White fragility (lot of this around here recently!):

[Spider Jerusalem]

Considering the state of this forum recently, this seems exceptionally relevant since it describes quite a lot of what I'm seeing here:

International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, Vol 3 (3) (2011) pp 54-70

White Fragility

by

Robin DiAngelo

White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility.

(snip)

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. Racial stress results from an interruption to what is racially familiar. These interruptions can take a variety of forms and come from a range of sources, including:
• Suggesting that a white person’s viewpoint comes from a racialized frame of reference (challenge to objectivity);
• People of color talking directly about their racial perspectives (challenge to white racial codes);
• People of color choosing not to protect the racial feelings of white people in regards to race (challenge to white racial expectations and need/entitlement to racial comfort);
• People of color not being willing to tell their stories or answer questions about their racial experiences (challenge to colonialist relations);
• A fellow white not providing agreement with one’s interpretations (challenge to white solidarity);
• Receiving feedback that one’s behavior had a racist impact (challenge to white liberalism);
• Suggesting that group membership is significant (challenge to individualism);
• An acknowledgment that access is unequal between racial groups (challenge to meritocracy);
• Being presented with a person of color in a position of leadership (challenge to white authority);
• Being presented with information about other racial groups through, for example, movies in which people of color drive the action but are not in stereotypical roles, or multicultural education (challenge to white centrality).

In a white dominant environment, each of these challenges becomes exceptional. In turn, whites are often at a loss for how to respond in constructive ways. Whites have not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that would allow for constructive engagement across racial divides. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1993) may be useful here. According to Bourdieu, habitus is a socialized subjectivity; a set of dispositions which generate practices and perceptions. As such, habitus only exists in, through and because of the practices of actors and their interaction with each other and with the rest of their environment. Based on the previous conditions and experiences that produce it, habitus produces and reproduces thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions. Strategies of response to “disequilibrium” in the habitus are not based on conscious intentionality but rather result from unconscious dispositions towards practice, and depend on the power position the agent occupies in the social structure. White Fragility may be conceptualized as a product of the habitus, a response or “condition” produced and reproduced by the continual social and material advantages of the white structural position.

More

[HFRN]

1. Isn't this the inverse paralell of 'White-'splaining?'

when a white person tells a person of color what it's all about, because a person of that color could understand the issue for themselves, because of their color?

except in this inverse parallel, a white person is being told' how it is' because a person whith white skin couldnt understand it for themselves, unless a person of color 'splained it to them?

[TeeYiYi]

4. I think Robin DiAngelo is white. ..nt

TYY

[Drahthaardogs]

9. Her surname is italian,

and anti-italianism is well and alive in America. Especially southern italians.

[emulatorloo]

5. No, it is a well written and well supported/documented academic article

Worth reading the full PDF if you have the time:

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/download/249/116

[whathehell]

86. Precisely.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. Let's set the timer on how long it takes this thread to be blocked. nt

[BillZBubb]

6. Oh no, I'm so fragile!!!!!

Silly of me to object to some loudmouth's hijacking an event, lecturing people, and calling them racists. I should just nod my head in agreement!

As for the paper, it sounds like a bunch of psychobabble. Oops, my fragility slipped through again!

[MADem]

30. What about when it's CODE PINK or OCCUPY, though, telling black people to shut up/not speak...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017120551

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2208215

Funny how that doesn't get the same amount of pushback here.

You might be more fragile than you realize.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I think code pink and occupy have had episodes of obnoxiousness too, clearly,

They should have let Obama speak just like the 2 bullies in Seattle should have let Sanders speak.

[MADem]

37. We didn't get dozens of hot-breathed, angry, outraged threads here saying so, though.

And therein lies the difference.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Maybe. I dont know what I was doing when code pink heckled Obama, but I would have criticized it.

I dont think it's terribly surprising that a good chunk of DU is pissed off that a couple bullies not only disrupted but fully shut down a Sanders speech. I think leaving aside the obvious primary-related friction on the board, we all ought to be able to agree that respectfully letting our candidates speak when scheduled is better for the process as well as the larger party optics going into the general.

I would feel the same if it was any other candidate, frankly. This incident was not only rude and bullying, it was decidedly unhelpful.

[MADem]

40. The difference is obvious.

The threads have spilled out from GD-P into GD, and the hosts are ignoring that. Even when Code Pink jumped up to praise Ron Paul, that barely registered a ripple here.

Some things are just apparent, and the difference between how Code Pink's and Occupy's protests are received are light years different from the protestations of these individuals from Outside Agitators 206.

Some "Fight The Power" is more agreeable than others, apparently. It's not lost on me that the two examples I cited involved predominantly white protest groups not wanting black guys to talk...but that's probably just a coincidence, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I'm not exactly a giant fan of code pink OR occupy.

But unlike the "Outside Agitator" lady who shut down Sanders's speech, I've never been a giant fan of Sarah Palin or the fundy Jesus, either.

[MADem]

43. It's not about what you like, though. I am saying that I have observed much

no small amount of cheering for those two groups here, and I have also noticed that when those two groups (both friends of libertarians, and one, at least, certainly, a pal of anarchists) took steps to "shut up" two black guys, no one here had a problem with it--at least not to the point of starting dozens of finger-wagging threads indicting an entire movement and their supporters about it.

Some protest is more equal than others. Some stuff is just obvious, that's all I'm saying.

People do get the idea that they're unwelcome. And they'll vote with their feet, they'll steer clear on election day, too, no matter how many unsubstantiated anecdotes are posted "proving" how popular some guy is amongst people of a certain persuasion.

When the crowd doesn't match the claim, I look askance.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Personally, I don't think the people who shut down Sanders are indicative of anyone but themselves.

Judging by the stuff they've said, they're at best seriously delusional and at worst deliberately disingenuous about their motive and aims.

I do think it's worth- if this is really about the primary process- soul searching on the part of, say, Hillary supporters (of which I may end up being one. I'm still undecided, personally) to examine how they would honestly react if it had been one of her speeches that had been disrupted to the point of cancellation, if it was her who was bullied to the point of nearly physical intimidation on stage.

If the reaction would be the same, hey, great. I can say with full honesty that if it had been Hillary or any other candidate my reaction would be the same. Let the candidate speak. If people want the podium, they can run for office themselves.

[MADem]

55. Tell that to the people who have started thread after thread railing against these three

individuals, like they're the WORST PEOPLE EVVV-AHHHH and the sky will fall if they aren't hunted down and finger-wagged to death.

Code Pink disrupting the POTUS? Cool.

OCCUPPY telling civil-rights ICON John Lewis to STFU? No problemo!

Three young adults disrupting a rally at which Sanders was just one of the speakers?

Crime of the Century! Let a hundred threads of scorn bloom!

"Hey man, they have a right under the Constitution to 'speak their truth'" only applies if it's a truth that some people want to hear, I guess....

I think there's a bit of hypocrisy happening there. It's what I'm observing, at any rate.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. you are correct, under the circumstances you describe, that's hypocrisy.

But I also don't think it's a total coincidence that some of the biggest consistently pro-Hillary people are now just peachy fine with self-proclaimed "anarchists" shutting down a speech by a Democratic Primary candidate. If they would feel differently under the admittedly unlikely hypothetical that that were to happen to Fmr. Secretary Clinton (which it wouldn't, given the Secret Service protection and otherwise high levels of control and security surrounding her appearances) then that smacks of hypocrisy as well.

[MADem]

76. The individual who was swarmed and kicked off DU by hide after undeserved hide

(while personal insults thrown at her stood) wasn't a "pro-Hillary person." That's what a lot of the "pro-Sanders people" are not acknowledging.

In fact, she started off life in the Sanders camp, here, until she decided to share her perspective with them about how Sanders could improve his outreach--at that point she was met with more push-back (on the usual "He marched with MLK" lines) than I've ever seen on this board. It was frantic, frankly--along the "Lalalalalalala I can't HEEEAAAAR you!" style of push-back. All she was trying to do was give people a clue, but they deliberately took it the wrong way, and then started going after her. When they made things personal, quite naturally, her back went up.

I think DU showed a really ugly side with the way that they treated her. Opened my eyes, that's for sure. I've always said that if my preferred candidate, HRC, doesn't make it, that I'll vote for the nominee. I've often said I'd hold my nose if it's Webb. I'll tell you, though, if it's Sanders, and my car breaks down, I will have to think hard about reaching into my wallet and renting a car to drive the dozens of voters (sometimes, over a hundred) I usually cart to the polls on election day. I'm just not enthused. I'll drag myself to the voting booth, but I just am not inclined to put my back into it. The way Bravenak was treated has left a nasty taste in my mouth.

