All of us white people are fucking up lately. I thought I might as well publicize my latest addition to the pile for purposes of ridiculing.
Blackamazon wrote a post that I felt got off to a rather nasty start with what I saw as violent venom directed at Amanda for the burka dust-up, and I expressed genuine shock in the comments. However many times I read the post, I couldn’t get past the opening. I saw the nod by Blackamazon to Amanda’s apology later in her post as sarcastic, and didn’t take it at face value.
Of course, all of this was wrong. Yes, the opening is incendiary, but clearly not actually violent. And the nod to the apology was sincere. I had a personal reaction to something that wasn’t personal — or literal — at all. Moreover, what was said in the opener was tempered later in the post and I couldn’t see that.
I got hammered in the comments, naturally. I deserved much of it, though Bitch|Lab took the occasion to be exceptionally nasty. Eventually, it got through to me. Because I know some of the people mentioned personally, I was deeply distracted by the opening salvo, but that was my problem/mistake, not Blackamazon’s.
It never makes sense to take anything personally out here, especially something that isn’t directed at you. Sorry again, Blackamazon. I read your post all wrong.
Reading this, Marc, I pumped a pearl necklace all over my shoes, or something.
-salute-
It’s a thing I do all the time. People insult schoolteachers and I go nuclear, because I take it as a personal slam at a person I love. And on more than one occasion the person has been saying something worth listening to, and I miss that.
Best to avoid it, needless to say, but good on you for changing course, which is distressingly unusual for the internets (and why I didn’t retract my thanks to r. mildred in the next room.)
It’s a thing I do all the time. People insult schoolteachers and I go nuclear, because I take it as a personal slam at a person I love. And on more than one occasion the person has been saying something worth listening to, and I miss that.
I’ll have to remember that if I ever post about my public-school experiences, then, because teachers like your wife–who I’m sure is at least as unbelievably wonderful as her husband says–were few and far between.
I’ve had some nuclear feelings lately, but mostly via email, and I’ve struggled with posting about them after the fact or just pretending they never happened.
you apology is accepted but I would like to note that Bitch apologizes to you later for her misstep in her comments after your apology.
Also because she cursed when she was frustrated does not make it particularly nasty.
She felt towards me the way you felt towards Amanda and she took issue not just with what you said but how you said it and how little you thought about it until we stepped to you.
I am accepting your apology in good faith but would like that hers be accepted as well because if nothing else it does come from the same impulse.
Bonne Sante
FWIW, if this doesn’t continue, I don’t think it’s that’s Marc is ignoring this conversation. He’s out of town.
I’ve used this joke before (during the Domenech debacle) but the whole thing – not just this but starting with the photoshop issue – reminds me of the final scene of Reservoir Dogs. All in good fun do I make this comparison…
“Larry, stop pointing that fucking gun at my dad!”
And by “all in good fun” I certainly don’t mean for a minute to belittle a single concern that anyone has raised. I just think pop culture references are always fun.
Too soon?
Marc
Kevin and I and BfP and others — one of the things we love about each other is that we call each other on our shit. The other day BfP and I got into it and she wrote me offlist talking about how she was pissed and be careful of the knife because I might get knifed. And she just kept playing with that metaphor of knifing me through out.
I get down on my knees and praise the sweet baybay jaysus i don’t believe in that I got some fucking honesty and not reams of reams of pussy footing around. I’m fucking pissed off at you right now, she was saying. I deal. it’s my job to deal. I fucked up and I get to listen and shut the hell up and not focus on norms of propriety and how she should be sayig things so as to not offend my tender sensibilities.
Who the hell says nasty things about schoolteachers, at least as a group (at least the sincere ones)?
What was interesting about that was how, sincere and misguided, you managed to come off as a troll. It’s why I try to engage with trolls I disagree with (at least the ones who hold back on the gratuitous insults) – there’s always a hope that they could realise their mistake and apologise.
Who the hell says nasty things about schoolteachers, at least as a group (at least the sincere ones)?
Not to derail, but my family does, but that’s because my parents watched the public-school system in this area systematically beat any interest in learning out of their children. I think it’s not an uncommon experience, albeit no real excuse for generalizing to all schoolteachers everywhere.
Who the hell says nasty things about schoolteachers, at least as a group (at least the sincere ones)?
In addition to what piny said, the other group that says nasty things about schoolteachers are those who have a vested interest in seeing public schooling dismantled.
Those people, and anti-evolution wackjobs.
Yeah, I make no apology for the libertarian faction; I’m just pointing out that some of us are socialists who have problems with this particular public-education system rather than public education in general.
Just a thought, but what if you read it as violent, because that is how you may automatically assume “they” always behave?
Perhaps you should think about that. When white girls are trying to get to the bottom of something, they are on a quest, but when women of color are trying to get tot he bottom of something, they are out to fight, destroy, etc….
Can’t speak for Marc, but I’m thinking the mention of getting a knife out is more likely the culprit.
oh lordie. really, didn’t we already cover that at the place of the author in question?
anyone who was at all familiar with BA’s oeuvre -or- with the general notion of, you know, hyperbole? anger? would not have even considered taking that -literally-, ffs.
i mean: d00d, this is PUNKASS blog. “Pretty Violent,” anyone? any one of the angry rants made right here? come ON.
…fuck, it -is- “Pretty Vacant,” after all.
but even so.
