're just his opinion to boot. If, on the other hand, ideas matter, if they impact what happens in the real world then we should take ideas seriously and put some kind of care into both choosing ideas and developing criteria upon which to choose them.

So let me ask everyone here these questions:

Do you think that a world in which it is commonly believed that queer people are a threat to children is the same as one in which queer people are not believed to be a threat?

Do you think that a country in which Hispanics are thought to illegal aliens invading 'our' country is the same kind of country in which Hispanics aren't thought of in that manner?

If you don't believe they are equivalent then you have *some* kind of criteria for telling the difference between a bad idea and a good idea. If you do believe that they are the same then why should any person, any community, any nation choose one set of ideas over the other set?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying we should have homogenous ideas. I AM saying that there is a difference--a qualitative difference--between good ideas and bad ideas. Not every diverse idea was or is a good one. For example, please explain to me every single benefit that was gained by America--as a whole--by the ideology behind segregation. How was America made stronger by the idea--just to take one example--that black men were inherently dangerous and that for the protection of white women there needed to be social rules *seriously* proscribing the interactions between black men and white women. Not how we were made stronger by getting over that idea or proscribing its inaction. How did the mere *presence* of this idea make America stronger? The argument that Kobi and, it would appear you, are making is that merely having diverse ideas--regardless of what those ideas might be--is the strength of America. It doesn't matter if those ideas promote beneficial social attitudes or baleful ones, just the diversity of those ideas is strong enough. By that light, according to this argument, an America without active racist ideology is LESS strong, vibrant, healthy than an America *with* active racist ideology. I strenuously disagree unless and until someone can explain to me what, to take another example, the mere presence of anti-miscegenation laws, codes and social sanction did to make America stronger. (Again, please don't say that we became stronger because we had to overcome those things because that would be saying that the suffering of the people who actually had to live under the system of Jim Crow was justified so that we could say we got rid of Jim Crow. I would argue, in case anyone is tempted to make that argument, that we would have been better off without a system of segregation to get over.)

Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch.

One can have the idea that there are bad ideas without having to have an arbiter of what is good or bad. If, for instance, you hold to the belief that, to stay in the ballpark of what we're discussing here, black people are simultaneously unqualified affirmative action hires, drug dealers and welfare cheats and there is no *actual* empirical evidence to sustain that belief I'm going to call that a bad idea. Beliefs about how the world works--the world all of us live in--that are not empirically supported are probably not good ideas. Let me also be clear, I'm not saying we should make these ideas illegal--I think that good information can drive out bad information if allowed to do so. However, good information cannot do so if we decide that 'all human beings are and should be equal before the law' and 'all white people should be equal before the law but no black people should be equal before the law in the same way that whites are' are both good ideas, both of which are worthy of consideration and neither of which there is any metric by which we can distinguish what is preferable. The argument you appear to be making here, is that there is no way to distinguish those two beliefs and no basis upon which a society could choose which is preferable. I disagree.

I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

Why on Earth is it that people consider arguing a point vigorously is considered squashing of other viewpoints? I can't, for the life of me, see why that should be the case. What I am saying is this:

For most all of my adult life and probably going back a little further than that, Americans--my parochial interest here--have behaved as if the only way to have social harmony is to treat every idea as being equally valid, all opinions as being equally correct, and all ideologies as being equally fair. We have behaved as if there is no *actual* reason to choose an ideology that promotes tolerance and equal justice over one that promotes intolerance and favoring the majority at the expense of the minority. Now, I want to be clear I am NOT saying that either you or Kobi or anyone else in this discussion or reading these words is a racist. I AM saying that the ideology you are espousing, that all ideas--regardless of what they are, how sound they are, how well they map to the real world or what their effects are--add to the diversity and strength of America. So in that construction, the ideas of the Klan or the neo-Nazis add to the strength of America and there is, in fact, no way to decide whether or not we should prefer the views of George Wallace or Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1965. What's more we have taken the absolutely insane (to me) position that any views that anyone holds are valid for no better reason than that someone holds them. I hate to break this to you but George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr. held fundamentally different views in 1965--diametrically opposed views, in fact. One of them was wrong. I would argue that it was George Wallace who was wrong and that America would have been better off if his ideas about segregation and the necessity of it had never taken root in this country.

What I am saying is that I have grown weary of pretending that opinions that are born out of incorrect information are as good (read useful/valid/comporting well with reality) as opinions born out of correct information. I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't ideas that are wrong--like segregation.