I think the Sanders supporters here need to do a better job of policing their own, particularly the newcomers to the site--and they aren't doing that. They should know, though, that these partisan cuts they're making at their fellow DUers are deep, they'll take a while to heal, and the scars will show for a long, long time.

As for Sanders, I think--if he really doesn't want disruptions like this in future--he needs to ask for some security at venues where he is appearing, and his people also need to do a better job at ensuring that his speaking platforms are not easily accessible to people wishing to take over the stage--unless that's what he wants.

He wants to be the leader of the free world--if he can't put in place the mechanisms to prevent a couple of twenty-somethings from stealing his microphone, then he needs to work on his organizational skills. Dubya had a lesson for him, there, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...unnnnh, duhhhhh...won't git fooled agin!"

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Primaries are always ugly here, as you know.

Hell, I take a few days off of DU and I'm like "Hey, Hillary's probably going to be the nominee, the GOP is a train wreck in slow-motion, she consistently polls better than all of them as well as 'unnamed republican'"-- I'm a happy monkey.

Then I come back here and it's, like... ugh.

I guess the long and the short of it is, I don't let DU- or I try not to- affect how I view or approach the real-world candidates. (After the stuff he said recently, Webb is waaaaaaaaaaay far down my list, too) Sanders no doubt wanted to be accessible, and it backfired. He's not the first politician to make that mistake; hell, JFK insisted upon riding in a convertible, didn't he? But I don't think blaming Sanders- or even his supporters- is terribly fair based upon DU nastiness, any more than I'm holding Hillary Clinton personally responsible for the crap some of her more obnoxious boosters- and hell yes, they're here- say on DU.

I can't speak to what went down with bravenak- whom I like, I think she's one of the more lively, sharp, and witty contributors here, although I also don't believe ANYONE gets 4 hides in one day without going at least a bit off track- but I do know that Sanders supporters have had all manner of ridiculous crap thrown at them in recent months, most egregious being this stuff about racism or being white elitists or not caring about the "subaltern" or whatever the flavor of gibberish is, this week. And yeah, there's nasty stuff thrown at Hillary and her people, too- but IF I was going to make those sorts of primary preference calls based upon the shit that goes down on DU (I don't) I would already be sporting a Sanders bumper sticker, it's been that bad. It is absurd to somehow suggest, again, that the most left-leaning candidate AND his supporters are somehow closeted white supremacists and elitists and the rest of the insinuated nastiness I've seen put out there. It's possible that someone like bravenak got "push-back", as you put it, because Sanders people have had months of dealing with stuff like OPs implying he is somehow, bizarrely, responsible for stuff like a horribly racist picture taken by some Chicago cops years ago and as such are a bit fed up with it.



That DU would skew fairly strongly for Sanders shouldnt be a surprise, but some people do seem excessively put out by that mere fact. I accept that it's a function of where much of this place sits, ideologically, even as I accept that in national primary terms he's a long-shot, at best.

I do wish primary time wasn't such an ugly shitshow around here, but I suppose ever was it thus, at least in years when we don't have an incumbent President up for reelection.

[MADem]

87. You can see what she wrote on her transparency page.

I think we had a bit of selective poutrage happening with her. She talks about how things make HER feel, and she is punished for expressing her views, her opinions, her thoughts, her perspectives.

I don't have a problem with DU "skewing" to what they (mistakenly, IMO) perceive as "the left," but I do have a problem with dogwhistling, baiting, and other methodologies to "win" an argument. And swarming/alerting just because they didn't like her opinion? That was cold. It was also, sadly, instructive.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. I've seen some experts in baiting and alert-swarming here, over the years. Not to mention swarming

and rampant sockpuppeting, to boot.

If some of the Sanders people have taken up those tactics, it's a shame, but they didn't invent them. We've got some long-time professionals in those respects, from what I've seen.

Again, though, I like bravenak. I don't like to see any good long-time DU member get a time out. I wasn't on any of those juries, either. At the very least some of them I'm sure I wouldn't have voted to hide.

[MADem]

99. No one here at DU invented that baiting stuff. That goes back to the early days of the internet.

It's just something that people shouldn't do. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but no need to be disagreeable. Or mean. Or cutting.

Bravenak's posts were those of a person speaking from a singular perspective, and a lot of people refused to hear what she was saying. She was talking about her feelings, and for that, she got slammed.

I remain appalled at what happened to her--there wasn't even any "disagreeing" going on. She just got lectured and hectored, and alerted and hidden. For having the temerity to share her perspective.

[Armstead]

143. The poster question encouraged that

I had an encounter with her that made me come feeling like I had been conned by a gleeful troller.

I responded to what seemed like a critical, but reasonable, OP from her explaining what she believes Sanders and his supporters were doing wrong by criticizing President Obama policies and Clinton. I wrote a post in the same spirit asking honest questions in response.

She shot back by literally saying that I and other "white progressives: should just "shut the fuck up" and not mention anything that might be perceived by all black people as critical of either President Obama or Clinton. In other words we (and I supposed Sandrs) should be silent and hope that somehow black people would magically vote for him.

I would have responded reasonably had she explained that rationally, without the "shut the fuck up" and the implication that white progressives are all useless assholes who have nothing to contribute.

But she insulted me in a direct manner, So yea I responded in the same spirit of obnoxiousness. And I think she loved it. My sense was that "Ah yes, I've pissed off another one."

[MADem]

147. I look askance at your description of your encounter. I think there's more to the story.

If she was being swarmed--as often happened to her--she might have gotten direct with you. That said, I'd like to see a link before I put any credence in your "Ah yes, I've pissed off another one" characterization.

She did try to sound the alarm--and she was met with dismissive insults for her trouble. And swarms, and targeted HIDES.

I paid attention, I saw it. It was not DU's finest hour.

[Armstead]

153. It wasn't a swarm -- it was an individual encounter

I haven't time to look up the encounter, but I'll try to find it for you and post a link.

All I can tell you is the sudden shift in her tone (yes her tone) from making a "reasonable" but arguable point to "shut the fuck up" and "you white progressives have no right to say anything if you want the black vote" was so sudden and erratic that I felt like I'd been trolled and conned.

As a fellow veteran of DU, I've been around enough to know the difference between sincere effort to debate (and, yes, argue spiritedly) and simply pushing people's buttons for the sake of pushing buttons.

(Your mileage on that interpretation may vary, obviously)

[MADem]

155. I will wait for your link. Bravenak was trying to tell people this was coming. No one listened. nt

[Armstead]

160. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=489158

Here's the link. I know you will probably disagree with my contentions, but the way in which the poster responded -- boiling down to "stfu" and her condescending attitude was unnecessary snark bordering on trolling. She wanted to get a rise and she succeeded....Not in a way to cause me to say "Gee she has a point."

There have been many posters over the years who I have disagreed with (sometimes strongly) but I seldom get a feeling of simply being jumped.

And I don't alert on posts, and I don't like coordinated "swarms." But if I multiply my experience of her erratic and unpredictable behavior with others, those reactions are certainly understandable.

[MADem]

170. Over and over and over again in that thread, she tries to get people to LISTEN to what she is saying

and none of y'all want to hear her. You DELIBERATELY misinterpreted--and took offense at--her STFU comments. She specifically said EVERYONE has to STFU at times to get their candidate elected. Did you miss that bit? Or did you dismiss it because she should be the one STFU-ing, like always, so you don't have to?

She didn't say this to you, but it applies to you as much as anyone refusing to HEAR her:

The fact that you are so dismissive and call it a stunt is why you are helping your candidate lose. I understand black people very well. You should heed me. You won't and that makes me sad because I want Bernie to win and folks like yourself are RUINING it. Kinda felt snobby. The way you speak to me lets me know you do not see me as an equal or value my input. I feel left out and discarded.

Then right after that, someone (since PPRd) showed up to call her a "nagger." Real cute.

I understand her frustration. There's not much worse than being talked down to, talked over, disregarded, told to shut up, that you need to hush up and vote the way that is "best" for you. That swarm that shut Bravenak up resonated with a lot of people here--it was a representation of that "attitude" that some voices are more valued than others, particularly when they're telling some hard truths that some segments don't want to hear.

And if anyone started out 'rude' in that exchange, you replied BULLSHIT to this well thought out post:

Like I said, change the way you frame the issues.

