Well thats nice. I dont.

Yes, but this isn’t your blog (and I note that you didn’t disagree with me that the argument had become circular).

I agree with you entirely, by the way, that intent in a case like this doesn’t matter. Which makes it even odder that you refuse to drop the subject.

The subject of Daran’s intent is closed on this thread. Next person to bring it up, either to defend Daran or to attack him, is banned from the thread.

Which I’ve explained doesnt matter. It’s merely another show of privelege to go onto to “correct” my statement about his thought process. That’s one of the affects of one’s words. That is part and parcel of the impact his words had. POC are no longer obligated to “understand” white people’s laziness, mistakes, ignorance or hate. We’ve been well aware of the myriad excuses for some time now. Trying to “correct”us or explain it to us just continues on with the insult. We aren’t the ones in need of racism education.

But then who would the running mate be? Dodd? Biden? Al Gore?

Also, amp’s a moderator. So what you want, and what he wants do not have equal weight on the blog.

Well thats nice. I dont.

Once again, inent was thrown out there as if it changes anything.

It doesnt.

I feel like I see “whites” and “blacks” and “latinos” and “asians” and other descriptors used all the time to refer to people. And i certainly do it myself, on occasion.

We even do it here, reasonably often. For example, a Google search titled:
“blacks are” site:amptoons.com
shows over 100 results (not including comments, i don’t think), including a few from people like Amp and Rachel S, who I generally assume are not especially racist. (there are also 100 or so results for “whites are,” if you’re curious.)

So what’s the consensus? Is using words like “whites” and “blacks” to refer to “white people” and “black people” offensive? It’s not all that difficult to avoid, but it’s certainly convenient shorthand.

This conversation between Daran and Pheeno is circular. Please don’t continue this conversation any further, either of you. Thank you.

dont be fucking (lazy, ignorant, forgetful, priveleged, jackassy) from now on. It doesnt matter if it was lazy, ignorance, privelege or jackassery when you wrote it. Just fucking stop it.

Get the difference yet?

The point Daran is that you did objectify. It doesnt matter that you did it because you were lazy, the affect is still the same. Your reasons or excuses for that language are irrelevant. They don’t change it, they don’t soften it, they don’t excuse it.

I understand that. But here’s the relevant part of the conversation again, paraphrased:

pheeno (#28): You used objectifying language because in your mind you think of black people as colours.

Daran (#31): I used objectifying language because I was lazy.

pheeno (#35) Your reasons for using objectifying language are irrelevant.

If my reasons are irrelevant, then why mention them in the first place? I stated the real reason, not as justification or excuse, but to correct your misstatement of my reasons. It is important to me that my reasons for saying the things I say are not misstated. If you wish to take me to task for my language without getting into an argument with me about my reasons, then do not misstate them. Either state them correctly, or do not state them at all.

To sum up:

I acknowledge that I used objectifying language to refer to Rice and Obama. My reasons for doing so are irrelevant. I have stated that in future, I intend to use non-objectifying language when referring to black people. That intent is also irrelevant except in so far as it leads to my actually using non-objectifying language in future.

Is there anything further we need to discuss?

What matters (to me) is whether I am, in fact, less lazy in future.

Correction: what matters to me is that, when referring to black people in future, I use less objectifying language. Being less lazy is how I intend (yes, that word again) to achieve this.

Oh, I forgot. Your intent trumps all.
*eye roll*

Which intent are you talking about? My intent to be less lazy in future?

The intent is worthless in and of itself. What matters (to me) is whether I am, in fact, less lazy in future.

If that also matters to you, then cool. We can monitor my future performance together. If it doesn’t matter to you, then that’s cool too, but, why are we having this conversation?

*eye roll*

In this case, I do agree with you that it is better to say “black people” than “blacks”, which is why I responded as I did in #26.

I don’t agree with your #28 to the extent that it implies that I think of them as colours rather than people. I do not. I do agree with #28’s criticism of my language use, but I already conceded that. It was from laziness, not from thinking of them as colours, that I wrote “blacks” instead of “black people”, and I will try not to be so lazy in future.

Is there anything else that I should have understood from this conversation?

Then try describing them with the fact they’re PEOPLE in mind and not a just a freakin color.

OK. I checked my privilege. Now what?