That's an interesting point. I guess if it was a guy that was essentially equivalent to this young lady that only got his job because he was an ignorant, revisionist, racist, eye-candy man that was in lock-step with papa Glenn...?
I'd like to think I'd call him out for being just as shitty a person, only with nuts. To be fair, there aren't many misandry terms in popular use that I know about.
But really, I think the description fits in this case.
She ain't there for any reason besides being hot, and Beck liking what he sees.
None.
At all.
If she (heaven forbid, really!) got into an accident or got some nasty skin thing going on, she'd be out on her ass answering the phones in a hot minute.
Not a single thing she said was rooted in any kind of scholarly or even a wikipedia-level understanding of news or history. She's not bringing anything new to the table. Black people are bad for wanting to be treated like white people. Got it. She parrots what she hears from the boss, and stays inside those lines.
I even lined up a number of problems with her ideas in the description, and even the first post.
So yeah, I see where you're coming from. But this shitty woman neatly fits the term pet blonde.
Certainly not every blonde, or every woman for that matter!
But certainly this blonde.

Hazelnut, stop being a twat.

Her job is looks, she got her job 'cause of looks.
What the fuck do you want?

Call it what it is, and I'll follow you when you want to say shit in other directions.

The mysogyny is justified with her because she herself is a mysogynist playing the right wing's side.

I don't think this woman really deserves your understanding, Hazel.

You'd better not be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

She didn't become a pet blonde when she dyed her hair, it happened when she crawled under Beck's folds.

Wait, is Beck going blind because he's turning into a sandworm?

She would be very upset if you argued that she did not get that platform on her own merit... she is way more talented than the 100,000 white men who post a variation of this racist diatribe on youtube every day. She is way more articulate fumbling through those talking points.... and the ugliness of her personality and intellect negates anything physically attractive about her.

I read the Jesse Williams speech. It has some choice fuckin' separatist ideas in it.

This speech I don't even want to know about, but given the political climate right now, I think even a Beck toady could be right twice a day.

Everyone is going insane. Beck's just had his foot down on the gas for longer than most.

What the hell are you two talking about? It is neither racist nor separatist. (BTW, there's nothing wrong with black separatism. Given the history of how white people have treated & continue to treat them in this country, it makes a lot of sense.)

You're going to need some citations for either of your claims.

"Segregation is the key to racial tolerance!" ~Anaxagoras

"Given the history of how white people have treated & continue to treat them in this country"

So because of the actions of the few, your answer is to lump the many in with them. Now, where have I heard that reasoning before...

Mind boggling...

I'm not critical of every point in that speech. But he uses the truths to lever the rhetoric, and much of the rhetoric in the name of destroying one's enemies also:
-is fairly destructive of seeing others with shared humanity
-paints all of the outgroup with one big stripe
-massively generalizes and repeatedly frames things as simple dichotomies
...as I think will become clear in particular below. But it's hard for me to give credit for Williams identifying the wrongs that his group suffers fairly accurately while at the same time he vilifies with complete prejudice, and rallies under a simplistic 'us vs them' banner.

I'll stick to the most salient points, and skip any finer points. The speech is a preaching-to-the-choir speech, and if you're in the choir you agree with the rhetoric because you will let your preacher speak as he pleases. But the same kinds of rhetoric would not fly if you heard it from another group.

1) You can conclude quite a few things from the Tamir Rice case. Two of the first things you have to say about it is that it's horribly complicated, and that, statistically speaking, the cops would have risked their lives more with a crazy kid with a replica toy gun if he was white.

But it wasn't a 'drive by', and people's prejudices don't always work the way that melodrama and the unsciencey side of campus tell you they do.

The rhetorical point he wants to make here is that nothing has changed and the police are thugs. That's a massive generalization and levered only by the gravity of the incident. Everything he says on this subject is pure rhetoric and collapses into a dichotomy of 'all progress' versus 'no progress'. The real world will forever be a messier place than that tidy bit of rhetoric. 'Some progress but some horrible problems' doesn't get you a BET standing ovation.