Rather than complain about Obama, respect his accomplishments and say how Bernie will expand/build upon them. And stop being so angry and defensive; it is not helpful. If you want to win you have to act like winners. Losers trash other candidates because they are insecure, winners are confident that they will meet their goals.
Really, to win black votes you have to understand black voters. We like Obama. We do not like people badmouthing them. You wanna steal us from Hillary? Don't be a snob. Be nice to us. Support our movements. We go with the folks who TREAT us KINDLY. We know that as long as we have a Democrat, we can breathe easier, no matter who the Democrat is. These differences between candidates that seem as wide as the grand canyon, are not as big of a deal to us. We are already stressed out; the last thing we need are lofty academic lectures or snark. The Hillary folks are nice to us. You have to be nice too or we go to her.

It is not about you, your feelings, or your ideology. It is about putting Bernie in the White House.

I think you didn't read the full thread, or hear what she was saying. She wasn't "jumping" you -- she was telling you that everyone has to sit down and shut up and LISTEN sometimes. And ironically, you refused to HEAR her:

Everyone has to stfu sometimes.

Especially if what you are saying is making you lose. If biting your tongue will get your candidate into the White House, the smart thing to do is stfu.

This post --where she explains her truth--really infuriated you:

Here, let me try to help you with your concerns.

It is not the same for you. Most leaders in this nation hve been white. We ONLY have Obama. There is really nothing you can do but bite your tongue hard as hell if yiu want to win. Black people have been doing that with White democratic leaders FOREVER. For once, y'all gotta hush.

You have to let go of your anger about things you thought Obama was going to do but didn't actually do. Look at the shit black folks have been through. We look at you guys crazy wondering how the hell are you madder than we are. We think you guys turned on him very quickly in a way you'd never do to a white liberal, fair or not, that is the perception. The level of anger towards him just feeds the narrative that white progressives are NOT our allies really, and just use us as pawns and turn on us when we step off the plantation. In order to stop feeding into it, you guys have to stfu for once. Otherwise black folks will just remain with the default candidate. Fair or foul, it is a big ass turn off and is KILLING you with black voters. Read what MalcolmX said about white liberals being worse than republicans. We know we are being used. We have aoways known and we are tired of sinking further and falling farther behind while white liberals worry about THEIR paychecks; we worry about our children making it home alive. Sorry, but our issues are much more important to us than the oligarchy. Hell, we see YOU as a part of the system that oppresses us.

Of course black folks run the spectrum politically. But we stick together.

She tried like hell to explain. You can't DU "HIDE" those feelings away from sea to shining sea, either. You can turn DU into an unrealistic bubble, but it won't help. And speaking of HELP, that's what she was trying to do--the irony is quite remarkable.

You're not doing a very good job proving your point with this link. Sorry. The one who seems "erratic" here isn't Bravenak. She was catching shit from all sides in that thread and she was responding with heart and passion. And TRUTH. That's the most compelling bit. She was tellling the truth, and people didn't want to hear her.

[Armstead]

176. I disagreed with her.

She is certainly entitled to believe her stuff, and try to convince others, include we misguided stupid obnoxious white liberals. And even to just vent.

But Listening is a 2 WAY Street. It quickly became clear that in hr view disagreement was not allowed and would instantly shot down shut the fuck up and claims that she speaks for ALL black people.

And we should not say a word against isues like the Holy TPP because the Beloved Black President supports it. That's just nonsense. And it is a form of racism in itself. It implies that "all blacks are..." and are not equipped to distinguish their emotions from their brains. It also implies that Obama has to be handled like a delicate flower, rather than a politician who isn President.

I may not be black and I may be an awful white liberal, but I have a few brains, perspective and -- oh my GOD -- I actually have been very close to many blacks over the years, including members of my own extended family. And we have actually talked about things.

yeah, yeah/ I know. "Some of my best friends are..." But you know what? That may be a white liberal cliche, but it doesn't negate what I have heard from many black people who do not happen to share that posters views.

But that poster wasn't interested in actual dialogue. She just wanted (as she often has) to showboat and sandbag and berate people.

Like I said before, I have had strong disagreements and debates with many people I have disagreed with here over the years -- but I seldom left them with such a bad taste in my mouth. And she obviously prompted the same reaction among many others.

[MADem]

180. You called her a gleeful troller just upthread. She doesn't sound like one to me. Damn.

All that talk about her views not being heard, the dismissive attitudes...and she's a gleeful troller because she didn't what--agree with YOU? Because what....you know best?

"That poster" was INVESTED in actual dialogue. She was telling us all what was ahead. No one wanted to hear her, though. She'd say something, and the answer she'd get would be "Yes BUT, shut up, you're wrong, Bernie will win, don't say anything bad about him, we know you hate him, you must be a Hillbot, etc., etc." The fact that she dared disagree is what you are calling "showboating, sandbagging and berating."

What's astounding is that you can't see it. If you think her posts were so bad, you should go have a look at her transparency page. Far worse directed AT her doesn't get hidden. That was a coordinated assault and I hope the admins take appropriate action to mitigate the influence of the people involved in that ugly mess. They do have the power.

She was on your team! You -- not just you--that is a collective "you"--pushed her away every time she tried to tell you what was coming. And boom--there it was in Seattle--she was right.

The idea is to enlarge the constituency, not drive them away. I wouldn't be surprised if you lost a voter to Jill Stein. Heckuvajob!

[Armstead]

181. I'm not going to endlessly debate one poster as representative of everyone

I stand by what I said.

I wouldn't have had the same reaction if she had responded to my response in the spirit in which I intended -- even if she had told me I am wrong about it. I might have stuck to my guns, or I may have thought about it and said something like "You have a point. But what about....?"

But the snarky rigid way she responded brought out my worst side (instead of my better one) and it degenerated from there. It was clear from the git go that all she wanted to do was to inform me of what a jerk I am, and how we white liberals don't know jack shit about anything.

It was a consistent pattern . I have seen her exchanges with others, both positive and negative. She's not a troll in the sense of being someone from the other side coming in specifically to sow discontent and bug the enemy.

But-- I'll say it as subtly as I can -- the reaction she provoked among a large number of people indicated that it stemmed largely from her own chosen method of interacting rather than some mass shortcomings of those she pissed off.

[MADem]

182. One man's snarky is another man's forthright, I guess.

I don't think you were prepared to hear what she was saying. I thought she tried to explain to you.

And you control how you react to people--your "worst side" for all you know might have brought out HER worst side--though I think you didn't even try to engage her. You talked AT her, not TO her.

Maybe you'd do well to just not always have to "Yes BUT" when people share their observations with you. Give it a little time to percolate.

She "provoked" Sanders supporters who didn't want to hear anything negative about their candidate. That, in essence, was her "crime."

They just declared a State of Emergency in Ferguson. If you think the issues Bravenak raised are going away just because she was shuffled off into DU limbo, I suspect that's not going to be the case.

[Armstead]

184. I don't think you know what went on in my mind during that exchange

And coming from an expert at talking AT people, I'll take that part of your response with a few grains of salt

[MADem]

187. No, but I can read what each person wrote, and draw my own conclusions.

I think the "tone" problem isn't with Bravenak.

You can, of course, dismiss what I am saying (as you did just below, misinterpreting my comment about Ferguson, not bothering to ask for clarification before you lashed out, and gettting your back up over it). You do that a lot,

You can clutch your grains of salt tightly to your chest, and refuse to listen to what people are trying to tell you.

At this point, it matters not. Your views are simply not determinative.

[Armstead]

185. ....and Bernie Sanders caused the crisis in Ferguson, how?

[MADem]

186. Good grief. Who said that? Anyone? Buehller?

The point I am making is that black issues are going to remain at the fore of the primary season. Shutting up Bravenak on DU isn't going to shut up people who are tired of platitudes.

[Armstead]

188. I responded to snark with snark

Sorry. let me try that again.

I dont share your opinion that Sanders and his supporters are trying to put fingers in ears and saying "No there is no racial problem. Nyah,Nyah,Nyah. I can't heeeeaaaarr you."

Damn that was snarky too. Oh well..

[MADem]

189. That didn't work, so now the new theme is scream "WE STAND TOGETHER" if any black person dares

to object. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410529/--We-Stand-Together-WTF

That will look real good on TV! A youtube hit! Thousands of white people, chanting in unison! (That was truth, and also snark).

[Armstead]

190. I admire your tenacity

But I have to get back to trying to make a living.