One practical consequence of this cognitive corner we've painted ourselves into is that we now have a generation of people who *reflexively* say that they are not racist because they know being a racist is something they shouldn't want to be but they cannot articulate WHY racism is wrong. They just know that the socially acceptable attitude is that racism is wrong. Thus, you can have laws or statements that are blatantly racist and the people pushing the laws or propounding these statements genuinely believe that they aren't racists because they aren't using, for instance, the 'n-word' or the 's-word'.

[Kobi]

Dread,

You and I have had this discussion before. Critical thinking, good and bad ideas by whose standards?

You can quote Brown vs the Board of Education, the Black codes, Pluessy vs Ferguson, the entire litany of racism in America. But, judge it by whose standards, under what conditions, and by whom?

Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you. Booker Washington. W.E. B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Malcom X. Louis Farrakhan all espoused a different philosophy of empowering yourself by taking the control of your own lives. Here is the reference for those who need it for words to have any relevance http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...man-8217/6774/ .

So what was a good idea and a bad idea? And by whose standard? Cuz some people would be saying the leaders of the Black movement were betraying their own people by thinking this way.

Did Obama become President because he espoused racism? He got an education, he has ideas people were ready for, he was willing to listen, he knew he had to compromise. You dont succeed by beating people over the head because they disagree with you.

And one can not take anything as a given. The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Chicagos no gun rule was just decided in the Supreme Court. 9 justices...5 saying you have the unqualified right to have guns, 4 saying you dont. Which is a good idea and which is a bad one? And by whose standards?

Now back to immigration and the Arizona law.....everyone wants to brand me a a racist because I dont "critically think as they do". So be it. I look at the larger picture of immigration and how policy affects the quality of life in America. A solid immigration policy based on economics served us well when we were a growing industrialized nation. And immigrants made tremendous contributions to what this country has become. Immigrants who circumvent the system cause problems for all of us. I wont even bother to go into the ways this a problematical cuz none of you even bother to listen.

Do I like the idea of American citizens being subjected to having to prove they are citizens? About as much as I like being humiliated at an airport as a potential terror threat because I use liquid soap. Is it a good idea or a bad idea and by whose standards?

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.

And immigration issues do NOT just affect persons of color or ethnicity. Here in Mass. if you want the state mandatory health insurance or a driver license, you had damn well have proof of citizenship. It affects all groups, all colors, all nationalities, all socio-economic groups. Arizona is just more blatant about it. Amazes me that the feds or the aclu havent sought an injunction pending review and makes me wonder why.

What annoys me most on these forums is when one has a different point of view, others feel it is their right to belittle them, to call them names, and be generally rude. They would not like it if I went around doing the same to them but it is ok for them to do it to me and others under the guise of racism. Pull out the race card and civility goes in the hopper. But, they are the first to say....read the TOS?????? Hello??????

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Let me be clear, I'm not saying we should have homogenous ideas. I AM saying that there is a difference--a qualitative difference--between good ideas and bad ideas. Not every diverse idea was or is a good one. For example, please explain to me every single benefit that was gained by America--as a whole--by the ideology behind segregation. How was America made stronger by the idea--just to take one example--that black men were inherently dangerous and that for the protection of white women there needed to be social rules *seriously* proscribing the interactions between black men and white women. Not how we were made stronger by getting over that idea or proscribing its inaction. How did the mere *presence* of this idea make America stronger? The argument that Kobi and, it would appear you, are making is that merely having diverse ideas--regardless of what those ideas might be--is the strength of America. It doesn't matter if those ideas promote beneficial social attitudes or baleful ones, just the diversity of those ideas is strong enough. By that light, according to this argument, an America without active racist ideology is LESS strong, vibrant, healthy than an America *with* active racist ideology. I strenuously disagree unless and until someone can explain to me what, to take another example, the mere presence of anti-miscegenation laws, codes and social sanction did to make America stronger. (Again, please don't say that we became stronger because we had to overcome those things because that would be saying that the suffering of the people who actually had to live under the system of Jim Crow was justified so that we could say we got rid of Jim Crow. I would argue, in case anyone is tempted to make that argument, that we would have been better off without a system of segregation to get over.)