2) The 2000's don't compare to the 1600's or 1700's for anyone, let alone African Americans. Pure bullshit.

3) At least two of my black friends would hear the "someone’s brand on our body" with acidic levels of irony dripping from it, given what they think of BET over the years. Short of following this paragraph with "fuck you, BET", I highly doubt they'd be on board anymore, but I will ask.
And given what they explained about BET, I'd have trouble disagreeing.

4) "If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression." I reject this sort of special-pleading type of argument out-of-hand when any and all groups make it. It's not rhetorically very different from "You can't criticize us cops unless you have been a cop".

"if you have no interest in equal rights for black people then do not make suggestions to those who do" : is the definition of this interest an open question, or is it defined by identity politics? Should I be able to understand this through our shared humanity, or should I get race-carded on this?

5) "this invention called whiteness" : we're just into metaphysics now. It's just the totalizing rhetoric of black vs white. Nice.

If it wasn't for the 'whiteness', the rest of the paragraph sounds like he could be describing Russell Simmons.

"extracting our culture" = stealing our precious fluids
He even says "like oil - black gold". Basically, when you're sleeping, whiteness crawls up through your drain, comes over to your bed, and sucks all the black gold out of you. They're putting whiteness in the drinking water, you know.

All 'cultural commodification' or 'co-opt' talk comes from nothing but prejudiced metaphysics. It's like a step and a half over from "don't date our women" talk.

@That guy: I asked for citations, and you gave some. (Well, justifications, but same thing.) I owe you a response, and I'll write one, but I don't have time tonight; real life has gotten in the way. *Shakes fist* Hopefully tomorrow I'll get to it.

no worries man
go live real life

May I remind you that the last time we sparred I asked for a qualification, you gave it and I changed my mind...? It's on record, but I can't remember which thread.

...and this video has fallen off the front page. Oh well.

On with the response!

1) I don't think the Tamir Rice case was "horribly complicated". It seems pretty straightforward: "Cop saw black kid with a (toy) gun, freaked out, and shot the kid." That's the entire story. It was a travesty of justice that the cop received no punishment for his actions. You seem to disagree with that basic summary, so I don't think there are any words I can use to help you see the blacks' point of view. (A POV which I share, by the way.) I can, however, speak to this:

"The rhetorical point he wants to make here is that nothing has changed and the police are thugs. That's a massive generalization and levered only by the gravity of the incident."
It doesn't matter that it's a generalization. It doesn't matter that there are good cops. What matters to a black person is that any interaction with the police has a significant chance of devolving into police brutality. That's the reality that they have to deal with, and it's a reality that's unacceptable.

2) "The 2000's don't compare to the 1600's or 1700's for anyone, let alone African Americans. Pure bullshit."
No it's not. It's just slight hyperbole. And its warranted by the extreme hyperbole often vocalized by whites that everything's OK and the blacks are hyperventilating.

3) I think I agree with you on this point, but I'm not 100% sure I understand you. Either way, it doesn't seem like a central point in your post.

4) ""If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression." I reject this sort of special-pleading type of argument out-of-hand when any and all groups make it. "

It's not special pleading. It's pointing out that people who only see a problem when things go ever-so-slightly against the whites should shut the fuck up, because they clearly have no perspective and no interest in understanding the situation. It seems like a reasonable demand to me. It's similar to Conservative asshats who are chock full of advice for the poors as to how to manage their money better, but who never listen (or try to understand) when the poors try to tell them that they don't *have* any fucking money.

5) ""this invention called whiteness" : we're just into metaphysics now."

What? No. Race is a social construct. (i.e. it's invented) That's all he's referring to.

If you haven't heard that theory, just google it & read a bit. It's a fairly solid theory, and I think it's more-or-less undisputed.

Anax, I'd be most likely to have a long discussion on #1, and concede a lot of points. I still think it was a difficult situation, given that the toy gun was replica quality. I do think that it should have gone to trial, though. I probably should have said that in the first place.

On #2, I'll leave that for readers to decide if it's "just slight hyperbole" to say that 2012 is the same difference as 1612.