[GitRDun]

92. +1,000

[AuntPatsy]

161. Excellent post

[Marr]

112. You're acting as if you yourself aren't employing a double standard.

Code Pink disrupting the POTUS? Awful!

This Sanders appearance fiasco? Fine!

What's more, that John Lewis event has been repeatedly explained, including by Lewis himself. Your continued misrepresentation is dishonest in the extreme.

[MADem]

116. There's a fine line between snark and actual disapprobation that you

are having a difficult time divining. You don't have to love the topic of the protest, but this whole "They had no RIGHT" vibe I'm getting is unintentional hilarity.

I didn't feel a need to start a single thread about Code Pink, and neither did most people--save the few who praised them. Nor did I feel a need to start one, never mind scores, about Lewis--and neither did most people. Yet I'm looking now at DOZENS of poutraged threads about three 20-something girls DARING to disrupt a rally, like it's the crime of the century, all tinged with this attitude that they're SUPPOSED to be allies of the left because of their skin color. Frankly, the impression I'm getting from those young ladies is that they don't give two shits about the left--or the right. Their agenda is far more direct and personal. I don't think ANY candidate--and by ANY, I mean ANY--should think they'll get support from those three at all.

They sure got some people's attention, though, didn't they?

And sorry, Lewis may have put a good face on that Occupy situation, but he asked--he, a civil rights icon I'd be proud to shake hands with--to simply address them, he didn't go there for a photo op or to deliver a few bags of clean socks--and they took their little talking stick, gave him the hand, and rather pompously said NO. What was he going to do, play the "Do you know who I AAAAAMMMMMM?" card?

I consider that rank stupidity, but I'm not going to create twenty or thirty poutraged threads about it.

Those now-dissolved Occupiers can "protest" allowing a living legend to speak to them all they want, just as Code Pink has the right to make asses of themselves, or go kiss up to Rand Paul, for that matter.

Our country was founded on the concept. It's something we accommodate.

I think it's hilarious that so many here just can't keep that in mind when they are faced with a protester or three they don't like. The themes expressed vary, but they're all shocked, shocked, that anyone would protest their candidate, angry and suspicious and convinced that those protesters don't know their own minds, that they must be compensated for the efforts by some unseen hand, and then, of course, there are the personal barbs: "How DARE they!!!" "The NERVE of them!!" SOOooooo disreSPECTful!!!!" "Paid OPERATIVES!" "That George SOROS is behind this!!!!" "Naw, It's HILLARY--she's paying them!!!" "What's their orientation?" Thread after thread after thread after thread--and not just in GD-P...they're all over GD, too, even though they're dealing with the rally for a candidate.

Misrepresentation, eh?

It's pretty obvious that there's a disconnect there.

[Marr]

118. Nice attempt at parsing there. You didn't *start* threads on Code Pink, but you certainly

jumped in and condemned them in threads others started-- a lot. I fail to see the relevance of whether those threads were begun by you. You called them names, said their tactics hurt their cause, etc., etc.

Your double standard is laughable.

[MADem]

125. There's a difference between expressing an opinion in an existing thread, of which there were few,

and observing--as I have done today--the way DU has BLOWN UP over this little protest at a relatively small rally where Sanders was one of several speakers.

I think Code Pink and Occupy can do what they want--is that plain enough for you, because you seem to be unclear on my POV.

If my double standard (and it's not that--because as I've explained, these are very different reactions to protests--Code Pink/Occupy were met with small discussions; this little rally getting disrupted took all the air out of the room and has generated dozens of angry, posturing threads) were really laughable, you wouldn't be giving me such vigorous and irritated pushback about it.

It's so laughable that politicians vying for the DNC nom are suddenly talking about issues of concern to black citizens. Ha ha! Laughable, indeed!

I'd say those ladies, with their impolite and aggressive tactics, hit the mark.

[Marr]

138. DU *did* blow up over that Code Pink thing. And the Occupy incident.

What are you talking about?

Imagine for a moment if some former Palin fan who mockingly said the GOP missed their chance to recruit her were to take over the stage at an HRC event, and behave in a way that was right on the edge of physically intimidating HRC. Are you seriously going to claim that you would cheer and say they 'hit the mark'?

[MADem]

146. Not like this--not even CLOSE. GD AND GD - P are stuffed to the gills with HOW DARE THEY? posts.

HRC runs a professional campaign. She has protection. Maybe Sanders needs to think about stepping up his game.

Protesters are going to protest--it's not a question of my "liking" it, you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that when people protest about an issue that is -- clearly -- resonating with a large segment of our population, the answer is to LISTEN, react (like a certain candidate has done--changing his website within a day) not call them "Attention W-words" or snark about their orientation or their political affiliation (or lack thereof), or accuse them of being paid by Hillary/The RNC/George Soros, call them stupid, tell them they'd better get in line because they won't get a better deal, or worst one of all, bellow that they "Don't know his HISTORY." Please. And yes, I've seen all that and MORE, right here on "progressive" (cough) DU. The place that pitched a fit because Obama said "Eat your peas."

You can't charm the anger out of people with platitudes anymore--that is what is being said here. The default "vote for the lefty because the Republican sucks" attitude isn't being bought any more. We're talking SUFFERING, here--so what's the difference if the privileged and progressive whites of Seattle have to suffer a bit as well? THAT is the point they are making. You can't COUNT on that vote any more, and without it, you (and that's a generic Democratic party electorate) LOSE.

People would do well to take the point, frankly. And the more you villify those young ladies, instead of giving them a "I defend to the death your RIGHT to protest" nod, the more you push away those black and brown allies that you keep bellowing about. See, people INDULGED Code Pink. "Well, not my style, but...." or "I don't agree, BUT...." And they indulged Occupy. "The right of protest is enshrined in our founding principles...blah blah blah." But the second a couple of black. lesbian. young. women. (gasp) start getting (not going to use the "U" word) ... In. Your. FACE! then DU flat-out blows up. Waaah! They aren't DEMOCRATS!! (like anyone cares). Waaah! They don't know his HISTORY! (Yes--they do....and they aren't impressed. Janet Jackson wrote a song about that).

You don't have to agree, and surely you won't, but you do need to give them the same latitude that other protesters have gotten down the years. I don't see that happening, and it will come back and bite if there isn't a course correction soon.

This is what Bravenak was saying, that no one wanted to hear. She was silenced while trying to sound the alarm. Live and learn.

[Marr]

150. Stop trying to change the subject.

I know HRC has security to keep angry plebes away from her, but if this had happened to her, would you still be so understanding? If someone had stormed the stage, physically intimidated her, and demand she #bowdownhillary, are you really going to sit there and claim you'd be saying we need to 'give them some latitude'?

I do not defend to the death some boor's 'right' to storm the stage of a political event and act like they're on an episode of Jersey Shore for 20 minutes. I didn't defend Code Pink's behavior either, which was, let's be honest, not nearly as over the top. You, on the other hand, defend one and condemn the other. You're showing a massive double standard that's just way too self serving to be taken seriously.

[MADem]

154. I am not changing the subject.

But you seem a bit SENSITIVE, which rather does illustrate the OP point nicely.

Again--you are missing the point. As I said before, and I apparently must repeat because you did not hear me the first time I said that.

It's not about what "I" might like. It would be beyond my power to change it, anyway. Do I need to repeat that several times as well? I am not "defending" anyone--I am pointing out how differently certain people are RECEIVED.

No one cares what YOU or I might like, or want. That's not what this is about.

You might stop "defending" your candidate for just one second, and start to realize that this protest isn't about him, alone. There's a bigger picture here that you're missing, entirely because you're so mad at these young ladies for dissing "your guy."

Code Pink wasn't "nearly as over the top?" Reeeeealllly? They completely trashed Valerie Plame's testimony. Trashed it. Made it unusable for prime time news. Distracted from it, made it all about them. If you think an hour of pink tutus and other absurd costuming and miming and gestures behind some of the most important testimony during the Bush years wasn't as important as a few thousand attendees at a Seattle rally getting their feelings hurt, well, I think you have issues with scale. They shit on Obama routinely, and they snuggled up to Rand Paul.

Yet they've been INDULGED here by many down the years.

So let's be honest and look at some differences, here. The biggest difference here is that loud white people, with or without pink tutus, have an easier time of it than loud black people do when they go out to protest. Add young, and female and lesbian and (oooooh noooooo) "Don't give a shit about political parties" and it's torch-and-pitchfork time.

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference. It's amazing, though, how many will continue to double down and pretend there's no difference, when anyone LOOKING can see it a mile away.

