« Hoffmann's building |
| New media »
Post-racial America: "The Robesonian newspaper will no longer allow comments that are racial on stories that do not have a racial element."
More: "We can have a story about anything, and it turns into a race issue."
Maybe they learned it in college.
Nov 14, 2012 at 05:28 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017d3daaf778970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Black and white and read all over:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It's kind of unnerving to realize that the interwebs only have have given voice to the dumbness that was there, among us, all along.
Nov 14, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Well when every criticism of Obama is labeled as thinly veiled racism, code words for racism, etc., I can see why people are tired of it.
Dare I say that phony accusations of racism far outweigh actual racism, at least when it comes to public discourse.
Nov 14, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Really -- do you really?
(Sorry - I don't know how to insert this as a hyperlink.)
Peggy Hickle |
Nov 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM
As titles, this one and "just add money," set an already high bar even higher. You got clever, dude.
Nov 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM
+1 for peggy
sean coon |
Nov 15, 2012 at 08:58 AM
Well, that just settles everything then, doesn't it, Peggy?
Nov 15, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Empirical evidence leads one to believe that nothing is ever settled -- in the world, and for sure, not on this blog.
Peggy Hickle |
Nov 16, 2012 at 09:35 AM
Empirical evidence leads one to believe that absurd, over-the-top hysteria (particularly when it comes to agenda driven, not-so coded language like "raaaaaaaaaaacism!) is a regular feature from Usual Suspects in every part of this land. It's use is not exclusively reserved for the very Usual Suspects that plague our local blahgosphere.
Nov 16, 2012 at 03:26 PM
I assume that Bob's comments are intelligible to him, although maybe he's just typing what the voices say.
Ed Cone |
Nov 16, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I applaud their decision, and the Robeson editors would definitely have their work cut out for them at this blog, as evidenced by Ed's 3rd link, and Peggy's only one, which have ZERO to do with the reason for the policy, which was that "We can have a story about anything, and it turns into a race issue."
I am absolutely convinced that Racism-TM will never die in this country, because white liberals will never let it, as long as they can politically weaponize it, and attempt to validate it by occasionally trotting out examples remaining pockets of the real thing, which have always and always will exist, independent of whatever diminishing influence it has on society as a whole. I have no doubt that it was this sort of hackneyed diatribe that was itself largely responsible for the policy in the first place.
Worst person on the internet |
Nov 16, 2012 at 04:17 PM
My point was not about the policy, but about the comment that phony accusations of racism -- of which, I agree, there are many -- outweigh actual racism. I also sincerely doubt that the actual racism abounds because white liberals bring it out into the light. There may be a thin line between exposure and validation, but there is still a line.
Peggy Hickle |
Nov 16, 2012 at 04:29 PM
"I assume that Bob's comments are intelligible to him, although maybe he's just typing what the voices say."
Why would I want to emulate your normal production values?
Nov 16, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Worst, I don't understand your comment. The racist reactions to Obama's reelection have nothing to do with race? Or they were perpetrated by liberals? Or the bad thing about them is they give liberals something to complain about?
Ed Cone |
Nov 16, 2012 at 05:03 PM
"because white liberals will never let it"
Oh, it will die eventually, but not because of attitudes like that.
Nov 16, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Ed, if there is anything more annoying than your passive-aggressive opportune partisan link-snark quips, it is your transparently deliberate double down on your own bullshit by feigning incomprehension when someone calls you on it. But for the benefit of the presumed cognitively impaired, I’ll play the game and spell it out.
Your first two links (ie the actual topic of the thread) contain not a word about any inherently racial incident or topic ( much less Obama specifically). In fact, it clearly makes the polar opposite point that some people will make any discussion, even about THINGS THAT AREN’T INHERENTLY RACIAL, racial.
So what is your natural response? Hey, let’s go out and find some racism toward Obama to tie into this!
Link #3. “Maybe they learned it in college, yuk, yuk….”
As I said, it’s probably this sort of tiresome crap that they got sick of reading because guess what it does? Begets more of it. Sure-fire comment magnet. I guess some readers like it.
Worst person on the internet |
Nov 16, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Worst, I asked you a question because I was confused by your comment.
Now it seems there is some disagreement over what constitutes the "actual topic" at hand, which you somehow decided is only the story told in the first two links.
My intention as the writer of the post was to set up the "actual topic" with the introductory phrase, "post-racial America."
Both the Lumberton story and the stories from Hampden Sydney and Ole Miss undercut the idea of a post-racial America.
If you want to argue that the only reason we don't live in a post-racial America is because of liberal political games, I can see how the reports of overt white racism on college campuses would be problematic to your case. But it happened nonetheless.
And even the story from Lumberton includes examples of racism that can't be explained only by liberal spin (e.g., "comments with the N word"), so I don't think that fits your argument, either.
Ed Cone |
Nov 16, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Roch... Thanks for that link. I had never heard Atwater's in-person take on "The Southern Strategy" before.
That's some pretty sickening stuff.
David Hoggard |
Nov 16, 2012 at 07:56 PM
You're welcome, David. The takeaway is that things don't have to be overtly racial (one might say "inherently racial") to be racist. We've come a long way, no doubt, but the last vestiges of racism find quarter in policies and proposals that while "coded" more "abstractly," as Atwater says, than the overt racism of the past, still have detrimental or diminishing effect on on racial minorities. Racism continues under that coded guise.
Nov 16, 2012 at 08:15 PM
On a related note, I'm sick and tired of hearing people complain about that "n----r" getting re-elected. And that is happening in my real, actual life. It's not something that I read, heard or saw in the media, or on Twitter or Facebook.
I hate the N-word to start with. And I can't stand racism. And maybe those of you who don't think it exists anymore don't know the same people that I do, but you probably know someone who's racist, whether you realize it or not.
I'm hearing this talk from poor people and people with money. Unemployed people and people with jobs. People who aren't so religious and people who say that they're Christians. It makes me sick.
Nov 16, 2012 at 09:26 PM
I guess they won't be reporting about Suzanne Rice being a potential Secretary of State because some liberals including Democratic House members have already declared that criticism of her is racist. They also claim it is sexist as a bonus.
Nov 16, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Nov 16, 2012 at 09:38 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address