On #3 I think neither of us finds anything useful to debate here.

On #4, I can't agree that the critique of a given movement must come out of a certain mouth to be valid, in any context, ever. I don't accept that when the police do it, or CEOs, or call girls or Longshoreman union reps or christians or NRA members or unicorns. I think that's being confused with the scope and context of the critique itself, which is totally valid in ethics. I have nothing to give for the identity politics side of that speech or any other.

For #5, there are 'black people' who aren't a social construct, they're a people; and there is 'an invention called whiteness' which is the oppressor, full stop. I really, really urge you to look at that part of the speech rhetorically and not with an apologist's point of view. Please, Anax. "Race is a social construct. (i.e. it's invented) That's all he's referring to" doesn't begin to understand what he's talking about there. Massive generalizations and shitty metaphysics abound.
Everything about "extracting our culture" is just the death of ethics based on shared humanity, and it counts on some really rancid generalizations to do its work.
I assume that you're not telling me a story about pure politics, but that you have an ethical argument to go with here too.


I hope your real life stuff that 'got in the way' was the good kind, like holiday weekend stuff, etc.

Yeah, my real life stuff was good stuff.

Two quick things:

On #4: It's not that criticism can only come from certain mouths. Rather, it's that criticism that comes from certain mouths (i.e. the kind that exclusively criticizes black activists) is blind at best, and disingenuous at worst. Those one-sided criticisms may have a point, but it's not worth engaging a discussion with them because you're guaranteed to be talking with someone unwilling to engage with the entire picture.

On #5: There are no "black people", biologically speaking. Even though we can intelligibly talk about racial groups, those are very loose groupings that are semi-useful shorthand rather than well-defined groupings. All you have to do is look at the border of racial groups, and you'll quickly see that race doesn't have much basis in biology. But it definitely has a basis as a social construct. There definitely is a "Black American experience", in a way that there isn't a "Black American" racial group. And if there is a Black American social construct, it stands to reason that there's also a White American social construct. The White American social construct happens to be nearly invisible, because it's considered the default.

#4 I'll agree with what you said, without reservation. But I'm not sure that's what Williams is saying, at all.

#5 I'm not disagreeing with you or science about race being semi-illusory, or maybe biologically illusory is more precise. I hope you didn't think I was disagreeing with that, but I failed to go into that the first time through.
I don't think that's what Williams is up to in that paragraph or the whole speech. I really don't.
I don't know what to do with a sentence like "The White American social construct happens to be nearly invisible, because it's considered the default." What would make something like that true or false? It just sounds like a set-up for a rhetorical move and not an observation on its own.

Or just have a read of it instead:

TRANSCRIPT:

"Peace peace. Thank you, Debra. Thank you, BET. Thank you Nate Parker, Harry and Debbie Allen for participating in that .

Before we get into it, I just want to say I brought my parents out tonight. I just want to thank them for being here, for teaching me to focus on comprehension over career, and that they make sure I learn what the schools were afraid to teach us. And also thank my amazing wife for changing my life.

Now, this award – this is not for me. This is for the real organizers all over the country – the activists, the civil rights attorneys, the struggling parents, the families, the teachers, the students that are realizing that a system built to divide and impoverish and destroy us cannot stand if we do.

It’s kind of basic mathematics – the more we learn about who we are and how we got here, the more we will mobilize.

Now, this is also in particular for the black women in particular who have spent their lifetimes dedicated to nurturing everyone before themselves. We can and will do better for you.

Now, what we’ve been doing is looking at the data and we know that police somehow manage to deescalate, disarm and not kill white people everyday. So what’s going to happen is we are going to have equal rights and justice in our own country or we will restructure their function and ours.

Now… I got more y’all – yesterday would have been young Tamir Rice’s 14th birthday so I don’t want to hear anymore about how far we’ve come when paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then going home to make a sandwich. Tell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that toEric Garner. Tell that to Sandra Bland. Tell that to Dorian Hunt.