One can have the idea that there are bad ideas without having to have an arbiter of what is good or bad. If, for instance, you hold to the belief that, to stay in the ballpark of what we're discussing here, black people are simultaneously unqualified affirmative action hires, drug dealers and welfare cheats and there is no *actual* empirical evidence to sustain that belief I'm going to call that a bad idea. Beliefs about how the world works--the world all of us live in--that are not empirically supported are probably not good ideas. Let me also be clear, I'm not saying we should make these ideas illegal--I think that good information can drive out bad information if allowed to do so. However, good information cannot do so if we decide that 'all human beings are and should be equal before the law' and 'all white people should be equal before the law but no black people should be equal before the law in the same way that whites are' are both good ideas, both of which are worthy of consideration and neither of which there is any metric by which we can distinguish what is preferable. The argument you appear to be making here, is that there is no way to distinguish those two beliefs and no basis upon which a society could choose which is preferable. I disagree.



Why on Earth is it that people consider arguing a point vigorously is considered squashing of other viewpoints? I can't, for the life of me, see why that should be the case. What I am saying is this:

For most all of my adult life and probably going back a little further than that, Americans--my parochial interest here--have behaved as if the only way to have social harmony is to treat every idea as being equally valid, all opinions as being equally correct, and all ideologies as being equally fair. We have behaved as if there is no *actual* reason to choose an ideology that promotes tolerance and equal justice over one that promotes intolerance and favoring the majority at the expense of the minority. Now, I want to be clear I am NOT saying that either you or Kobi or anyone else in this discussion or reading these words is a racist. I AM saying that the ideology you are espousing, that all ideas--regardless of what they are, how sound they are, how well they map to the real world or what their effects are--add to the diversity and strength of America. So in that construction, the ideas of the Klan or the neo-Nazis add to the strength of America and there is, in fact, no way to decide whether or not we should prefer the views of George Wallace or Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1965. What's more we have taken the absolutely insane (to me) position that any views that anyone holds are valid for no better reason than that someone holds them. I hate to break this to you but George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr. held fundamentally different views in 1965--diametrically opposed views, in fact. One of them was wrong. I would argue that it was George Wallace who was wrong and that America would have been better off if his ideas about segregation and the necessity of it had never taken root in this country.

What I am saying is that I have grown weary of pretending that opinions that are born out of incorrect information are as good (read useful/valid/comporting well with reality) as opinions born out of correct information. I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't ideas that are wrong--like segregation.

One practical consequence of this cognitive corner we've painted ourselves into is that we now have a generation of people who *reflexively* say that they are not racist because they know being a racist is something they shouldn't want to be but they cannot articulate WHY racism is wrong. They just know that the socially acceptable attitude is that racism is wrong. Thus, you can have laws or statements that are blatantly racist and the people pushing the laws or propounding these statements genuinely believe that they aren't racists because they aren't using, for instance, the 'n-word' or the 's-word'.

[SuperFemme]

it's not because of how you apply critical thinking skills.

it is because of sweeping generalizations like: "he got an education" or "you played the race card" that people might sit back and think what your are saying has racist overtones/undertones.

nobody can "make" you think anything, or force you to see how your statements are hurtful to the brown people here. that is not possible.

you ARE entitled to your thoughts.

it is in the manner that you choose to share them that you become suspect.

[Kobi]

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

it's not because of how you apply critical thinking skills.

it is because of sweeping generalizations like: "he got an education" or "you played the race card" that people might sit back and think what your are saying has racist overtones/undertones.

nobody can "make" you think anything, or force you to see how your statements are hurtful to the brown people here. that is not possible.

you ARE entitled to your thoughts.

it is in the manner that you choose to share them that you become suspect.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?

Kobi,

First of all, I am so NOT calling you names. Not at all.

If I have angered and/or insulted you, that was not my intent.

My post was a plea to you to maybe think about how what you are saying sometimes can perhaps be interpreted as having racial overtones/undertones.

I'm not calling you a racist, what I *am* asking of you is that you hear how your words can be hurtful to those of us who have parents who came here illegally, those of us that have green cards, those of us that are scared to drive through AZ and that is all.

I understand that you can agree with the law in AZ, and I am not going to try to change your mind. It is your right. I'm not trying to say to you "boycott or bust". I promise.

What I *was* hoping to convey was how sweeping generalizations can be very hurtful.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Again, I apologize if you feel I was calling you names, or attacking you.

SF

[Apocalipstic]

So at what point, historically speaking, did it become OK to not let people from Mexico enter Arizona, land the US decided belongs to the US and just took from Mexico?

The place in my heart/head that helps me decide what is right and wrong says Geopolitical Borders that keep people out is not the right thing to do/have....EVER.

But....

ESPECIALLY when the land in question belonged to the people we are trying to keep out.

