Why is it that if someone makes an anti-racist comment once,

[survivor999]

that someone IS NOT considered anti-racist for the rest of his/her life,
BUT if someone makes a racist comment once, that someone IS considered a racist for the rest of his/her life?
It should go both ways, no? This is a bizarre asymmetry, when you think about it.

Potential Answer: Because we like to label people as racists to make ourselves feel better about ourselves (WE are NOT the racists, THEY are).

PS. Serious and rational discussion only, please.

[ComerPerro]

1. what is an anti-racist statement? "I know a black guy, he is nice"?

[BuyingThyme]

2. "Racists suck."

[survivor999]

14. For example.

[Sapphocrat]

3. ...

:spray:

There you go, reading my mind again.

[Jcrowley]

4. Anti-racist statement?

"Hey have you seen Devon? Isn't it great that he has his hands on the levers of economic power?"

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

7. hehehehehe

[EFerrari]

8. What about the message, not the words?

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

12. I am genuinely confused here. What is such a statement?

[EFerrari]

19. Well, if you think about it, this OP is trying to get to understanding

not just screaming about one guy.

It's trying to figure something out -- like why we can't talk about "race" without sounding like two year olds.

That's what I picked up, anyway, but I'm a majority of one.

[ScreamingMeemie]

98. The OP has acted like a two year old...

Down to pulling her famous lawyer dad out of the woodwork to defend her posts, all over GD this evening.

[EFerrari]

5. Fear. Most people are pretty scared most of the time

when you get right down to it.

That's why when they try to do better anyway, it's so important.

[Redstone]

10. Yes, but you're buying into the OP's arguments, which has no basis in truth.

Read his post again.

How's the battle going for you these days?

Redstone

[EFerrari]

39. Not helping my reading comprehension, apparently.

Maybe it's that teacher thing where you try to read what someone wanted to say.

Not great, Redstone, but that's all right. It's not easy to switch your whole life over to a new track I'm finding. I'm burning a turkey for my family this week. That will get some of the aggression handled. :evilgrin:

[Redstone]

74. Anything that works on the anger is good. Even if it's burnt bird.

Time will heal. Trust me on this.

Redstone

[Redstone]

6. Your thesis is bogus. You assert that "if someone makes an an anti-racist

comment once, that someone IS NOT considered anti-racist for the rest of his/her life, BUT if someone makes a racist comment once, that someone IS considered a racist for the rest of his/her life?."

Prove that your assertion is true. Provide even ONE documented example. I dare you.

Redstone

[ComerPerro]

11. an exception might be Byrd, for example

former Klansman who has long since repented and apologized and even used his position to try and make things right

[EFerrari]

15. I think the OP is trying to speak to how immature and lame

our ability to talk about "race" is in general.

If that's right, I tend to agree. :shrug:

[Redstone]

34. No, the OP is baiting us. He's done it before.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

41. Ah.

[survivor999]

86. Not true.

I left the other thread because it was a mess (way before I joined it). The main issue is why no rational discussion about these issues is possible.

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. If the thread is a "mess" why join it? This is a continuation of the

flamewar you started there. I ask again, why not finish it there? People are waiting for you.

[survivor999]

90. You got that right, sfexpat2000

Proof is the way any thread on the topic gets highjacked. I said at the beginning of the thread "rational discussion only". Instead...

[EFerrari]

97. I don't think you're going to get heard this way right now.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. The question isn't serious and rational therefore the discussion

can't possibly be. Besides, you're already discussing it elsewhere. Why not finish what you started there? :hi:

[Redstone]

13. Aha, so the OP is beiing disingenuous on two fronts? Thanks for pointing

that out, Mrs G.

Redstone

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. You are welcome Redstone.

:hi:

[survivor999]

18. The question is deep and perfectly rational

Unless you can explain in detail why it isn't.

[LostinVA]

22. You can't explain a negative -- they even teach that in law schoiol

Go ask Pop.

[uppityperson]

28. Making 1 racist comment does not get someone considered racist for life.

That is the basis I disagree with.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. The question is silly and crazy ridiculous...

You pose a question with no examples that can be proven.

One "anti racist" comment... who and where... and how does one prove a negative?

One racist comment...again who and where?