Now the thing is, though, all of us in here getting money – that alone isn’t gonna stop this. Alright, now dedicating our lives, dedicating our lives to getting money just to give it right back for someone’s brand on our body when we spent centuries praying with brands on our bodies, and now we pray to get paid for brands on our bodies.

There has been no war that we have not fought and died on the front lines of. There has been no job we haven’t done. There is no tax they haven’t leveed against us – and we’ve paid all of them. But freedom is somehow always conditional here. “You’re free,” they keep telling us. But she would have been alive if she hadn’t acted so… free.

Now, freedom is always coming in the hereafter, but you know what, though, the hereafter is a hustle. We want it now.

And let’s get a couple things straight, just a little sidenote – the burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander.That’s not our job, alright – stop with all that. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest, if you have no interest in equal rights for black people then do not make suggestions to those who do. Sit down.

We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo, and we’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit. The thing is though… the thing is that just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real.

Thank you."

No no no no.... you don't understand. He was ANGRY when he recited the speech. The BLACK MAN was ANGRY. I don't want a RACE WAR, but sometimes you gotta PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACE, if you know what I mean.

Trump 2016!

That last paragraph sounds pretty racist to me. Does it count as racism if you use vocabulary to dehumanize a group of people?

Does that mean it's not racist if I say "This invention called blackness sure likes to eat watermelons and steal bikes!"

I'm pretty sure that's still racist. At least by the current dictionary definition. On the other hand, I watched the blonde lady clip twice, and I couldn't actually identify any racist comments. Sure, I can see why someone would assume that she is racist, but she didn't actually say anything racist.

Bawbag your comments are so skewed by your own special perspective.

"That last paragraph sounds pretty racist to me. Does it count as racism if you use vocabulary to dehumanize a group of people?"

Yeah man, some words that might hurt some white feelings are -literally- the same as the hundreds of years of systemic brutalisation, enslavement and oppression in a system that still overwhelmingly disenfranchises, dehumanises, punishes and kills black people.

#NOTALLWHITES right? ffs, I can't roll my eyes any further at people who reach this hard.

As for 'not being able to identify any racist comments' well I'd have to assume your own 'special perspective' has a lot to do with that.

Actually I was being very objective and using the dictionary definition of racism to try and identify racist statements in Tori Lahren's monologue, and I couldn't find any that matched the simple criteria of that definition. You can accuse me of a bias if you like, but I would be willing to admit that I am wrong if you could provide a single example.

I really don't understand the logic that you use. Some racism is OK, because other racism is worse? Was worse? Racism is racism, dude. This isn't a racism contest.

'stop complaining about white people oppressing you and cops killing your kids, also we freed you guys and would it kill you for -once- to thank us for our white magnanimity?" - not racist

"It would be great if 'whiteness' would stop killing our kids and treating us like absolute dogshit for the first time in centuries" - the real racism.

We're through the looking glass, people.

Is it possible for you (bawbag) to agree that racism in any direction is wrong? It doesn't seem like you'd ever agree, based on what I'm seeing here.

Yes, Gmork racism/prejudice are fucked up things, but can we not do that thing where we pretend like 'hurt white feelings' have the same outcomes as racism against minorities?

I mean when white people are having their kids murdered by cops routinely, thrown into prison more easily for non-violent offences, churches shot up by racist gunmen, lynchings and hundreds of years of it, then we can do a 1 to 1 comparison but I'm not buying the 'calling out whiteness for historical and present-day abuses is racism' shit at all.

That's not even a subtly nuanced difference, that is a wide gulf in experience, harm and outcome.

Explain what's wrong with the dictionary definition of racism. It's fairly simple and encompassing.

"Man discovers dictionary definition, overturns entire fields of study/centuries of human experience! More at 6!"

The battle to complicate the definition of the word racism itself is indeed absurd and pointless.

And you accuse me of being obtuse.

The only reason I even mentioned the dictionary definition of racism is because there are ever so many definitions going around. I figured I would clarify my meaning.

I don't really buy into that "power + prejudice" definition of racism I've encountered. Nor do I buy into the "imaginary quote" school of objective criticism.

"I don't really buy into that "power + prejudice" definition of racism I've encountered."