“Beat on the Brat,
beat on the brat,
beat on the brat with a baseball bat,
Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh-oh…”
Having read the thread, I don’t see why anyone should have to apologize to anyone else. I have to admit the intro to BA’s post struck me as extremely hostile towards Amanda. It was just rhetoric, but very strong words were used.
Then BA and her commenters pointed out that these knife metaphors were a running joke on the blog. Okay, makes sense. It’s easy to take an isolated post out of context, especially on a blog you don’t read regularly. Marc accepted that explanation and apologized for jumping to conclusions.
Then people started assailing Marc for raising the issue in the first place. Ironically, when it came to BA’s post, authorial intent became paramount and conventional significance dropped out of the discussion. People were arguing that BA didn’t mean to be hostile, and that therefore she wasn’t hostile, and that therefore Marc must be somehow sinister for raising the objection in the first place.
We can all agree that uncharitable interpretation sucks. I think it’s incredibly uncharitable to assume Marc took BA’s intro as a literal serious death threat. I mean, this is the internet. People engage in extravagant online rhetoric all the time with zero intention of following through on any of it. Besides, BA and Amanda live in different states.
Marc was obviously taken aback by the vehemence of BA’s metaphors. Is that wrong? It’s disconcerting to have a stranger make jokes about doing you serious bodily harm. You don’t have to confuse jokes with threats in order to find that kind of talk unsettling.
Marc’s initial emotional reaction was perfectly understandable, especially given that he didn’t know context for the post. I don’t understand why people tore strips off him for not checking BA’s other posts for knife metaphors. I mean, WTF? If someone from The Free Republic made those kinds of remarks, I wouldn’t go back and check their work to see if they joke about knives all the time.
I’m not suggesting he took it literally. I’m saying that when you link someone with whom you are not very angry in the same batch as those with whom you are very angry, and you then express a desire to cut people, it isn’t immediately clear how serious you are or who your wrath is really directed towards.
Blackamazon DID make that clear later on in the post–crystal, in fact–and that’s why she was right on telling Marc to read the damn post before commenting. But I can see how, if you’d just skimmed the post and you were close to Amanda personally, you might fly off the handle–which reaction, I believe, has also already been explained?
As for hyperbole, hyperbole normally contains some element of the absurd that cues in the reader. It’s why hyperbole is normally directed at people you’re either (1) faux-mad at (the blogger Dooce once threatened to “cut” her readers for not warning her that Taco Bell had discontinued tostadas) or (2) really, seriously mad at, but have no realistic way to enact that anger towards (for example, threatening to cut the Pope).
Then again, the Vatican’s legal team might disagree with me about #2. It’s not like internet stalking is this unheard-of phenomenon that never happens.
But you want to know my real point? Here it is: When Marc’s explained why he reacted as he did and thoroughly apologized for it, and that apology’s been accepted, it’s really acting in bad faith to ask him if he’s certain his motivations were what he said they were, and not derived from something uglier, such as thinking “oh, ‘they’ always do that.”
I mean, how do you know you’re really a feminist, belledame? Just a thought, but what if you read feminist blogs as sex-negative, because that is how you may automatically assume “they” always behave? Perhaps you should think about that.
And by the way, who here has stopped beating his wife?
See how offensive that is? Not very conducive to dialogue, is it?
Having read the thread, I don’t see why anyone owed anyone else an apology. When I first read BA’s post, I was viscerally perturbed. Obviously she wasn’t making multiple death threats. She was engaging in rhetoric.
On the other hand, she was joking about stabbing some friends of mine and/or grinding their faces into the mud. So, I understand why Marc might have have been unsettled by BA’s commentary:
“* rummages for cutlass*
Really?
No really.
You have to be kidding?
* blinks *
*Starts looking for cutlery*
I am going to add a donation button I really am because there is a better than average chance that I will do some hard time if I meet certain people.
Because fuck a scene I will cause a theatre festival.
Philadelphia Fringe will have nothing on the
Blackamazon Chokeamuddasuckapalooza.”
As BA and many of the commenters on her thread pointed out, BA jokes about knifing people all the time and doesn’t mean anything by it. As soon as Mark learned that, he immediately apologized, explaining that he’d misunderstood the knife joke as hostile.
But for reasons I don’t understand, the commenters on the thread weren’t willing to accept his initial apology. The general consensus seemed to be that Marc was out of line for asking whether this was a joke.
It would be BAD FAITH on MY part if I did that but althought I love her dearly I am not Belledame . She is allowed to ask him whatever she darn well pleases except in teh case of your response you’re adressing Sula ( hello my favorite book) since she asked the question but using your “example” to take a shot at Belle which I don’t appreciate.
Sula isnt speaking for me she’s asking for an examination of the why. She’s not me but she has a question.
And yes part of this is the fact that in about a year of blogging MANY of my blog posts have dealt with imagery of me ” Getting ready to defend” not attack but defend, in ways that are common to my experience as a proud proud Caribbean stereotyped hood rat hence the cutlass and not KNIFE ( if that what annoys me most is that I was SPECIFIC about getting a cutlass or machete something that I feel is a totem of my third world staus and my realtionship to the subjects of the posts)
I have been pulling machetes/cutlass , greasing my face,and playing war songs figuratively on my blog for MONTHS. Some of my points involve me cussing in multiple languages and casting dispersions on the familial relationships,and intestinal fortitude of bloggers near and far.And yes by his first comment he implied he took it literally. WHich meant he didn’t read my post, in which it was clear. THE fact that he did not understand that isn’t a failure of distinction but of reading.