[Marr]

157. Well, we've made progress then. I'm glad you're not defending these assholes. /nt

[MADem]

159. You continue to miss the point. They do not want nor need my "defense."

Why is it that Sanders was able to figure it out, yet his supporters are still having trouble?

[RiffRandell]

131. No, I feel the same way about all 3.

It was horrible what those young people did to John Lewis...and where are they now? I live in the Atlanta area and would like to know.

They probably had no idea about his history...seriously.

Code Pink pissed me off targeting Obama and this latest incident has me super pissed.

One thing they all have in common is that that they are not informed. Why am I not surprised?

[MADem]

142. One thing they DON'T have in common is thread after thread of poutrage.

The number of threads started about these three young women is ... pathological, with no small amount of a "How DARE they?" and "Don't they know what's BEST for their kind?" vibe about them.

It's offensive and noticeable. Some protesters get cut more slack than others. Obviously.

More to the point, getting angry at them, and then saying "Ah ha--look at all the white people who showed up at the evening rally, so THERE!" like the problem is solved is whistling in the dark.

I'm not a fan of rudeness on any level, let me make that clear. However, the combination of anger and dismissiveness in response to this protest, and the whole "Father (or Mother) Knows Best" attitude is not the way to create alliances. No one wins the nomination, never mind the general, without the African American vote. That's why any campaign worth their salt will address the serious issues that have been raised and are calling out for justice. If they don't, they LOSE. It's quite simple, really. And trying to wrap the issues and these three young ladies with their protest up in a package and throw them all to the side ain't gonna cut it. And the whole "They don't know about his history?" That doesn't cut it either. Bravenak tried to explain this to people here, and got her threads hidden for her trouble. There was an article that resonated in the AA community that basically said "So What?" about all that "I Marched With MLK" stuff--and it got posted here so people could get a sense of how people are TAKING this campaign--and guess what? It got HIDDEN.

People who don't want to know will eventually find out. To their dismay...

[JustAnotherGen]

136. Wait - what?

Occupy told John Lewis to shut up?

You've got to be kidding me! How the hell did I miss that?


I knew they were no good!

[MADem]

148. Heh heh! nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

156. Yup, and DU talked about it despite MADems selective memory

It was their event, he asked to speak and they said no because there were other speakers ahead of him. So he left quietly.

It's indicative of how useless and ignorant Occupy was, but it was not like Saturday. He was never shouted down, called names, told to get the fuck out or anything like that. He wasn't scheduled, that's all.

[MADem]

163. My memory is not selective--there were a few threads, not dozens and dozens over days.

There's NO comparison, and you know it.

Please--he left quietly? Did you want him to pitch a fit?

They refused to hear from a living civil rights icon, a guy who got his head bashed in doing far more by way of protest in a minute than any of those twinkle fingered campers ever accomplished in a lifetime. yet they didn't have time for him because "He wasn't scheduled."

smh.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

169. It's a hell of a lot different from a man who was invited to speak, who thousands came to see, and..

....was bum rushed off the stage.

I already said Occupy was ignorant and useless for doing so re:Lewis. Young idiots unaware of the gravitas in their midst. They showed the same lack of respect these two clowns did to Bernie on Saturday. But it was not the same thing, not even close, as to how it went down. Lewis was not a featured speaker run off stage. He asked for time and was denied due to Occupy's silly little "Let's play state house" rules. It was sad, and it's why us and many others gave up on them.

As far as Occupy having a group here? Go check the group. Then get back to me how "active" it is. The Lewis fiasco was one of many reasons why DU stopped taking Occupy seriously. They are a ghost town.

As far as Code Pink, The Dream Act folks, LGBT etc etc that have heckled Obama? You well know they heckle from the back of the room and are shuffled out by security in 30 seconds. They barely make a blip. It's why most people don't bother with anything other than a single thread. They have never stopped the President, First Lady, Plame, etc. from speaking because security is there to restore order. Saturday is an example why Sanders "open door" policy is a naive and foolish one in 2015. You start speaking to big crowds, you need protection from loudmouth idiots looking to get their 15 minutes. Hillary will never have to deal with anyone other than a lucky heckler sneaking in from the back of the room. And you know it.

[MADem]

172. Of course it's not the same thing--and the number of threads regarding each event proves my point.

The largely white DU crowd took note of the Lewis slap, and while some said it was not nice, no one called for anyone's head, questioned or snarked about the "Occupiers" political affiliation, orientation, association with GOP operatives, Soros, shady government agencies, or any other manner of foolishness. DU didn't start dozens of angry, apoplectic threads about it, calling the Occupiers vicious names.

And if the Occupy group isn't active, that's because they NEVER were. Are you trying to tell me that these youngsters are the same as those indolent, passive campers, with their twinkle fingers and talking stick, playing at kindergarten al fresco? Hell no--those young people were more JOHN LEWIS than OCCUPY by a country mile.



Dismiss them at your peril. Read/learn: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122510/blacklivesmatter-protesters-are-not-problem

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

173. You seem very upset Ms Marissa has been exposed as a Palinbot

Is it hard for you to confront the facts?

You should be happy, no one can claim she was paid by the Clintons now.

[PeaceNikki]

174. Um, she said she had a Palin button on her backpack... when she was 16 years old.

Palinbot? lol

She wasn't even old enough to vote.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

175. So she supported Palin against Barack Obama......

Or are you saying that wearing her button doesn't make you a Palin supporter?

I mean, my God, DU has made more ridiculous conclusions about people's intentions with less. I guess it's CRAZY to think YES, SHE FUCKING SUPPORTED SARAH PALIN!!!!

[PeaceNikki]

177. I am saying that she was 16. I liked Creed when I was 16 so I was pretty fucking dumb then, too.

Just kidding, Creed wasn't around when I was 16. But I was in *LOOVE* with that bad boy who was terrible and awful for me.

Yeah, I think it's CRAZY to think that a button on her backpack when she was 16 is some deep view into her inner psyche and motivations for Black Lives Matter. Yes, I do.

[MADem]

178. Huh? Have you even been reading what I have been writing? She doesn't give a SHIT about

politics. She made some snarky remarks on her facebook about how the GOP should have co-opted her, and she had a Palin button on her back pack in high school, and you hang your flopsweat-desperate HOPES on that? "Black Revolutionary, Pro-Malcolm Before Mecca, Radical Xtian, Lesbian Young Adults For Palin!"



These people in this small OutsideAgitators206 group do not give a flying u-know-what about politics or politicians. Their agenda has nothing to do with "your" team, "my" team, or the "GOP" team. She's "evolved" since her high school days--and in rather radical ways, too.

Their agenda is plastered all over their webpage. Go read it.

Sheesh! I think the one who is "upset" here is the one who doesn't quite get the lay of the land! And trust me--that ain't me....If you want to believe that these activists are the puppets of powerful forces and their own views aren't guiding their actions, you go right on ahead and dismiss them.

smh

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

193. No shit she doesn't give a shit about politics

Her ignorance is stunning.

Now go ahead and ramble how wonderful she is for another four paragraphs. I promise I won't be reading.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

152. No, the difference is DU doesn't care if RWers

....like Condi or Rummy get shouted down.

When Code Pink started "Stand With Rand", they were through here. And when Occupy decided not to let John Lewis speak at one of their events, they were excoriated as well.

I guess you can say DU are hypocrites, but it's not a race thing. I don't give a flying fuck if righties get embarrassed. There's no call for what happened to Sanders Saturday. He is not the enemy nor was the crowd.

[MADem]

158. I didn't see dozens and dozens of anti-Code Pink threads, nor did I see dozens and dozens of

anti-Occupy threads--Occupy is so "excoriated" that they have a GROUP here at DU...so, yeah whatever. Funny how it took "Stand with Rand" to get anyone offended about Code Pink, when disrupting Plame's testimony or going directly after Obama didn't faze anyone.



I wouldn't dare say "DU are hypocrites, but it's not a race thing." I'd have to believe that to say it. I used to believe that, naively, but I have to say, of late, that I've been very disturbed by some of the things I've seen on this "progressive" (cough) board. There's an ugly thread of intolerance snaking its way through this board, and it's unfortunate. I think Sanders, by changing his webpage, has made a good step towards acknowledging the serious issues faced by the black community. How long will it take before his "supporters" get it, and start to follow his lead?

[BillZBubb]

44. Great another God damned straw man. You people never give up.

I don't give a crap about code pink and don't know what OWS did or didn't say.