Well, there's a surprise.

You're saying 'well I don't agree with decades of work by academics, or the definitions used by those who actually suffer disproportionately from racism; here's a simplistic, lingual prescriptivist definition I do agree with'

...and then you can pointedly ignore anything that doesn't fit that eg. loaded language, dogwhistles, none of which exist apparently because the dictionary doesn't explicitly mention it under 'Racism'.

Honestly, is this yet another tedious poetv 'bit' or are you actually this thick IRL?

I'm also not surprised that the definition of racism that you use excludes the possibility of anyone ever being racist against white people.

But let's talk about who is thick. This "power + prejudice" definition of racism that is used by people like yourself is used erroneously. Those academics you're talking about were actually defining institutional racism. But, I suppose you can conveniently usurp it for your own purposes, right?

This is all quite tedious and pointless. Call it what you want. Generalizing a huge variety of people in a negative way, many of whom are demonstrably innocent of any involvement in any racial wrong-doing, negatively stereotyping white people, is hateful. Being a bigger victim doesn't give anyone a right to this.

"Those academics you're talking about were actually defining institutional racism."

Which is -exactly- what Williams' speech was about, but hurr durr let's get mad that he used the word 'whiteness' and then try pretending it's an apples to apples comparison.

Damage control/10

As for the 'bigger victim' remark. Sure, there's no difference at all between someone who once got told they should be run over by a bus and someone who was repeatedly run over by one. I'll have 5g of whatever you're smoking, thanks.

I'm sorry, but white people are not an institution. Using the term "whiteness" implies that white people are responsible for institutional racism, and that's a hateful stereotype.

Honestly, you seem like the one who is mad. And hateful. Good luck being an angry, hateful shit.

"RACISM CANT EXIST TOWARDS WHITE PEOPLE BECAUSE HISTORY" ~bawbag

"I'm sorry, but white people are not an institution. Using the term "whiteness" implies that white people are responsible for institutional racism"

Oh sorry, are black people responsible for enslaving and mistreating themselves for hundreds of years? White people's hands are totally clean in the matter? Fuck off.

"and that's a hateful stereotype."

I'm sure your hurt feelings are just as bad as cops killing your kids, or almost a whole society treating you like a thug, or a system of 'justice' that determines skittles and defending yourself were enough reason for you to be shot.

"Honestly, you seem like the one who is mad. And hateful. Good luck being an angry, hateful shit."

Mad no, I just find it incredible the mental gymnastics that people will go through in order to shout 'NO YOU' at black americans when they rightly stand up and point to the horrors visited on them by -precious white people- who can't admit that, yes in fact 'whites' are to blame in nearly every case of institutional racism as they hold (and have held the majority of) institutional power.

Good luck tilting at that straw windmill though brave brave Sir Cracker. Truly you are the oppressed. :^)


Gmork
"RACISM CANT EXIST TOWARDS WHITE PEOPLE BECAUSE HISTORY" ~bawbag

Which is exactly not what I said. Point to the institutional racism that stops whites from doing anything, when was the last time white drivers were profiled purely on the colour of their skin, when were the last lynchings of whites or the like?

'A BLACK MAN SAID WHITE PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS AND PROP UP THE SYSTEM THAT DOES THOSE BAD THINGS, THAT'S EXACTLY THE SAME BAWBAG!' - You lot.

Honestly, ridiculous stuff.

Meant as a reply :\

If Whites inappropriately "appropriate" Black culture, why is it that nobody watches BET?

That's exactly what I'd expect a memedumpster to do.

I've printed this thread and lined a body pillow.

What's space precinct? Also, I wouldn't bet on this space staying safe for long as the one or two enemies I have here actively peruse my profile to descend on my conversations with their scores of catfish IDs to try and disrupt or marginalize my opinions. I'm doing some light research on this SP however and it certainly looks like it will warrant a full series download

I think you will enjoy it. It's an amazing spectacle of really talented people coming together to fail to make something greater than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the screenwriting.

And yet its sincerity makes it so much better than most just bad tv shows. I am thoroughly addicted.