And, you are having a discussion of sorts on another thread, and as one who is concerned about following DU rules (i.e. personal attacks) one should realize that one has just started a continuation of a flamewar. Feel free to run that by your dad. :hi: I ran my response by the dog. She agrees.

[EFerrari]

24. Could you point me? I think I'm coming in on the bottom of the 7th here.

[ScreamingMeemie]

45. All over this thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2769260&mesg_id=2769260

and a few others. I believe this would be what is considered continuing a flamewar. :hi: Hi sfex!

[EFerrari]

Hi there, sweetie

Good to see you.

I think I better go wash some dishes. lol

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

85. Thanks for the tip...

I guess alert is our friend in that case. ;)

[ScreamingMeemie]

88. Already done...and done...and then done again.

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

95. LOL! LOL! I hear you...

:spray:

I think "they" are very busy at the moment. Have you seen GD...? It's a mess right now. My heart goes out to them. :hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

96. Mine too.

I don't hold it against them in the least. :hug:

GD is a huge mess. I've contributed to that nasty thread...and now I am contrite. I must stop and get some sleep. :D

[bliss_eternal]

100. Go to bed, it's sleepy time.

;) I've contributed to the fray as well, :blush: now I'm resisting the urge to start a contrite, indignant thread of my very own. I'll go easy on the mods and resist the temptation.

Nighty-night Mrs.Grumpy..! :hi:

[lastknowngood]

16. To follow your "logic" how come if some doesn't murder once he is

not considered a non murder for life but if he murders one person then he is seen as a murder for life.

Now do you understand?

[survivor999]

"Not murdering" somebody is NOT a discrete event.

making an anti-racist statement IS a discrete event. This question is deep and rational. I thought about this. You have not.

[uppityperson]

31. I had a chance to run over an old man today. I didn't. I am a non-murderer

[survivor999]

53. No, the anti-murder would be you save someone's life.

[uppityperson]

70. I did save his life. I stopped my car before I hit him.

[survivor999]

73. That's obviously not the accepted semantics

of the expression "saving someone's life".

[uppityperson]

81. Idid the heimlich maneuver when he choked

on his cookie that he had in his hand. There. I saved his life from an event caused by nothing I did. And that gets me more good person points than actually choosing to not run him over?

[ScreamingMeemie]

83. No! No! NO! You're not playing the game the RIGHT way!!!

:hi:

[uppityperson]

89. hiya

having fun? And why is it always considered GOOD when an engine falls off an airplane on its own "at least it wasn't caused by a bad person"?

[ScreamingMeemie]

94. I was going to go to bed early...

:D

Very good question indeed uppity.

[LostinVA]

37. Saying "discrete" doesn't make your thesis correct

[Redstone]

36. Now THAT's a helluva good point.

Redstone

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

17. No, I label people as racists because they're racists. nt

[hiaasenrocks]

20. Robert Byrd got away with it. n/t

[uppityperson]

21. Making 1 racist comment does not get someone considered racist for life.

Doing a spew, a rant, on and on, nastily, in public, now that might get you put as being racist. And people do change, sometimes. They can get rid of the racist designation by proving they aren't.

[hiaasenrocks]

23. What about being in the KKK?

Does that make one a racist for life?

[survivor999]

29. KKK has nothing to do with this.

[hiaasenrocks]

40. I'm asking the person who is making a judgment based

on certain words. I'm wondering if actions qualify, or are we more concerned about words here.

[uppityperson]

51. does particiating in 1 KKK even mean you'll be designated racist...

forever?

[survivor999]

54. Probably.

[hiaasenrocks]

56. You tell me.

I'm asking what lines you're drawing here. How important are actions? How important are words? And how do you measure the two, in comparison.

[uppityperson]

75. are you sure you mean to be asking me?

I think most of us are talking about words.

Assuming you picked me to ask about my thoughts on words and actions: Words are important. Actions are important. Words can get others to do actions also, words>>>action which is also important. Right now we are dealing with racist words, am too tired to get into a debate on words vs actions. Sorry.

[hiaasenrocks]

77. LOL. Okay.

[uppityperson]

38. can you get out and make enough amends?

possibly. If you quit and work hard making amends, I would say you are no longer a racist.

What about reverse racism?

[survivor999]

25. But why is it that ONE event like that is enough

to attribute it to the nature of the individual in question, something that defines the individual.

