A few thoughts on the latest round of White Guilt discussions

[Juana]

Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.

Carry on, by all means.  I am not fit for this sort of thing.  That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.

[LMNO]

Garbo, it seems to me you're talking about someone who's primary goal is to change something in the system, and other people are talking about someone who's primary goal is to make sure those around them are towing the party line.

And some of us are saying that the former becomes the latter with alarming frequency and regularity.

[trippinprincezz13]

Youre right- i dont even recall the last time i said something to him. Hes probably a bully irl since that seems to be his mo.

He strikes me more as the perpetual victim of bullies, now with online anonymity, but you could be right.

A bit of both, likely. Often bullied, maybe when he was younger. And/or highly insecure with a persecution complex. The only way to set things right is to, naturally, try to stomp on those he perceives to be weaker or in a vunerable position. He is threatened by strong, intelligent personalities, such as Roger. He is threatened by people trying to pursue their desires and/or make something of their lives, such as Twid. He is threatened by the group dynamic between many people here (not to be confused with "group think") that he didn't automatically become a part of once he joined. So he must seek out weak points and jab at them because that is much easier than addressing any actual issues and WILL SHOW THOSE PEOPLE.

[trippinprincezz13]

Could be both really. Could have been bullied then was able to grow a moustache and became one himself.

Of course, Twid makes my point more succinctly while I am busy expending more words than holist is worth

[Juana]

Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.

Carry on, by all means.  I am not fit for this sort of thing.  That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.

Who made that argument? It certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.

I think that came off as snarky.  Let me restate it:

Apparently, I have offended some people here recently.  I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual.  I'm pretty sure I haven't.  But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes.  So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.

Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too".  Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder.  One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse".  Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever.  It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.

Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both.  The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people.  But they're the only gags I know.  I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes.  I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers".  Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."

That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing.  My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.

Uh, you haven't made any offensive jokes or whatever. My snarkiness was in response to what I perceived as passive aggressive swipes at me, and I frankly have enough passive aggressive people in my IRL life, so I got a little snappish.

Garbo, it seems to me you're talking about someone who's primary goal is to change something in the system, and other people are talking about someone who's primary goal is to make sure those around them are towing the party line.

And some of us are saying that the former becomes the latter with alarming frequency and regularity.

Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Lol when at work i must post quickly and furtively.

[LMNO]

Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.

It's kind of hard to take the abstract concept and remove it from the behavior of those implementing it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.

Carry on, by all means.  I am not fit for this sort of thing.  That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.

Who made that argument?

Um, I did.  This sort of thing is either boring or funny, and if it's funny, I'm with you all the way, no matter how much you hate the idea of allies that aren't ideologically pure.

Problem:  Laugher's busted.  Everytime I think of something worth saying, I think back to the "niggers" thing Nigel brought up, and I cringe.  Humor destroyed. 

So I'm not saying I'm UNWORTHY of taking part in it, I'm saying I'm not FIT (ie, able) to contribute.

It certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.

See above.  Plus, when it isn't funny, the whole being looked down on/Ivory tower privilege thing becomes intolerable.

[LMNO]

So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.

[Juana]

Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.

It's kind of hard to take the abstract concept and remove it from the behavior of those implementing it.

Why? I don't see that, really. A person can still support and make the argument while kicking the Activist off their high horse.

Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.

Carry on, by all means.  I am not fit for this sort of thing.  That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.

Who made that argument?

Um, I did.  This sort of thing is either boring or funny, and if it's funny, I'm with you all the way, no matter how much you hate the idea of allies that aren't ideologically pure.

Problem:  Laugher's busted.  Everytime I think of something worth saying, I think back to the "niggers" thing Nigel brought up, and I cringe.  Humor destroyed. 

So I'm not saying I'm UNWORTHY of taking part in it, I'm saying I'm not FIT (ie, able) to contribute.

It certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.

See above.  Plus, when it isn't funny, the whole being looked down on/Ivory tower privilege thing becomes intolerable.

I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't want you as an ally if you're not ideologically pure.

Which thread is that in? I must have missed it.


The only response I have to that would drag us back into that debate, so I'm going to shut up.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't want you as an ally if you're not ideologically pure.

Which thread is that in? I must have missed it.


The only response I have to that would drag us back into that debate, so I'm going to shut up.

It was something about hating the word "allies" because it implies people who are in your estimation insufficiently committed.

[Juana]

No, they're people who are being bigots while clinging to sincere fictions. Treating gay men as accessories is not being an ally. It's not even tokenism, it's dehumanization. I thought you put it well when you called it "LIKE'ing". It's lipservice, not genuine belief. I object to lipservice, period.

So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.

I really wish I hadn't about up my problem with LIKE allies. Apparently, commenting on my frustration with LIKEers was a bad idea.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, they're people who are being bigots while clinging to sincere fictions. Treating gay men as accessories is not being an ally. It's not even tokenism, it's dehumanization. I thought you put it well when you called it "LIKE'ing". It's lipservice, not genuine belief. I object to lipservice, period.

So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.

I really wish I hadn't about up my problem with LIKE allies. Apparently, commenting on my frustration with LIKEers was a bad idea.

As you pointed out to me, it's a fucked up world.  Sometimes you have to decide between "bad" and "worse", if only in the short run.  If people are LIKEing the cause, well, that's better than what they did to Matthew Shepard.  Priorities can be kind of important, here.

Stop the arterial bleeding in the leg, THEN worry about the scratch on the forehead.  Co-opt everyone you can, no matter how shallow they might be.  Dragging them along given their tokenism may be distasteful in the extreme, but the only way you're going to improve them is by INCLUDING them and then EDUCATING them.  Ostracizing them is more likely to get results you don't want.  What's the old line?  "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

Basically, you have to decide whether you are results-oriented, or religious.

[Juana]

I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.