Stick to the issue at hand.

[MADem]

58. Now you trundle out the "you people?" Really?

And then you give me direction as to what I may or may not discuss?

And you wonder why TONE is a problem....

[BillZBubb]

62. You people trying desperately to defend the indefensible BLM antics.

Now who is "fragile"?

I also didn't "give you direction". I said your point is bullshit and is a straw man. Quit being so fragile.

[MADem]

88. Here--let me give YOU some direction: I think you'd better quit while you're behind.

"You people" is a dogwhistle, and yes, you DID attempt to give me direction.

As for your "bullshit," whoever smelt it, dealt it.

[BillZBubb]

101. So you are fragile when you hear "you people" no matter the context?

You certainly are fragile about "getting directions".

And your post was bullshit, no matter what childish adage you want to offer.

[MADem]

103. ..............

All I can do is save this "bullshit post" (that's your term) for posterity.

BillZBubb
101. So you are fragile when you hear "you people" no matter the context?
View profile
You certainly are fragile about "getting directions".

And your post was bullshit, no matter what childish adage you want to offer.

smh

[Facility Inspector]

139. "And you wonder why TONE is a problem...."

You wouldn't have made through primetime television in the 1970s.

[MADem]

149. Well, I was in southwest Asia at the time, so I wouldn't know! nt

[stevenleser]

59. That is not a straw man. She did not suggest you said that. Nor did she change your argument

in any way. She is discoursing you and not using logical fallacies.

[BillZBubb]

64. You are incorrect.

He or she made a generalization that reflected her fragility.

I have no idea about Code Pink and am unaware that the organization told people of color to shut up. I have no idea that the organization behind OWS told people of color to shut up. I seriously doubt those organizations did so. A few individuals maybe, that happens all the time.

He or she introduced those organizations as a straw man. But BS generalizations used trying to defend the abhorrent BLM behavior in Seattle are very annoying.

[stevenleser]

68. No, that is not a straw man. She did not suggest you said those things nor did she change your

argument to suggest that you did.

She asked a followup question. That is not the strawman fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[BillZBubb]

100. WRONG!

"Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical." From Wiki.

In this case Code Pink and OWS were used a straw men. He or she made generalizations that those organizations told people of color to shut up. Apparently some fictitious people did so.

Also, his or her last line in the post in question aims directly at me, implying I supported the alleged infractions of those organizations.

[Skittles]

46. it is indeed psychobabble

OMG mine is slipping through too! I keep forgetting we are not allowed to have opinions.

[BillZBubb]

49. Shame on you, you fragile white supremacist!

If a person of color hijacks an event and insults you, you are to nod your head in agreement and quit being so sensitive! You just don't get it.

[Skittles]

51. let me bow to you, BillZBubb

I promise I will try harder

[alarimer]

162. I think the terminology is problematic

Though they describe real things. "Fragility" and "privilege" are kind of loaded terms even if meant (here) in a more clinical sense.

[Skittles]

195. yup

these tactics are backfiring big time

[TeacherB87]

64. It's a good article.

"White fragility" refers to the fact that many white people get defensive in and around conversations about race, it is not the same as the literal definition of "fragility," with which you appear to associate it.

Of course people should not hijack a candidates event when thousands showed up to see said candidate, especially when he offers to let the people speak after people see what they came to see. That has nothing to do with their race or the righteousness of their cause, and yes their cause is a righteous one (no religious connotation implied here). I also understand that you deserve to react to what happened. I am a huge Bernie fan and consider him to be one of the greatest advocates for racial equality that has ever run for president, so I see it as unfair that that he is being associated with "white supremacist progressives."

However, "white supremacist progressives" do exist, as do all of the examples of "white fragility" cited in the article. I have seen them over and over again as a native son of Southern Virginia. I have heard the conversations that some white people have when they think no people of color, or those that support their equality, are around to listen to them. It is awful and embarrassing that I have to be associated with people like that, even in my own family.

Even now, as I live in a large (and very "Liberal" city) I still here more subtle and subliminal reflections of the same attitudes that were expressed all around me by the rednecks around which I grew up.

If you haven't seen/heard these mindsets reflected in others, and forgive my assumption here if it is incorrect, then you aren't looking in the right places. I've worked almost entirely with students of color during the decade I've been in my career and I see these things all the time.

[840high]

111. Winner here. TY

[LanternWaste]

179. I too call things I'm ignorant of 'psychobabble.'

"Oh no, I'm so fragile!!!!"
Any doubt prior, now removed.


" it sounds like a bunch of psychobabble..."
I too call things I'm ignorant of 'psychobabble.'

[BillZBubb]

196. There must be a lot of psychobabble in your world.

[LittleBlue]

7. Step 1: Scream hostile nonsense at someone's candidate

Step 2: Call the crowd white supremacists
Step 3: After angry reaction to steps one and two, claim white fragility.


Peddle this braindead, pseudoscientific bullshit elsewhere

[hifiguy]

14. +1 nt

[mythology]

20. I agree

It's an interesting defense to say that others are racist and anything other than complete capitulation to that charge is proof of the charge.

Pretty much everything said in the article can in fact be turned around and still be as accurate.

It's a human trait to be largely unaware of our own flaws, not a racial trait.

[truebrit71]

24. Agreed.... total bullshit

...

[Duckhunter935]

26. this^^^^^

[MisterP]

31. to an ideologue their ideology explains everything and encompasses everything

there's no alternative explanations because it's surpassed any other one (i.e., there's like 20 different theories of race, most without an all-explaining notion of privilege); once a really big incident like this, drawing universal condemnation and busting down the walls of the playpen where they've just been able to hear each other talk, it threatens their whole structure way more than it proves them wrong on a single instance

we saw this after Duke and UVa (and SFU and Ms Mattress and ...): when the doors got blown off the "America's as bad for women as the Congo" train Jessica Valenti et al just repeated their arguments louder: they applauded Judith Miller-level fraud and clearly show that the facts don't matter to them

frankly they don't want to talk about white privilege or fragility as real things, but as just a foolproof way to shut up critics: that's why they're so protective of those ideas: in their minds no other theory can come close: any effort to, say, argue against Obama's wars/economics/etc. must be racist, and any effort to deny that it's not rooted in race is just further proof of Obama being assailed by lefties who Just Don't Get It and have to be made to listen

(and don't forget getting physical with Sanders!)

[bbgrunt]

73. ...and this is "what's the matter with Kansas". another fact-proof ideology.

[MisterP]

74. it's how they run the party: "X is good because they're a Dem and not because of any policy and Y

is bad because they're not a Dem" is what they've been running on since the first Clinton

Sanders focuses on facts, problems, and solutions so that's alien to the political class and the Dem factions that care only about the vote

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. This post is why we need a "Like" button.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Right. A religious fundamentalist with a history of supporting Sarah Palin shuts down a speech by

The most objectively progressive candidate in the 2016 race, and it's the crowd's fault for complaining.

[Deadshot]

48. Yep.

[sub.theory]

56. It's anti-white racism

It's racism. Calling Bernie Sanders a white supremacist is utterly indefensible. We all know he's being vilified independent of his long record in support of social justice and civil rights just because he's white. It's disgusting and it's racism. This tiny group, non-representative of BLM, and their defenders deserve every bit of the scorn they are receiving.

[840high]

113. Yes they do.

[Marr]

60. +1

[whathehell]

85. LOL!

Nail hit on head!

[RiffRandell]

127. Then scream and lecture us instead of admitting how much

the idiot hurt the Democratic/Progressive cause.

She is far from being on our side.

[cheapdate]

8. One "form of interruption" I don't see listed

would be 'being presented with the information that one is, or very likely is, a racist."

I've gotten that one several times lately. As a defensive move, I have fallen into "argumentation", which of course demonstrates my White Fragility.

Social and behavioral research is well and good. My ethical foundations aren't shaken because a friend-of-a-friend carelessly lumps me into her category of "another white liberal racist" based on some imaginary connections known only to her.

Racism is a huge and enduring problem, not only in the South where I live, but all across the country.

I'm about as privileged as one can be, a white male from an educated family. I don't have any "white guilt" nor do I have any personal apologies I feel I need to make. I do believe however that enduring institutions, such as the state, do have an obligation to apologize for past (and present) injustices.