To claim you’ve read my blog and miss that isn’t one of those small missteps it’s a ” you miss much of the perspective here” which is Belle’s point.
Finally why is it that because he apologized to me that the behavior can’t be questioned and examined by others.People who protested and were still upset after he apologized have THEIR OWN problems with his commentary shit i KNo BL and KAE have blogged about since before they knew me from Lilith or Eve.
They can question what was a very paternalistic patronising reaction for WHATEVER reason. They were not apologised to ( nor necessarily should they be and not a one has asked for it ) . They didn’t pile on to defend lil ole me they had actual problems with the discourse and teh path he chose in addition to wanting to care for me. When Marc brought it up I ADDRESSED HIS PROBLEMS with it. They do not feel he has adressed his. They can ask. They aren’t NECESSARILY ” trying to encourae discourse” and using that to shut down questions and try and shame posters is at best ill placed and worst rude.Not to mention you’re conflagrating two seperate concerns and posters in your rush to put them in their proper Tone for dialogue. Discourse does not mean you get to choose how and what is spoken off . Mark added to a discourse that will now forever involve him and exist around him . It”s what happens wether he intende to or whatever his reasons were
I and many other POC’s are asked to accept apologies on INTENT which is amusing because when we want to question actual intent it’s a problem. I’m not question after I accepted his apology because honestly I’m not sure i really care and if I want to find out the deeper meanings. What happened happened.
Some people do and since their not me theya re free to ask.
Lindsay which friend because at this point It is getting annoying that peopel continually lump in Amanda with the people i adress as I SAY IN THE POST IT”S NOT ABOUT HER ( which you don’t link to)
Also they do not question him asking , The question him literally saying ” that
Wow. Are you saying you want to attack Amanda Marcotte with a knife?
If you don’t see that as out of proportion to whatever insenitivity came out of that picture, especially after her apology…
Just.
Wow.
Like I was out of my damn or simple. He insterted my Supposed thought and tried to shame me for it.
He did NOT ask.He did not immediately apologize
I accepte dhis apology as as I said but they don’t have toand rather than portray them as unfathomable or uncomprhendable you could you know ASK them.
You know, I’d say more on the general subject, but I have to go give my mother forty whacks. And then my father forty-one. And then put down the axe, take up my icepick and jab all the straight men in the world to death. good times, baybee.
>I mean, how do you know you’re really a feminist, belledame? Just a thought, but what if you read feminist blogs as sex-negative, because that is how you may automatically assume “they” always behave? Perhaps you should think about that.>
I’m not parsing this, I’m afraid. Can you elaborate, please?
The suggestion was that being shocked, shocked by a person using the word “cutlass,” yes, even in relation to one’s friends, is not the common reaction; the reaction to BA’s post was something of an anomaly, at least in these here circles.
I mean, I’ve said some seriously nasty and, yes, ANGRY shit, about some of the same players mentioned in BA’s threads, even, no doubt; and my blog -is- entitled “fetch me my axe;” it’s not as though i exactly radiate kum-ba-ya-ness here; and yet somehow I don’t get quite the same level of “my god, you’re REALLY angry, you can’t possibly MEAN that, and, and a dangerous weapon, and EVERYTHING…can you? i am shocked, shocked.”
Why is that?
–o right, i missed the original “perhaps you should think about that” part of that post.
Well, anyway…ehh. I expect that part of this is that people feel stung because it seemed like we were on our way to a nice kum-ba-ya-esque apology and acceptance, which lord knows is a rare enough occasion itself on the Internets that i could see getting dismayed when someone comes in with something that looks like it’s opening it up all over again.
But I will say, I was a tad weirded out by the initial reaction to BA’s post, and not just because BA is -my- friend, I don’t think.
Like I say: it’s not as though exaggeratedly violent language is unknown on this blog. Marc himself might not make as much use of it as, say, R Mildred, but I hardly would’ve seen it as -shocking.- Being pissed about what’s seen as an attack on one’s friend, sure, but…
eh, anyway.
and I am also annoyed, I expect, that this was apparently the introduction a lot of people had to BA’s blog, when from my POV she should’ve been a lot more widely read long since.
I haven’t read BA’s blog before more than once or twice (I’ve just discovered most of y’all in the past week or so – my regular blog haunts are far outside of this sphere), and when I read the title to that post (followed the link from bfp’s, not here) and the intro, first thing I did was laugh. Maybe because I was raised around storytellers, or people in the theater or something… but I certainly recognized hyperbole and setting a scene… er, I mean, a theater festival.
Definitely my first thought was not to take it literally, but to settle in and look forward to the rest of the post, to see where she was going with all this… and it occurred to me that all the concentration on the apologies part and the cutlass and the first little bit of the post serves as a wonderful distraction from the actual content of the post, which few have actually addressed (that I’ve seen) . I could be wrong of course, one never knows anyone else’s um… intentions or anything, I just thought that was notable.
Possibly my reaction to the entire thing would have been far different had I actually known any of the people… well you know, I just went and re-read that, and there are no people mentioned in the top part. Just links. To specific posts at slant truth, pandagon, brownfemipower, this blog and well, firedoglake, that highlight what she talks about later on. How in heaven’s name, even with a literal reading, would anyone take away from that that she wanted to harm Amanda? Dang… I was all ready to do my “let’s consider both sides of the issue” thing and now I realize… there is no other side to this.