Instead, if one makes an anti-racist rant that does not define the nature of this individual for life?

[Redstone]

44. Funny how you just repeat your original post, rather than answering any of

the replies that ask tough questions.

Redstone

[uppityperson]

47. read the rest of post#21 you are responding to. Or here, I'll repeat

Making 1 racist comment, or rant (Yes, I expanded) does not get someone considered racist for life.

And people do change, sometimes. They can get rid of the racist designation by proving they aren't.

[Lex]

26. The same reason that all the people you don't kill, don't matter as much

as the only one you do kill.

[survivor999]

30. "not killing" is not a discrete event.

Killing is.

[Lex]

48. Same principal though. It is expected that you will behave in a socially

acceptable way (being non-racist, saying non-racist things), but it only takes one instance of NOT acting in a socially acceptable way (being racist, saying a racist thing) to define you.

Same with any act of non-socially acceptable behavior. One instance of it defines you.

[survivor999]

57. If you murder somebody you are considered a murderer

for the rest of your life. If you save somebody's life you are not considered a life saver for the rest of your life.

[Lex]

65. You make my point exactly!

One act of non-social behavior defines you forever.

One act of socially acceptable behavior (because it is expected of you) doesn't define you forever.

[uppityperson]

66. Not true, only partially and you are doing it also. Why?

why do you not tell me I was a good person for not running over that old man today and killing him? Why?

[uppityperson]

55. I had a chance to run over and kill an old guy today. I didn't.

That was a discrete event.

[Redstone]

27. So, why do you feel it's your job to defend racism? I'd like to know.

I have a personal stake in this matter, since I'm half American Indian and Mrs R is half African.

So I'm going to climb ALL THE FUCK OVER any racists I find, anywhere.

That's MY stake in the issue. What's yours?

Redstoene

[hiaasenrocks]

35. I think the OP is talking about PC labeling and the

hypocrisy of giving one offender a break, but "jumping all the fuck over" others.

[survivor999]

46. Nope. My point is that I don't condemn people for what they say or think.

I condemn them for what they DO. People say all sort of contradictory things at different times. Couple argue and say nasty things to each other. And then they go on and get back together because they know that words are pretty meaningless in many case and do not reveal what one really thinks in the long-term.
I'm against the thought police and the word police whose focus is to condemn people for using the non PC words. Who/what people are is not just their words. Their words are a small part of who they are, if anything at all.

[uppityperson]

58. Mr.bush and Colin Powell said there were WMDs in Iraq

I condemn them for what they said and for what they think and for what they do.

[Redstone]

71. No. Our words reveal who we are. Read ANY DUer's posts, and you can get a very

good idea of who they are.

And screaming "upside down with a fork in your ass" and "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" oin PUBLIC certainly does give one an accurate idea of what lies within the soul of said screamer.

Redstone

[aaronbees]

103. Michael Richards using racial epithets at black people is what he DID!

They weren't words in some vacuum. Do you really not understand that?

Are those just words that the "word police" should stop attacking? Well, I'll be, I thought all these years words had meaning! Gee, guess I was wrong on that!

Your arguments and starting this thread are at best disingenuous and ill-conceived. And I'm being nice.

[LeftyMom]

32. No, they're considered racists until thier words and actions exhibit evolved thinking.

See Senator Byrd and even the late George Wallace for examples of people forgiven for their past racist words and deeds because they not only apologized but changed their words and behavior.

[hiaasenrocks]

49. What's the deadline?

[LeftyMom]

59. It happens when and if it happens.

But to give racists a break in the meantime in the hope that maybe someday they'll change is a disservice both to them (after all, they need a clear message that they are in the wrong) and more importantly to their victims.

[hiaasenrocks]

62. Well, let's take the case of Senator Byrd.

The last time (that we know) he used a racist word was 2001. So is he off the hook now? Was the previously off the hook for not making such comments (that we knew of) before 2001?

[LeftyMom]

91. What do his actions say?

I can tell you what my judgment of him is, but not what yours should be.

[Chorophyll]

33. Talking about hanging someone

upside down from a tree with a fork up their ass -- "fifty years ago," no less -- goes beyond your general "racist comment."

Edited to add: this thread grew out of another one about Michael Richards.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

43. That's not true.

If someone makes an anti-racist comment, then later follows up with a racist commentary, obviously the person is not considered an anti-racist.