[aikoaiko]

10. Right because the only proper response is #bowdownbernie.

[Quayblue]

11. Jury Results

On Sun Aug 9, 2015, 03:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

White fragility (lot of this around here recently!):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027060208

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Can we stop with all of this racist bullshit? Do we really need another term to use to attack white people? This is divisive and destructive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 9, 2015, 04:17 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing racist about this post and I'm as white as it gets. If you can't stand a critique this mild, drop politics and take up scrapbooking, alerter.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The fact that this was alerted was an example of "white fragility" - LOL! I wish the person who posted it had surrounded it with some commentary though.

I would have written something about the constant need for smart white liberals - not confederate flag waving wingnuts - to assert "All Lives Matter" and how that might have fed into the extremist discourse of "White Supremacist Liberals" among some in the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Why can't we talk about this? How is this "disruptive" instead of opening the debate?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post expresses a point of view that needs to be heard. It doesn't violate DU's TOS at all.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We are here to discuss political things. Right now race is pretty political. So discuss it, don't hide it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: no it's not. DU doesnt ever want to talk about race unless the majority of its members are comfortable with the dialogue. You are proving the point of the article quite frankly. Leave it and discuss!!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post makes a somewhat valid point, though I don't agree with how it's being applied, to try to justify physically abusing and shouting down people running for office, just because they happen to be white. still I see no violation of TOS, so LEAVE it

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[riversedge]

71. Whow Leave it alone 7-0 Well done!

[Quayblue]

78. indeed nt

[stone space]

134. Failed 0-7, huh?

I guess that this mean that it is acceptable for folks on DU to link to the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, now.

I was worried that the journal might be considered as an unacceptable source.

Bad alert...good jury.

[etherealtruth]

12. Very thought provoking

i hope it stirs some introspection

[GitRDun]

28. Typical alert

For whatever reason, a chunk of the Sanders folks have developed an intolerance for even the slightest criticism of their candidate, or coverage of issues where their guy might need to improve.

So far, introspection has not been tolerated very well.

[Skittles]

47. why do you assume they are "Sanders folks" ?

seriously - why?

[GitRDun]

57. The Sanders Group has more than its share of zealots

They're mean spirited, dismissive, and unable to take constructive criticism of their candidate, no matter how well meaning.

I like the guy, but I could do without his zealots...he is just a man, after all.

"White fragility (lot of this around here recently!):" is exactly the kind of post a Bernie supporter at DU would alert

[Skittles]

93. ALL the "Tiger Beat" clubs here have ZEALOTS

the are ALL disgusting

[GitRDun]

95. lol ok

zealots of any kind rub me the wrong way. i've always thought of republicans as the zealots, my bad.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Recommend.

[daredtowork]

17. I was on the jury that alerted you for complaining about Bravenak's "Flagging for Review"

Thank you for calling attention to that.

While some people are disagreeing me, my view of the Jury mobbing on Bravenak was an epic example of "white fragility". The posts that were hidden didn't meet the level of hiding criteria. She was mainly conveying the point of view of the people who disrupted the Bernie event - a point of view I disagree with, but which I certainly wanted to be aware of.

I was also on the Jury for the Alert on this OP. I'm the one who brings up that very smart elite white liberals DO push "All Lives Matter" because they don't think past "universal reason" to get to "white privilege". Since it hasn't affected their lives, they don't need to. But when you try to bring it up, they get all hyper-reactive about how the #BLM movement is alienating them rather than winning their vote. Again, this is in a "progressive, liberal" context! So I think it's worth discussing white fragility, and it's not just a way to derail complaints about disruption of the Bernie event - it's part of the explanation of that disruption. I think Bravenak did try to tell us that.

I also FINALLY got the whole thing about separation of the social from the economic even though poverty and unemployment are two major features of racism: somewhere there is a meme that says white people will try to bury racism under universal "economic" problems. IMHO, #BLM needs to articulate that better. Sorry, I still disagree. I think Bernie supporters need to understand that meme, find out where it comes from, and vigorously combat it.

Again, thank you so much for sticking up for Bravenak and bringing that to my attention. I hope other people will notice and this decision can be reversed somehow. "White Fragility" on DU is really the only way I can describe what happened to her.

[Starry Messenger]

22. Hyper-reactive is a good way to describe it.

Thank you for being a thoughtful juror.

We don't all have to agree with each other on all points, but more listening seems to be more productive, especially when it involves a point of view from a perspective we might not have.

[brentspeak]

50. Considering that the flagged individual who you are defending

has, among other things, labeled the Democratic candidates and almost the entire community here as "white supremacist racists" (and worse), and has also actually advocated racial riots, looting, and mayhem, I question the wisdom of you being allowed to serve on any future DU juries.

[daredtowork]

70. You might want to meditate on Bravenak's comment instead

Bravenak was making the observation that conditions actually improved as a result of rioting. That was her honest impression, and it's her right of free speech to convey that.

Here is an Ta Nehisi-Coates, a regular contributor for The Atlantic discussing "Non-violence as Compliance."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

If I were on a Jury for his article, should I silence him as well, in order to remain qualified for that role?

Given your comment, I question your ability to make discerning decisions about free speech as a juror.

[brentspeak]

72. That article doesn't advocate rioting

However, despite your ludicrous attempt at misrepresentation ("the observation&quot . the now-flagged individual's post -- and subsequent posts -- did.

[daredtowork]

75. NYT: When Are Violent Protests Justified

Here you go: http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/when-are-violent-protests-justified/

I like this quote:

And in a piece titled “In Defense of Rioting” at Time, Darlena Cunha wrote: “I would put forth that peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture, those who can be assured their voices will be heard without violence, those who can afford to wait for the change they want.”

There is plenty of literature on this topic. Please do your own research from now on.

The fact that Bravenak is now flagged only proves she was swarmed by people who wished to get her banned.

Nothing in the post you linked me to was cause for a Hide either. Case in point: it wasn't hidden. Free speech: tough cookies.

[joshcryer]

117. That's absolute crap.

I didn't know that bravenak was flagged. I was on no less than a half dozen juries alerting on her. They were really out to get her. It was only a matter of time I guess (and I didn't necessarily agree with her all the time but it was clearly a witchhunt to me).

[MADem]

183. A very thoughtful post. nt

[Maedhros]

15. Calling out monkey-wrenching is not being fragile.[n/t]

[MADem]

42. What is "monkey - wrenching?" What is that term supposed to mean? nt

[BillZBubb]

52. Google is your friend.

[MADem]

66. Well, I used Google, and you should make its acquaintance, because that word does not mean

what you think it means.

The successful monkeywrencher is an industrial saboteur who acts against inanimate objects and doesn't get caught.

At least according to those Earth First guys who popularized the concept.

Monkeywrenching: Ecotage, ecodefense, billboard bandits, desurveying, road reclamation, tree spiking, even fire. All of these terms describe the unlawful sabotage of industrial extraction and development equipment, as a means of striking at the Earth’s destroyers where they commit their crimes and hitting them where they feel it most—in their profit margins.

Monkeywrenching is a step beyond civil disobedience. It is nonviolent, aimed only at inanimate objects. It is one of the last steps in defense of the wild, a deliberate action taken by an Earth defender when almost all other measures have failed.

So....whatever. If what those protesters did is what you want to call "monkeywrenching," then any political protest (or is it just the ones that aren't to your liking?) are "monkeywrenches."

If you think that protest, disruption, any kind of expression of opposition should be forbidden, just come on out and say so.

smh.

[BillZBubb]

69. I simply gave you a suggestion. I made no reference to the usage in the post.

In fact I didn't even read the post you responded to. I know what monkey wrenching is from my eco-ter....ist days.

[MADem]

77. Ah, so you inserted yourself into the conversation to insinuate that I didn't check first, when in

fact, I did. You might have asked rather than assume--that might not have suited your agenda.

[BillZBubb]

102. Sorry that your ego is so fragile.

[MADem]

105. ...........

BillZBubb (7,473 posts)
102. Sorry that your ego is so fragile.

[Marr]

61. Oh, brother. /nt

[stevenleser]

67. They're not using the term right.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/monkeywrenching

I am sure they don't mean to call out anti-capitalist protest as if that is a bad thing.

[hifiguy]

79. The correct vernacular term for political dirty tricks

is "ratfucking." I think that's what was meant.

[stevenleser]

80. I kinda figured. The problem with that accusation is, BLM has been around since 2012. It was formed

after Zimmerman officially got away with murdering Trayvon.

[MADem]

83. My Spidey-sense hears a dog whistle. I could be wrong. I'm often not, though. nt

[zappaman]

96. In this thread?

More than one!
It's like an orchestra!