In my opinion, Marc was right to apologize and thankfully he had the strength and graciousness to do so.
BA, nobody suspects you of making death threats. Let’s just take that off the table right now. As you say, no reasonable, intelligent person would ever believe that you were threatening anyone. Not for a moment.
As we’ve discussed, no reasonable intelligent person takes texts at face value. Don’t treat Marc like an idiot. Extend him the same charity that you hope to receive from your readers.
Clearly he didn’t think that you were making death threats. He’s not an idiot. If he thought you were threatening anyone, he would have gone to the police and not asked you polite rhetorical questions about what you meant by your opening lines.
I mean, come on.
So, Mark makes a rhetorical gambit. Then your commenters explain to him that it’s really not a big deal. This is just how you and your commenters talk on the blog. And Marc’s like, okay, fine I misunderstood, I’m sorry.
As I said in my earlier comment, I’m not saying you were threatening Amanda or watertiger. In fact my point is that you weren’t and that nobody ever thought you were.
However, the initial post was very strongly worded and I must admit I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of your tone and the rather graphic imagery you used to get your point across. No doubt this is because I was reading your work out of context and was not familiar with the norms of discourse on your blog. I’m sure you didn’t mean any harm, you were just venting like we all do online. Your blog, your space. No harm, no foul.
OTOH, consider how Marc might have felt upon seeing a trackback in which some stranger is talking about cutting and doing hard time if she were to meet certain people (and linking to Amanda. Let’s not forget that Amanda ostensibly caused the incident that was the source of your extreme frustration, so it’s not unreasonable to assume that you might be really mad at her.) As I’m sure you know, Amanda has had real stalkers and harassers in the past, so this isn’t exactly an emotionally neutral issue for anyone close to her.
Vague jokes about serious bodily harm aren’t funny. Sorry. They’re even less funny than burqa jokes.
Yes, I did read your post and I saw that you thanked Amanda and Auguste for making a good faith effort, but I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of that in light of your earlier remarks. One shouldn’t take texts at face value. In light of the opening I thought maybe you were being sarcastic.
Regardless, once your commenters explained to Marc that you weren’t even kidding on the square about serious bodily harm, he immediately apologized. Yet, somehow you and your commenters weren’t prepared to accept that. Why not? Why was he immediately assailed for being a racist troll? Is that really what you and your commenters think of him? And if so, why would you waste your time commenting on his blog?
BA, I tried to link to your post, but it didn’t show up on the preview screen. I think Punkass Blog strips hyperlinks to prevent spam.
Here’s the raw link:
http://guyaneseterror.blogspot.com/2006/10/rummages-for-cutlass.html
I will not respond to a question that asks me to speak for people. I have said that time and time and again.
My posters are PEOPLE with seperate thoughts so if you have questions for them ASK Them.
You also can’t argue both sides of the coin I was either literally making a joke about causing harm or I was using hyperbole or I’m making a vague one . I can’t argue against any f them because my intent was not to do that but NAnette puts it perfectly it’s a story telling device.
However I won’t argue in the ” what I meant was vein” because what I eant isn’t the issue . I Wrote something I put it out there I accepted his apology.
I don’t hope to receive anything from my readers and my experiences as a blogger has taught that much. So i resent the insinuation that I owe anything. WHen I ASKED it for BitchLab MArc was kind enough to extend it. I extend him the courtesy of dealing with his words and being honest about my reactions.
The question he asked was NOT polite.I felt disrespected. It was a commentary on my intended meaaning which he didn’t know . He made his gambit. His gambit was are you implying this then you don’t see etc. He chose to assault my mental sense of balance IF that’s what I was intending. Which wasn’t JUST you’ve got to be kidding but was ” if you don’t see… etc” I’m not treating him as an idiot it’s in text.
It was a comment he made that ONLY could be made if HE DIDN”T READ WHAT I SAID before he typed.
The problem no at this point isn’t even what he said FOR ME but basic respect . He doesn’t HAVE to read understand or have an idea about what I’m doing to comment.
His second comment says
“And I don’t think you get very far communicating a message of understanding each other a “PEOPLE” by opening with talk of violence against people who, failing or not, at least want to be a part of the solution.”
NOw he’s inferring I WANT to confer understanding and he reasserts that I’m talking violence to Amanda the only one to whom his quote applies. And taht’s not an immediate apology.
So then other people , people who aren’t me step in . I say once again can’t and won’t speak for them. They each expressed DIFFERENT problems with his critiques. No one calls him a troll for more than THIS INSTANCE.
His apology is for not being able to discus sthe post which means he won’t adres smy points and didn’t cause he was rattled. HE also apologizes for distracting as if that’s the BIG ISSUE.
What I was ( and stillam ) hut and offended by is not the POST. It’s the behavior and the presumption made about me in making it.
I didn’t get the whole thing just this.
I won’t really be able to discuss thing becuase I’m upset.
The presumption of my having a violent character.
The demanding in those thing that I on MY SPACE make my words more useful by implying I miss agoal I”M NOT AIMING FOR?
Your thoughts ideas and comfort so i can identify hwo you are in your space in your words. is less important than telling you what interpretation of you text I choose to make is wrong
I( only me) accepted his apology. Doesn’t mean I’m not stillhurt . It also doesn’t mean that I or anyone else can’t discuss anywhere they want to INCLUDING what precipitates what essentially was a large amount of disrespet.