Likewise, if someone makes a racist comment, but later follows up with a sincere repudiation of the previously espoused racist commentary, then we usually (after a period of time) forgive the person and no longer consider him/her a racist.

[survivor999]

50. Nope. Not true.

If Richards made a "sincere repudiation of the previously espoused racist commentary" people would simply say he's doing this to clear his name to get his job back or something (not that he needs money, BTW). Just read what peoplea e posting here. They're ready to lynch the guy.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

60. Why is it that YOU are the one accusing DUers of wanting to "LYNCH" the guy?

I have seen posts condemning Richards, his tirade, his words, and expressing that people should not patronize his shows, movies, and appearances.

I haven't seen anyone advocate hanging him upside down and sticking a fork in his rear, or that he be hung, or anything else of the sort. I have seen YOU, however, use this lynching term more than once on a couple of these threads.

Very Clarence Thomas-like.

[ScreamingMeemie]

Ready to lynch the guy? No. Two wrongs don't make a right which is

what many have been attempting to explain here. Never spend a dime of money watching him entertain again? You bet. Even my littlest child knows that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. :hi:

[uppityperson]

63. patience grasshopper. Proving you are decent, actions, take time.

Words are immediate. Words can give a clue into how a person believes. Must prove that does not mean those words, must SHOW by ACTIONS that is a good person. Patience.

[Tatiana]

76. You're forgetting that "after a period of time" caveat.

I'm of the so-called the "n-----" persuasion Richards mentioned. If, after a while, he sincerely apologized and repudiated his comments, I'd forgive him.

The thing is, I wouldn't call someone a "faggot" one day, go on Oprah the next day saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" and expect people to believe I was sincere.

He needs to understand why what he said (and obviously felt) was wrong. He needs to be genuinely sorry for making those comments.

Do you ever wonder why, during trials (especially criminal ones), when things proceed to sentencing, the judge or jurors always take into account whether the defendent showed any signs of "remorse?" Usually, the ones that show some remorse get lighter sentences than those who show no remorse or give excuses for their actions. We like to see that people who make mistakes can acknowledge the mistakes they have made; that they are genuinely sorry for what they did and that they won't do it again.

I tend to think this is a similar situation.

[Ms. Clio]

78. you keep using that disgusting comparison --nobody is going to "lynch him"

This is lynching. This is what his Jim Crow taunts were all about:

[blue sky at night]

61. a better question might be,

why do we hold grudges against others for "the rest of his/her life"? The secret is to let this kind of stuff go, instead we like to cling to our prejudices, holding that grudge makes us feel better about ourselves because we are not "that way". Try this the next time a person or circumstance makes you angry: forgive them and forget about it. The key is this is something we do for ourselves, not the person who "wronged" us, but for ourselves...we are healed. Many a great person has practiced this, many people who were victims of monumental racism, yet they forgave their tormentors without question. If I hate a racist what does that make me?

[survivor999]

67. I think you are right.

And the media obviously uses this tendency to keep ratings up. Thanks for this post.

[Ms. Clio]

68. "Serious and rational discussion only, please"

you first.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

72. Translation: "serious/rational" = "agrees with me"

[Ms. Clio]

82. pretty much

racist down, backup stat!

[Redstone]

84. Perfectly said.

Redstone

[BlooInBloo]

102. Yup. Just like republicans on "serious about national defense".

[The Straight Story]

69. If you save ten lives then kill someone are you a murderer? (nt)

[Catherine Vincent]

79. Sorry sis.

What that guy said on that stage was racist rage that was begging to be let out. He needed two blacks guys to heckle him to help release it.

[tuvor]

80. I don't know why you bother asking questions.

It's clear that you already know all the answers.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Count]

92. Racist comment=symptom of racism. There are worse symptoms like lynching

or discrimination - but comments show the same thing. Sorry that bothers you. maybe you should try not making them, OK?

[AZBlue]

99. Do you mean a public figure?

Because it would only take one anti-racist comment from a friend or acquaintance for me to "label" them as anti-racist in my mind - and I would continue thinking of them that way unless I saw evidence to the contrary in the future.

[William769]

101. I want to join in but...

The merry go round is going to fast to jump on.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

104. I'm going to lock this.

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator