How fucking ridiculous is this question? Honestly dude[…]

Do you think there’s a difference between taking an issue personally and taking a discussion of that issue personally?

The problem with such conflation is that if you fly off the handle at someone who talks about something that you don’t like, it cheapens your views, in that person’s perception, of your stance on the actual actions that you’re both addressing.

Radfem, do you think that a patronizing post was out of line as a response to post 61? If so, I’m curious why.

But then it’s not like women don’t often have rules laid out for our participation in discussions of issues that impact us personally and see these discussions as more than mere academic exercises. We even do it to each other on issues that make some of us uncomfortable or push us to examine our privilege.

Jena 6 is something that happens nationwide every day. I don’t think many people have any idea because they don’t have to think about it. Those folks make it all about the one person with the worst background they can find or come up with because then they can absolve themselves from having to think about it.

The only complaints I heard about it was that the focus was on Jena and not elsewhere by people who are involved in Jena 6s or whose family members were. It’s not that they didn’t get what it was about, but it’s frustrating because many of the people in the countless Jena 6s that happen every day often feel isolated and alone. And since not having access to anyone but an over-worked, over-stressed, over-taxed and under-paid public defender(or even “pretender” as some are called) and facing “two prosecutor”(the assigned one and the judge) courtrooms, many feel helpless as well and that frustrates people.

You appear to be taking this very personally.

How fucking ridiculous is this question? Honestly dude, when history and your own personal experience tells you that you and all the kids who like you can die at the hands of people who are supposed to “protect and serve” and the vast majority of your fellow citizens won’t bat an eye, then, yes I’m going to take it personally.

Amp and mods, feel free to moderate me, but I’m done giving the fucking benefit of the doubt.

You appear to be taking this very personally.

Of COURSE I am. Haven’t you noticed? Every Black person who is concerned about it at all takes it personally because it IS personal. We have experienced the same on less drastic scales. We have seen the exact same thing in the community.

And we have heard the exact same response over and over. Discussions of overt racist actions by white people always gets converted into “Teh BLACK ONE made us do it.”

But you don’t have to take my attitude to heart…just think of yourself as a symbol, or role model.

I’m a happy person when the topic is happy. I’m a serious person when the topic is serious. The topic is serious.

Wrong. There’s HUGE space between us. You still think focusing on one person is the way to address a social failure. You still think denying people their constitutional rights is a “diss”.

You appear to be taking this very personally. Perhaps you would enjoy political discussions more if your contributions to them were less acerbic. For example, it’s poor form to tell people what they think (seen above.) It distracts focus from the subject of discussion to the participant(s) in the discussion, and can lead to fallacious conclusions because it mirrors an ad hominem attack.

In this discussion, your personal comments lead me to defend myself even when we’re agreeing on key points. This creates a perception that I’m somehow holistically opposed to you and everything you’ve said, when in fact, I don’t hold any of the opinions you attribute to me in Post #61. (For example, that black people must be role models before their rights are recognized.)

Curious, this.

Phil, now I’m curious. I felt my statement about Barker was clear. What about it was unclear? Do you know what a “speech act” is?

No, you were clear. I asked what the “act” was and you provided an example of an act.

My question was a response to the statement that you weren’t referring to an act but to supremacy itself.

Reading it made me think of what’s on this thread, because I’ve been following cases with women of color who’ve reported being sexually assaulted by police officers including several facing criminal charges. How it’s all about rape only happening if the women are “perfect” and the brochure states how police officers target these women and trans people because they know that they won’t be believed if they report it because they are not “perfect”. How not only do you have to be the “perfect” victim but that the rapist has to *fit* perfectly into a category too, meaning that police officers can’t rape, because they’re considered a class of people who don’t do such things because they’re in charge of arresting people for those things.

And I’m not sure if these individuals who create such informative brochures and do amazing and often dangerous work call themselves feminist by name but personally, I think people who do this kind of work are what feminists look like too.

You’ve been comfortable reinterpreting what I say, and ignoring it.

I thought the initial post was made by “Ampersand.” Is that another pseudonym for you? If so, I’m sorry for reinterpreting what you said.

Oh, I’ve said nothing to you…you’ve ONLY been responding to the post.

Pathetic.

We’re both agreed that the vocabulary was hyperbolic, and we both agree that the Jena 6 deserved some kind of punishment, but not nearly the excessive prison sentences that were initially on the table. There isn’t really a lot of ground between us, so it doesn’t seem necessary to continue to argue.

Wrong. There’s HUGE space between us. You still think focusing on one person is the way to address a social failure. You still think denying people their constitutional rights is a “diss”.

But you’re right about (only!) one thing. There’s no point in discussing it with you. You’ve made it clear you’re going to cling desperately to your position and require Black people to be role models and symbols before you recognize their rights. So I’m done.

I noted the difference between “white supremacy” and “a white supremacist”. Do you understand the difference here? Do you understand why I would say that Jena is a bastion of white supremacy, as opposed to simply a place where some people might harbor white supremacist attitudes but not act on them?

You might want to check out what The Angry Black Woman calls required reading:

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/how-prejudice-and-bias-works/

http://web.archive.org/web/20070108084300/http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/things-you-need-to-understand-4/

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2006/05/07/some-things-you-need-to-understand-1/

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2006/09/18/monday-debate-what-is-racism/

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/some-things-you-need-to-understand-3/

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10157

http://pics.livejournal.com/ktempest/pic/0001p0ht

Now I actually wasn’t referring to a “white supremacist act” but to white supremacy. There is an important difference here.

Lester, are you saying that you would encourage your own children to beat the tar out of someone who is a white supremacist but doesn’t act on those beliefs? Surely that’s not what you mean?

You’ve been comfortable reinterpreting what I say, and ignoring it.

I thought the initial post was made by “Ampersand.” Is that another pseudonym for you? If so, I’m sorry for reinterpreting what you said.

Yet you focus on the hyperbolic vocabulary instead of working with the statement as intended…the meaning of which is obvious.

We’re both agreed that the vocabulary was hyperbolic, and we both agree that the Jena 6 deserved some kind of punishment, but not nearly the excessive prison sentences that were initially on the table. There isn’t really a lot of ground between us, so it doesn’t seem necessary to continue to argue.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding part of the case, Lester. What was the white supremacist act that Justin Barker was guilty of?

Taken from here:

Justin Barker is the white teenager whose beating resulted in the arrest of the “Jena 6″ - according to previous reports, he is friends with the three students who hung the nooses in the trees, and his beating occurred moments after he taunted the black student who had his “ass whipped” by a group of whites at the Fair Barn over the weekend.

Now I actually wasn’t referring to a “white supremacist act” but to white supremacy. There is an important difference here.

But Barker made a decision as to what side he stood on by his speech act.

Sure: go ahead and whack me with a pair of sneakers and I won’t die. But if you’re kicking me with sneakers or shoes (rather than bare feet) the legal theory is

Similarly, “attempted murder” can have an unusual legal definition. You don’t actually have to kill or maim someone, you just have to attempt it (which is why the fact that the victim was OK is actually fairly irrelevant.) Kicking someone when they’re down, while you are wearing shoes, can leave the victim A-OK (much as the dude here) or it can leave them seriously injured, or handicapped, or dead. Depending on the circumstances, it could certainly be attempt with a deadly weapon in a variety of states.

Of course as i said above who gets charged with it is an obvious issue.

If his interpretation of your statement is wrong, perhaps you could clarify what you meant.

I use small words. I don’t believe clarification is necessary. You may feel I am wrong, and that’s fine. To pretend you don’t understand me is nonsense.