Also you assume that because I and people who argree with me ( not my defenders) have not experienced attacks that will not benignly motivated LIKE THIS exercising that kind of privilege in OUR SPACES. BFP gets comments to curl my blood ( and i do mean curl) Think how THAT feels.
This wasn’t a come SAVE ME ! thing. I mentioned it and peopel responded because they were pissed and I resent being asked to speak for them ESPECIALLY when they all are linked and you can approach them.
I never said he was a racist troll nor do I believe he was treated as one.
I KEEP SAYING I ACCEPTED HIS APOLOGY but I REFUSE to throw a banner parade and absolve him from others . I won’t deny them their agency to critique as they see fit.
For this reason I’m commenting because as I read comments I am watching people repeat the though processes by asking me to speak for others,conflagrating peopel into one large “people who won’t accept apologies”lump.
Unless it’s an everybody apology and I’m suddenly Chaka Khan and everywoman
And I’m commenting because I’m not going to see my name,myspace and space of other thinkers and peopel I value treated anywhich way. Commenting is not reserved to those who vehemently agree but also those that disagree.
are you fucking kidding me?
sex negative feminists are emphatically not the object of a wider culture of oppression embedded in every single institution. belle’s personal stereotypes, a tendency to base future action and assumptions on past experience, something we ALL do and must do, is not the equivalent of drawing on a stereotype of people of color that dominates this country and has for ages.
belle may be a jerk for making assumptions and bringing stereotypes and baggage with her to reading other blogs, but she’s not participating in and reinforcing a wider sysyem of oppression in which people of color are systemically and systematically claimed to be at once violent and so dumb they can only be step-n-fetchits. that in conjuction with myriad others actions, beliefs, and normative practices all combine to shape a birdcage of oppression where the one bar — being assumed to be violent — looks easy to get around if your up close and can’t see the rest of the bars. But when you step back you see interlocking bars and a floor of solid metal that prevents you from shitting on anyone. It restrains movement.
Belle’s individual behavior does not participate in wider systerm of oppresion that restrains the movement of feminists.
I can’t even freakin believe feminists don’t understand this and claim reverse racism like this. MEn claim reverse sexism and you accept it? I doubt it.
The five faces of oppression, Iris Marion Young
Marilyn Frye on Oppression
From Iris Marion Young:
Oh, Jeez, Lindsey–do you extend that same “vague jokes about bodily harm” business to the posts here? Because I’ve seen a lot stronger shit than that. Look up any of the recentish posts on Kos, for instance? I don’t think BA needs to be lectured about the appropriateness of her language or how she wants to express her anger. Marc apologized; BA accepted; as she says, she’s no one else’s keeper. Let it -go.- Please.
Lindsay:
Marc DID. he apparently thought she was so dumb that she would announce to the world her intention to murder and then couldn’t be bothered to lread the post.
That was the whole point. That in his haste to automatically assume she could only be a bad person when right on this blog, Rmildred is quite wonderful at engaging in hyperbole — which I happen to enjoy even when she sicking a knife in my leg. At least she doesn’t wrap ribbons, lace, and roses around, shove it my leg while handing me a handengraved invitation to tea and scones on the veranda at 4 pm. So, if marc tolerates that perfectly well, he needs to deal with the same kind of behavior elsewhere, even _when_ it SEEMS directed at someone he cares about.
I flew off the handle at him because I was simple enough to think that he really does want to do the extra work it takes to be an ally: read, learn, listen. that’s what he said he wanted. but you don’t get to say, “i’m an ally” without some extra effort on your part. I got the impression he understood that.
Given all the talk in the blogosphere about how it’s important to go after women who don’t get how they are the bearers of their own internalized oppression, I fail to see why the same doesn’t apply to me, you, marc, and anyone — including BA if she’s racist re: Chicanas or BfP if she’s racist re: American Indians — we don’t call each other on our shit, listen carefully, argue as decently as possible — even let some knives fly for awhile — but realize that none of us will actually melt if we’re criticized for reproducing the very systems of oppression we all say are pervasive in this society.
if they are pervasive, then we do not escape them.
everyone seems to accept that point re: sexism, but seems to be a little uncomfortable accepting it wrt racism.
this is amusing for people who are here b/c they are defending amanda? who wasn’t even attacked by BA
We forgot about the handy dandy reverse racism cards in your knapsacks of privilege
so you’re saying he’s aliar?
just to clarify: i think marc is cool for accepting. i just think these defenses are unfortunate because marc is actually a decent person who deserves better from his supporters than this horse shit.
I’m sorry–I should have made it clearer that I was responding to belledame and referencing Sula’s original comment.
Considering the insensitive burqua incident, the orly incident, the geisha incident this past week and the blackface incident, the whitewashed luncheon incident, the lack of apology about the luncheon incident, the Trex incident within the last month, the continuous insensitivity wrt race on white blogs and woc blogs and ensuing claims of reverse racism which doesn’t exist the way reverse sexism doesn’t exist don’t white people get the fact that they’d be as extremely angry if they were put in a similar situation?
Well, wouldn’t you think?
And in general (branching out from this particular blow-up), i find it particularly ironic and frustrating when white FEMINISTS don’t seem to tweak what the problem is here.
because they (we?) sure do get it when the shoe’s on the other foot. male privilege! sick of this shit! fuck you all!
but apparently something gets lost in the translation?
weary shrug.
