sundries

[rm]

Offensive? Inexplicable? All of the above? Anti-healthcare ad in which a bunch of people proclaim "I guess I'm a racist." I am FLOORED. Convoluted rheotrical strategy FAIL, and, oh yeah, RACIST.

The Tiger Woods thing is not interesting to me. The New York Post's headline about his "harem" though made me want to punch something (racist exoticization and removal of female agency! All in one!).

Space tourism is almost here.

Gay marriage bill on the move in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from a Christian student group that's been denied recognition by a public law school in California because they exclude non-Christians and gays. The Times says "the case pits anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom," which isn't really how I'd interpret the scenario.

A MN Quaker group has decided to stop certifying het marriages until gay ones are legal too. via karjack

A manager at an Orlando McDonalds is completely horrible to a trans teen looking for a job.

The life of a stooper.

NY'ers: ellen_kushner and deliasherman are reading tonight at the monthly NYSRF thing.

Comments

[sethg]

The “I guess I’m a racist” ad is brilliant, in an evil way.

It “rallies the troops” of people who disagree with health care reform by telling them they’re (a) victims of those awful liberals who accuse other people of being racist, and (b) part of a much larger movement. And it reinforces the idea that false accusations of racism are a more significant problem in our society than, well, actual racism.

“I guess I’m a racist” could end up as the ressentiment-driven white conservatives’ version of “We’re here; we’re queer; get used to it”.

[ladypeculiar.livejournal.com]

“I guess I’m a racist” could end up as the ressentiment-driven white conservatives’ version of “We’re here; we’re queer; get used to it”.

Aiee . . that's kind of terrifyingly accurate. *shudder*

[gement.livejournal.com]

It's also working on the basic division in language between what people mean by racist.

I had a three hour conversation with someone to break things far enough down for him to understand that when I say "racism" or "racist" as an adjective as in "racist policy," I include all the shitty little subliminal prejudice. If I want to specifically call out the sorts of people who are actively, consciously, and unrepentantly prejudiced, only then will I bring out the personal noun of "a racist."

It took him three hours of active, attentive listening as someone who cares passionately about fairness and equality to work out and defuse that distinction. (Followed by a briefer discussion of how he can personally crusade for explaining the distinction to confused and defensive newbies, but that he can't ask that other people do so without, fairly or not, invoking the Tone Argument.) He is not alone.

People less interested in the topic and more bitter about being told to clean up their attitude are hearing, "the kind of people who lynch people" when people who think a lot about *-ism are saying "Everyone's a little bit racist. And this thing here is a little more racist than usual."

If someone walks up to me and say, "You're the kind of person who lynches people," it's almost too ridiculous to make me angry. It's just into crazytalk. Just as it is ridiculous to say that every criticism of the Obama administration is based in race.

It's a very clever strawman.