[Kobi]

SuperFemme,

Thank you. For the first time in days I feel heard instead of attacked.

You are right, it is easier to hear something when it is not couched in anger or in slurs. I am more than open to hearing when someone feels I have said something that might be offensive. Send me a private message. Lets dialogue.

Do not call me names. It is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing except for pissing us both off.

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Kobi,

First of all, I am so NOT calling you names. Not at all.

If I have angered and/or insulted you, that was not my intent.

My post was a plea to you to maybe think about how what you are saying sometimes can perhaps be interpreted as having racial overtones/undertones.

I'm not calling you a racist, what I *am* asking of you is that you hear how your words can be hurtful to those of us who have parents who came here illegally, those of us that have green cards, those of us that are scared to drive through AZ and that is all.

I understand that you can agree with the law in AZ, and I am not going to try to change your mind. It is your right. I'm not trying to say to you "boycott or bust". I promise.

What I *was* hoping to convey was how sweeping generalizations can be very hurtful.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Again, I apologize if you feel I was calling you names, or attacking you.

SF

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Kobi

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, blah blah blah

Unless, of course, what you've said is actually racist.


Then It Is What It Is, And No One's Playing Cards...Bingo Maybe, But Definitely Not Cards,
Dylan

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by Kobi

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?

I am going to address you about this since it is I you called out as using a race card..

Allow me to say I am not some fucking Pokemon creature or collector and I am surely not *throwing* my race around. I tried and tried to get across to you via my life experiences, my familiy's experiences but you *chose* to see it as something else. That's on you and well it tells me A LOT about you. Is that harsh?

No.

You wonder why we (speaking for me and those around me who have read this over my shoulder) you come off as racist and I will take the time to show you why...

Underhanded racist comments such as...

"Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you."( are we now dividing leaders according to color and race?)

"When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows. " (really? you think that this was a solution, cause that is downright scary being caged up
like some animal cause of your race)

"it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law." ( I don't remember being there when they handed out these cards lemme know where I can get one since you know so much about them)

"I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable." (I know there have been many times on this site where we have all used or have asked that people use undocumented)

"How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you. " (directed at me since I am choosing to talk about my experience and not fall for the bullshit that this law is really masking)

"Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine." (cause me talking about my experience and how I feel about this law in a thread that is ABOUT BOYCOTTING NOT PRO THIS LAW means I have *issues*)

"my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting." ( the proof is in the puddin

"One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others." (mad applause for referring to us as those people)

So you wonder why people see you this way

Above is why.

It's covert racism, is privileged, ugly and you got called on it.

Would I hang with you? Not at this point, why?

Cause I am one of those fucking people, and these people you speak of they are my people, and you may think I am a bleeding heart, well guess fucking what I am. I know what it's like to be constantly looked upon like we are some disease, is that me using my race card? You may think so, I on the other hand would hope that maybe you can open your pretty lil eyes and see outside of your soft, pretty, priveleged world.

[Apocalipstic]

Seriously, the USA TOOK Arizona from Mexico.

[Kobi]

Lady Snow,

In the few months I have been here, you have called me a racist, a sexist, a misogynist when I do or say something you dont agree with.

And when I say something you agree with, you send me cutesy little notes.

Hm, what might that indicate...agree with me and I will treat you well. Disagree with me and I will call you names just cuz I can.

You tend to misinterpret what I say, sadly. Perfect example.....Japanese confinement. I didnt say anything about how I felt about it. You PRESUMED the way it was written that I agreed with it. Just as you presume about many things.

I for one do not appreciate it. Just not agreeing with you makes everything something....real or not.

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I am going to address you about this since it is I you called out as using a race card..

Allow me to say I am not some fucking Pokemon creature or collector and I am surely not *throwing* my race around. I tried and tried to get across to you via my life experiences, my familiy's experiences but you *chose* to see it as something else. That's on you and well it tells me A LOT about you. Is that harsh?

No.

You wonder why we (speaking for me and those around me who have read this over my shoulder) you come off as racist and I will take the time to show you why...

Underhanded racist comments such as...

"Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you."( are we now dividing leaders according to color and race?)