>belle may be a jerk for making assumptions and bringing stereotypes and baggage with her to reading other blogs,
and just to be clear: if there is a genuine perception, ilyka, that i am going around calling x number of feminist blogs or bloggers “sex-negative” and that this is a problem, i would like to be called on it directly rather than have it brought up in this roundabout way.
it doesn’t have to be here–probably shouldn’t, since i don’t want to derail–but I dislike that sort of indirectness, if that’s actually what that is.
if it was meant to be an analogy that this is -not- in fact true of me but that i would find it frustrating if someone -did- say that, even as Marc would and presumably does find it angry-making that people are suggesting that he is a racist…
(which is how i thought i read that, but as i say: having a hard time parsing it out as phrased, and would like some clarification)
…well. People DO say that of me and more besides. Right here on this blog as well as elsewhere: I am a rape apologist, a selfish blowjob-defending patriarchy enabler, a “concern troll,” a “john,” an “anti-feminist,” a hypersensitive unenlightened “choice feminist” (whatever the fuck that actually means) who wants people to just stop “criticizing” ANYTHING about S-E-X, dammit, a hypocritical hand-wringer who can’t abide fighting unless I’m the one swinging the fist…and much much more!
Know what? I’m getting used to it. It can actually be sort of funny. And, as a childhood friend’s mother used to say of her lout of a husband whenever he said something particularly boorish,
“Consider the source.”
I do find it annoying, if grimly funny, when people use that kind of to -my- mind gross misreading of who i am and what i am saying, and then turn right around and squawk about how terribly TERRIBLY -hurt- they are at being misrepresented their very own selves.
and on a similar note, how people who keep exhorting others to EXAMINE i don’t know their predilections for stilletto heels or blowjobs or whatever the fuck it is suddenly turn hyper-defensive when pretty much exactly that–”please examine your shit” is asked of THEM in THEIR turn for something ELSE.
for example, internalized, unconscious racist attitudes.
If you truly don’t believe that calling someone on internalized unconscious sexism is the same thing as saying YOU ARE A SEXIST SEXBOT, then by God you ought to at least be able to understand that someone calling you on internalized unconscious racism is not the same thing as saying YOU ARE A RACIST BAD BAD PERSON.
IN my opinion.
the difference HERE is, to MY mind, that the people who are complaining about racist imagery feel PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY IT in a way that i, for whatever reason, just amn’t seeing when people complain about some other woman saying, “hey, I really like blowjobs, what of it?”
…for example.
but apparently something gets lost in the translation?
white people have a buddha that they haven’t killed generally.
You see, being a “non-racist” is central to many white people’s sense of identity, so much so that many people cannot grasp the very real likelyhood that they too are able to engage in acts of racism.
I think the line of reasoning goes something like: “I am not a racist, therefore what I say/do cannot be racist” and from there they just start rationalising wildly to make their racist actions join up with their self identity as a “non-racist”.
If you meet the non-racist in the road, strike it down!
…and i’ll say this. As much as i just finished bitching about how not fond i am of some of the crap that’s been flung my way, i am simultaneously aware that there are HUGE waves of anger among the bloggers of color at the shit that REGULARLY gets flung at them whenever any of them says something a white blogger doesn’t care for.
Dumb, uneducated, hypersensitive (my very favorite), “tokens” who’re only being coddled because of the (presumably far more enlightened and wise white liberals) guilt feelings, and oh yeah: ANGRY.
Angry angry angry. And for -no good reason.-
Gee, why in the world would “they” have cause to be angry? It’s so, well, irrational. We mean so well!
And it’s not like any of the REST of us EVER get irrationally angry, use cursing and even “violent” language about people who’re pissing us off…nonono.
Look, shall i be blunt? Why the fuck not. The reason people are getting so upset over what BA said isn’t because she said angry, “cutlass” wielding shit; it’s because she said it about One Of Ours.
and -we- are the GOOD GUYS.
right?
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.
Well you know something: yeah, personally? I think most if not all of you here -are- “good guys,” sure. Even the ones who’ve royally pissed me off and probably will do so again. You’re engaging at all; that counts for a lot in my book. -Which is also what BA and many of the “angry” POC folk have been saying repeatedly, did you care to listen.-
It’s just, you know. People are STILL angry.
And no, ffs, at least as far as -I- am concerned (i may be completely alone in this, but oh well), do -not- consider this an invitation for yet more mea, mea culpa, I Am A Terrible Person, I Suck.
Look, you don’t -suck.- No one here -sucks.- We are talking about -structural- shit here that -everyone- has. And beating yourself up relentlessly doesn’t help anything, so just knock it off, all right? It isn’t going to make the angry people less angry, because ultimately -they aren’t really that interested in how good a person you are, or how good your intentions are.-
They are saying, listen to -us. -US.- LISTEN TO US.
That’s all -anyone- is ever really asking, seems to me. Why is it so hard? Why?
And yeah, maybe some people are -still- gonna be angry even after you apologize and try to make amends.
It just is what it is. Take it on board, mull it over, see what, if anything, you want to take from the criticism.
But I gotta tell you: if the goal is really to stop getting those people so upset with you, on account of it makes you feel more like a Bad Person, I -guarantee- you are not gonna make people any -less- angry by saying, effectively, you do not have a right to be angry, because you have misjudged me and my noble intentions.
