On Sat, Nov 15, 1997 at 04:03:22PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
The recent list discsussion reminds me that not all of you have yet thrown off your knee-jerk reaction to "prejudice" and "discrimination."
You are so kind to enlighten us. [...]
But I am surprised that more members of this list have not managed to throw off the baggage of "discrimination is bad" simplemindedness.
To be sure, certain forms of racism, bigotry, and discrimination are both irrational and counterproductive. The black man who thinks of all whites as devils is no different from the white man who thinks of all blacks as illiterate criminals.
OK, so it is valuable to be able to "discriminate" between roses and thistles, and squares and triangles. And I'm glad that you think "certain forms" of racism and bigotry are irrational and counterproductive. But the obvious inference from your statement is that there are other forms of bigotry and racism, forms that you think are "productive and rational".
But let's not forget what "discrimination" means. It means choosing some actions or beliefs over others. It used to be a compliment to say someone had "discriminating tastes."
How about we forget your dance around the delicate shades of meaning accorded the word "discriminate", and get back to "bigotry" and "racism"? I'm sure that a description of the the forms of bigotry and racism you value would be most enlightening. [...]
Does this mean I have a morbid fear of black people? Nope. Does it mean I would never hire a black? Nope. (I did in fact help hire a black scientist when I was at Intel.)
Whooeee.
And I also don't think certain words are off limits to white people. If blacks use the term "nigger" (or "nigga") and refer to black women as "hoes" (whores, in Ebonics), why are these terms then bowdlerized in mainstream texts as "the "N" word" (etc.)?
Likewise, if homosexuals call themselves "queers" and "dykes," as in "Queer Nation," "Dykes on Bikes," and so on, how can they object when others use these words? (I know the post-Marxist, deconstructionist claptrap about their reclaiming of patriarchal words, blah blah. It still remains a case of "If we use it, it's OK, but if you use it, it's racist and homophobic.")
You make a standard racist apologist argument there, and it's still wrong, as it always has been. What is telling is that you make it. The actual situation is this: racism is an emotional state, not a set of words: you are a racist because of your feelings, not because of your active vocabulary. When words are used to express racist sentiments they are racist words; when they are used with affection they are not. In practice, certain words are used with fair regularity by bigots to express their bigotry; the targets of that bigotry note those words. But the words really aren't the issue. What marks someone as a bigot are the emotions underlying the words. When that someone is extremely clever with words, like Tim May, it may be a little while before a consistent emotional fingerprint comes through. [In Tim's case the emotional fingerprint is heavy contempt for most of the human race, with special contempt for certain groups.] It's worth noting that as an emotional phenomenon low-level racism and bigotry are extremely common. Anyone with a healthy amount of emotional self-awareness realizes that they have irrational likes and dislikes for other people that are triggered by appearance or behavior. This is what makes Tim's apologia so pathetic. [whole raft of dissembling racist apologia deleted] -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html