"When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows. " (really? you think that this was a solution, cause that is downright scary being caged up
like some animal cause of your race)

"it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law." ( I don't remember being there when they handed out these cards lemme know where I can get one since you know so much about them)

"I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable." (I know there have been many times on this site where we have all used or have asked that people use undocumented)

"How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you. " (directed at me since I am choosing to talk about my experience and not fall for the bullshit that this law is really masking)

"Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine." (cause me talking about my experience and how I feel about this law in a thread that is ABOUT BOYCOTTING NOT PRO THIS LAW means I have *issues*)

"my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting." ( the proof is in the puddin

"One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others." (mad applause for referring to us as those people)

So you wonder why people see you this way

Above is why.

It's covert racism, is privileged, ugly and you got called on it.

Would I hang with you? Not at this point, why?

Cause I am one of those fucking people, and these people you speak of they are my people, and you may think I am a bleeding heart, well guess fucking what I am. I know what it's like to be constantly looked upon like we are some disease, is that me using my race card? You may think so, I on the other hand would hope that maybe you can open your pretty lil eyes and see outside of your soft, pretty, priveleged world.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by Kobi

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

We are not that kinda homies, that you get to go around and refer to us

as brown people..

I got a fucking name.

It's shit like this that keeps POC out of the sites, cause really we have enough going on and then to come on here and read this kinda shit, isn't worth it...

We got fucking names that cover that, like Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Nicaraguan etc etc.

It's like I can call my mom a dick, can you? No......

[Corkey]

I think it would be a grand idea to pull over every white driver that happens to use Native Lands to get to say, Flagstaff, or Phoenix. Put them in jail on the Rez and throw away the keys. Now do you see Kobi how this law is racist?

[Kobi]

Again Lady Snow, you take something out of context and make it something it is not.

Superfemme made the reference to "brown people" re read it. I replied in kind. But noooooooo, lets just fly off the handle so you can continue the mad on you have.

Seriously, grow up.

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

We are not that kinda homies, that you get to go around and refer to us

as brown people..

I got a fucking name.

It's shit like this that keeps POC out of the sites, cause really we have enough going on and then to come on here and read this kinda shit, isn't worth it...

We got fucking names that cover that, like Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Nicaraguan etc etc.

It's like I can call my mom a dick, can you? No......

[apretty]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you.

excuse my ignorance--but what do you mean by 'your own leaders'?

are we segregating leaders? and if so, by what?

(also, i find it ironic that you'll respond to every person in this thread except for me and i am the ONLY person that actually lives in arizona.)

[Medusa]

Kobi,

I'm always incredibly dismayed when someone says that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card". Especially since you seem to be intelligent.

I have seen more than one person in these forums resort to saying that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card", so what Im about to say isn't solely directed at you but I hope that you can hear what I'm about to say with an open mind.

Race is not a "card" that a person can whip out. Race is a part of a person's LIVED experience, a part of their lives, and unfortunately, oftentimes is a huge part of unfair, ignorant, and biggoted treatment that they receive from people who view their race as a "thing" that they whip out when they are trying to be "uppity" or "arrogant" or "overpowering" or (gasp) "too loud".

It is also incredibly disrespectful.

Sadly too, any argument you make using the "race card being pulled out" will get lost with folks like me who translate that as "white person who refuses to examine their racism or privilege".


M

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Kobi,

I'm always incredibly dismayed when someone says that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card". Especially since you seem to be intelligent.

I have seen more than one person in these forums resort to saying that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card", so what Im about to say isn't solely directed at you but I hope that you can hear what I'm about to say with an open mind.

Race is not a "card" that a person can whip out. Race is a part of a person's LIVED experience, a part of their lives, and unfortunately, oftentimes is a huge part of unfair, ignorant, and biggoted treatment that they receive from people who view their race as a "thing" that they whip out when they are trying to be "uppity" or "arrogant" or "overpowering" or (gasp) "too loud".

It is also incredibly disrespectful.

Sadly too, any argument you make using the "race card being pulled out" will get lost with folks like me who translate that as "white person who refuses to examine their racism or privilege".


M

Medusa:
I have never--and I doubt I ever will--hear a sufficient definition of 'playing the race card' that draws a useful distinction between 'pointing out injustice' and 'playing the race card'.

Kobi, using the 'playing the race card' logic then DuBois and Washington played the race card as did MLK, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, John Lewis and every other black person who marched, wrote, protested, or did anything to fight segregation. ALL of them were 'playing the race card' because ALL of them refused to pretend that racism was okay. All of them called injustice as injustice and therefore were 'playing the race card'.

Now can you explain to me the difference between Thurgood Marshall arguing Brown v. Board and 'playing the race card'? Do you have a definition of playing the race card that makes a distinction between that and pointing out injustice where it is encountered?

Cheers
Aj