Even if that’s actually true.
Really.
I mean, cause: check it out. You know?
BL, BA, you guys are critical readers. You know there are lots of different ways of interpreting passage that contains threatening language or imagery.
Marc never thought that you were making serious death threats. To me, a serious threat means a credible threat of violence that the speaker intends to carry out. Virtually no blog post is ever that threatening: a) People say all kinds of outlandish stuff online, b) Given that the argument was about Photoshop and burqas, it’s hard to believe that anyone would really resort to physical violence, c) This is virtual space. It’s very unlikely that the speaker even lives in the same state as the target.
There’s a difference between a serious death threat and a vaguely menacing but hostile joke, or a non-menacing but extremely hostile metaphor…. There’s also a difference between a hostile joke and pure florid hyperbole. We’ve all agreed that you were engaging in rhetoric. However, as you’ve said so many times, intention doesn’t matter. It’s not unreasonable for someone to read hyperbole as hostility, especially in a heated exchange such as this one.
Marc was taken aback by your rhetoric. You said that your story was a protection metaphor, which makes sense. But the flip side of that is that you were joking about going on the offensive with a cutlass against certain people in the feminist blogosphere whom you were very, very angry at. There were certain people, perhaps unnamed, whom you joked that you’d beat up if you met them.
Marc asked you what you meant by your rhetoric. Roughly, he asked: Did you mean X? Because if you did, wow. That would be shocking. That’s a pretty standard tactic. You formulate a provocative paraphrase of your interlocutor, and you feed it back to them as a rhetorical question.
When you argue for the welfare state and someone comes back with, “Are you suggesting armed revolution?” You know they didn’t just get confused a few steps back and honestly wonder whether something you said about national healthcare implied the need for armed insurrection.
The principle of charity is necessary for interpretation. You can’t make sense of anything unless you assume that the person whose behavior or writing or art you’re trying to interpret is basically well-informed and reasonable (as you understand those terms). If you don’t make those assumptions, you’ll never be able to grapple with ambiguities. On its face, Marc’s initial comment could have been a sincere question or a rhetorical question.
Everyone hopes for the principle of charity, because without it, they’ll never be understood. BA, you get upset when you think someone might be taking your cultural protection metaphors as literal statements of fact or intent. That makes sense. I mean, you were describing some pretty outlandish stuff. And nobody thought you really intended to stab anyone. In fact, if someone concluded that you were really seriously issuing threats, that would speak badly of them as an interpreter and suggest that they weren’t in good faith.
Well, Marc is entitled to get the same benefit of the doubt. Just simple-minded literalism about cutlasses is bad, so too is insisting on the most literal interpretation of a question about whether you meant your last statement as a threat. It would evince bad faith for you to assume that Marc was literally fearing for his life. Why would you assume that?
His follow-up point was that if you were using violent metaphors about your fellow feminists, that didn’t put you in a very strong rhetorical position viz .the people you denounce for “othering” Afghan women. I mean, if joking about how Ann Althouse wants Jessica Valenti to wear a burqa is off limits, I don’t see how you can consistently joke about how you’re going to kick the asses of the people you disagree with.
>I mean, if joking about how Ann Althouse wants Jessica Valenti to wear a burqa is off limits, I don’t see how you can consistently joke about how you’re going to kick the asses of the people you disagree with.>
…okay, see, really, no.
point about WHY the burqa was a problem really, really missed.
it is not a question of people being too -sensitive,- okay; it was -appropriation.-
Bfp and others have talked about this in far more detail; i’m not gonna reinvent the wheel for ‘em; and honestly, i don’t know as anyone can say it any more clearly.
but it has fuckall to do with “kicking ass.” it has fuckall to do with “don’t make jokse or be MEAN; walk on eggshells.”
god, i can only imagine how frustrating this must be to some other people; i’m exhausted and this one isn’t even my own axe, really.
and finally: why in the fuck are people pleading -here- on behalf of charity for -Marc?- BA ALREADY ACCEPTED HIS APOLOGY. and this is HIS turf. why is this so very important, Lindsey?
what about–i hate the word here, but, ok, “charity” for BA? for all the bloggers of color who, let’s face it, the REASON they keep being -grossly- misinterpreted is because NO ONE IS BOTHERING TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING, unless–wait! fuck! it’s about ME, now! i’ve been dissed!
yeah-yeah?
i mean, if what this ultimately boils down to, all this semi-legalese or whatever, IF what this is all about is
MARC IS NOT A RACIST, AND NEITHER AM I
…well, okay, then. Fine. Now what?
But I mean: you’re hardly gonna convince BA or anyone else that no in fact there are -not- double standards going on here if you keep insisting that she not only accept Marc’s apology (WHICH SHE ALREADY DID) but admit that she was badwrong for using such VIOLENT language and accept that she is (for example) Sula’s keeper, as Spokesperson For Her People, All 345,700,900 of them, especially the one with the goiter.
fuck no. I wouldn’t do it. Would you?
and again, i gotta ask: have you been reading R Mildred right here on this blog? (for -one- example) do you talk this way to her about her exaggerated language? if not, why?
From what I can tell, Lindsay doesn’t want BA to accept Marc’s apology. She wants BA (and others) to conclude that no apology was needed in the first place.
Am not really sure what it is about apologies? They must have some significance that I am not aware of (beyond the obvious) as people were upset that Amanda apologized as well and wished that to be withdrawn.
If the person(s) in question feel that they are in some way at fault (or in some way wish to show that they have heard the other person and want to get past the original issue and “move on” to a deeper conversation… or another one entirely) why should one just not accept their decision? Is it not their decision to make?
I am hampered by not knowing any of the people involved beyond very surface readings of their blogs (and sometimes comment sections – oy)… but does this sort of thing seem really strange to anyone but me?
And it’s not like any of the REST of us EVER get irrationally angry, use cursing and even “violent” language about people who’re pissing us off…nonono.
Yeah, I’m really pissed off about coming here and finding people saying that there’s something wrong with violent imagery being used to illustrate a blogger’s frustration at our dumb* so-called-allies, How many times have I threatened to stick Kos on a set of meathooks and release small children at his gently swinging body with kitchen knives**? what is it, 5, 6 times?
And, if I recall correctly, that was never an issue, inspite of the fact that if I ever met Kos’ little skanky assm then it really would get a whupping, because every day in which people like kos are not being strung up from townsquares and put in the stocks so that rotten fruit can be thrown at them, as should be the true wages of sin, means one more day closer to the day when I will be in a camp wearing the black triangle with the other feminists – at which point I will never get the opportunity to kick kos’ ass again, and will be pissed at myself for the rest of my artificially shortened life for letting the opportunity pass by.
But I suppose none of that is the real point, this is another version of jeffy-poo whining about how liberals are going to kidnap his children, the point is not to actually say “this behavior is bad”, because our side might want to use it one day, but to distract from the initial matter at hand which should be a lot of people asking “why was she pissed off at amanda’s behavior in the first place? Could it be that POC in modern america are still so routinely discriminated against that even the silence of our friends (as MLK put it) is enough to make the boiling and bubbling rage they feel at the injustice of it all come to the surface?”
The apparent inablity to empathise with her feelings, and poo-pooing BfP’s point exactly like Trex did by avoiding the fundamental problem here to focus on a side issues that is of little to no interest or value to discuss, is the issue.
* literally dumb, as in unable to talk dumb, not dumb as in moulitsa***.
** Which is wrong because you should never give small children sharp implements to play with. Knives are not toys people.
*** moulitsa as in “probably suffering from the mental degeneration that goes with the tertiary stage syphilis they contracted after a townhouse meet up in Las Vegas” or to put it more succinctly; really really avorosis.
Lindsey Charity is not what I want treatment as a cognizcent human being is. I don’t extend charity . HAte teh concept I extend aid help and AN OPEN EAR . The welfare state thing was noted. what does or does not put me in a strong rhetorical position is not my concern not to mention doesn’t seem to be applie dto others using teh same device.In addition you have not adresse dteh not an imediate apology MTY ACTUAL SOURCE of ANGER . WASNT THE QUESTION IT WAS TEH WAY HE TREATED ME BY ASKING ANY SUCH QUESTIONW ITHOUT READING MY WORDS. BUt that is les simportant than trying to get me to concede im over reacting.And constnatly restating my post although you reallyd o seem not to have read it or anyone elses comments about it where much of this is adressed isn’t discourse or rhetoric. It’s thinly veiled “teaching”. I am many things not a one of em is illiterate and forgetful. We ARE CRITICAL readers and our CRITICISMS have fuck all to do with teh point you keep hoping we’ll make you seem to have zero interest in adressing anything I’ve actually said so at this point .Good luck to ya
> How many times have I threatened to stick Kos on a set of meathooks and release small children at his gently swinging body with kitchen knives**? what is it, 5, 6 times?
yes, thank you, i was trying to remember the exact phrase, or one of ‘em.
and, ftr, i thought it was funny.
i also thought BA was funny. and frankly, “rummages for cutlass” is a lot milder than…
eh, i’ve said it all already, no need to keep beating it into the ground.
i don’t -think?- i hope?
>Am not really sure what it is about apologies? They must have some significance that I am not aware of (beyond the obvious) as people were upset that Amanda apologized as well and wished that to be withdrawn.>
Besides everything else? Honestly? i think way too many people have internalized the idea, as exemplified (if not invented) by the Bush administration: that APOLOGIZING is a sign of WEAKNESS.
and that the only alternatives are to 1) grab power by becoming like them, or 2) be the victim, weak and spineless.
well, that’s crap.
and frankly that attitude ends up turning a lot of people into the very ‘Republican Lite” folks they supposedly detest.
Because it isn’t -just- about the -issues;- see, although, yah, that’s important, too (and frankly it is -also- weirding me out a tad to hear what to -my- mind has always been a classic right-wing talking point–cultural relativism is for moral idiots!, roughly–taken up by progressives and liberals);
it is about:
What -exactly- is the goal here, again?
Because if it truly is small-d-democracy, then i gotta say that -not- listening, -not- apologizing, -not- acknowledging that, gee, maybe i didn’t have all the answers after all *and that’s okay, just accept it and move on, that’s how we grow*–
Not. Helping.
Really.
“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
and no, “Meet the new boss, much like the old boss but marginally less hateful” is NOT acceptable either. That was, i thought, sort of the whole point of this little blogging endeavor?
Well, then?
Power. Think seriously about what that means. If there maybe isn’t some other -kind- of power that we’re many of us missing here in our haste to find exactly the right tactic to get what “they” have and be on top once again.