[Recursion]

133. Interestingly, the etymology of "sabotage" is exactly parallel

Flemish labor activists would throw a wooden shoe ("sabot&quot in the mill wheels to stop production.

[hfojvt]

16. "How to respond in constructive ways."

That seems like a loaded term.

Like I am to blame if somebody else starts flinging expletives and labels all over the place - because I did not respond in a constructive way.

Might as well write a paper about "black fragility" talking about how they get all defensive and stuff when people use the n-word. Strangely enough blacks are "often at a loss for how to respond in constructive ways..." to this type of event.

But doubtless I am just displaying white fragility when I respond poorly to negative sweeping generalizations about white people.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Use accusatory language, and you'll get defensive reactions

I'd say that's true for anyone.

[truebrit71]

25. No shit.....

....I can't believe what I'm reading these days on DU...

[daredtowork]

27. I'm wondering if it's an offshoot of All Lives Matter

I was the juror who made the related comment in the alert for this OP

A lot of smart, otherwise good and well-meaning white liberals are very pushy about the "All Lives Matter" concept. I've posted a few times that I thought both Hillary's and O'Malley's use of the therm was a deliberate signal to these very people who have been anxious to reaffirm this concept: they think it's an important humanist idea and the basis of universal reason. For some reason they absolutely refuse to look at it's connection with White Supremacists on twitter and many of them were alienated from the #BLM movement because of vandalism during protests last year and because of the recent disruption to Netroots Nation. When I try to educate them with what little I know, they are highly resistant and insist other people must organize in the "effective" way they always did and must seek to "get white people on their side". There is very little awareness that this is radical action because Democrats have had the black vote for a long time, and we've had a black President for 8 years, but important changes that are needed now didn't happen.

Is it possible that this pushiness about using "All Lives Matter" is causing the backlash of "White Supremacist Liberals" among some #BLM discussions?

None of the Primary candidates have come out to talk about why the neediness around pushing the phrase "All Lives Matter" might be a symptom of "white fragility". None of them have used that to open a dialogue on racism and to acknowledge and legitimize Black Lives Matter. Apparently only O'Malley has issued a Criminal Justice Reform plan.

Let's get beyond the playground grouchiness over being called a mean name and look for the sources of that accusation (whether we believe it's justified or not).

[840high]

115. +1

[MellowDem]

21. Got lots of liberal white supremacists here...

Fer sure.....

I'd say most the of the reactions are perfectly understandable given the hateful bullshit the Seattle BLM activists spouted, but one persons hateful bullshit is another person's gospel, so who knows, maybe once white liberals accept that they are also white supremacists, the healing can begin.

I guess it just comes down to whose viewpoint you believe. Those who claim to speak for white liberals about their beliefs, or white liberals.

[romanic]

23. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

I'm not going to chide white members here for getting pissed about what those disruptors said with the "white supremacist liberals" remark. And besides, what makes you think people calling it out on here are all white? Do you believe Bernie supports are all white too?

This is what kills me about posts like these attempting to cull and silence other people being outraged. You don't even know whose saying what beyond their username.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. ...

What makes you think people calling it out on here are all white?

All? Probably 95% or so.

Do you believe Bernie supports are all white too?

Probably around 95% of them (although I've said nothing at all about Sanders or his supporters. However, I haven't seen a photo of one of his campaign rallies that didn't look like the front row at a John Denver concert, either.)

[romanic]

33. 95%

Is that the only random number you could come up with? What a weak counter-argument. Try harder next time.

[susanr516]

36. Thanks

I've lived in a majority Hispanic community for over 35 years now, and I agree with most of what Ms. DiAngelo has written.

[aikoaiko]

39. So I read it. I will admit that I started skimming the second half so I'll ask this question...

...does the author allow for the possibility that criticism from POC of white people is incorrect/biased/malicious and an indignant response is righteous?

I didn't really see that.

[TeacherB87]

53. Nice!

Few articles sum this up as concisely. I will be sharing this with my friends.

[Stellar]

54. Bookmarked. nt

[Peregrine Took]

81. Got guilt? n/t

[kestrel91316]

82. I know. We're all terrible people.

Just like when we tried to support LGBT and got reamed for that, too.

So I'm not going to try to help anymore - here on DU.

Aggrieved minorities clearly don't want our help. That's the message I keep getting.

[Syzygy321]

89. The fact that I was too mildly-annoyed to read this:

Does that demonstrate that I am fragile,

Or that the writer is obnoxious?

And how can you prove it one way or the other?

Please carry on.

[kiva]

90. White privilege.

Whitesplaining. White girl memes. White tears. Now White Fragility. Thank goodness there is not bigotry involved in these labels.

Edited to add, forgot about Liberal White Supremacy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

94. It's just awesome that 90% of the replies are only reinforcing the point of the OP. Good job!

[zappaman]

97. Kick and rec!

[romanic]

98. In-fighting

is so awesome!

[BillZBubb]

104. Baloney.

[betsuni]

114. Yes, they're tripping over each other to prove the point of the article.

Thinking is hard when the weather's so hot, but come on, this isn't a difficult read.

[Democat]

121. Anyone who doesn't agree with the article is proving the article right

And if you agree with the article, you're proving it right.

[betsuni]

122. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Jetboy]

123. Like melman said below 'If you say it's wrong that proves it's right.'

Heads I win, tails you lose.

[betsuni]

124. Still don't understand.

The article discusses something that exists. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, it still exists. The thread is full of emotional knee-jerk responses that exactly illustrate what the article is about.

[Jetboy]

126. How is it possilbe that agreeing with the article validates it's

accuracy while disagreeing with the article also validates it's accuracy. It's much the same as the Sanders incident yesterday. What could he have done that would've been approved by BLM? Apparently nothing short of #Bowdownbernie.

[betsuni]

128. If your question is serious, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118720411#post8

[Jetboy]

132. I read through all of that and I believe even more firmly that

there was nothing Sanders could've done to get BLM off his back in Seattle.

'He came armed with a surplus of terrible statistics on US racial disparities and institutional racism.' That shows good faith.

'No, I don’t think that they were honest in their responses… Today was about holding senator Bernie sanders and former governor O’Malley accountable for what’s to come and we wanted to test them to see if they would be able to really hold their ground when we put their feet to the fire. And I was not that impressed. I think that former Gov O’Malley failed, especially when he proclaimed, ‘white lives matter.’ It’s very clear that he didn't actually understand why we say black lives matter, and also just was very defensive. We need bold and courageous leadership right now. We don’t need people who are gonna be cowardly and people who are going to be defensive. And I think Senator Bernie Sanders had a speech already prepared, especially ‘cause he heard us shut it down back there. So he was prepared with a speech instead of really listening to our questions. And so I would give him a D-.' I read that as 'Since he didn't say exactly what we wanted him to say nothing else matters.'

'What is your agenda going to be to make sure that black lives do matter and that as a leader of this nation? Will you advance a racial justice agenda that will begin to dismantle, not reform not make progress, but begin to dismantle structural racism in this country?” Shoot no problem, just have plans in place to dismantle structural racism and we're good right?

They shows a lack of good faith IMO. It really reminds me of the TTW saga. Only TTW and BLM know what's right and either you do exactly what they say or they have no use for you. Phooey.

[joshcryer]

129. Actually, you can disagree with it...

...without filling the stereotype it's talking about.

I think the Triggers section in the paper is rather weakly sourced and more of a persuasive argument than an objective one, for example.

[melman]

119. Ah

The old "If you say it's wrong that proves it's right." Couldn't see that one coming. Well done.

[still_one]

106. How does that relate to Bernie speaking to a group about Social Security and Medicare?

The term "White Fragility" is appropriate in many situations, but not this one.

If BLM was speaking to a group on the abuses African Americans suffer in America, and a few people jump on the stage, and demand the microphone to talk about a different subject, what should BLM do in that case?

If someone calls someone a racist, and they are NOT a racist, what should that person do that is being called a racist? Is that "White Fragility"?

If someone calls someone a rapist, and they are NOT a rapist, what should that person do that is being called a rapist? What kind of fragility would that represent?

If any person is referred to in a negative way that is false and untrue, what would that person do? What would most people do on DU if that happened?

Context is everything

[tularetom]

107. I know it must be important because it was in a big gray box on my monitor

And it appeared in a very scholarly sounding publication.

But I read the goddamned thing three times because I didn't understand a fucking word it said.

And after reading all the responses to this OP, I'm no better off than I was before.

Im sorry, but it just read like academic, pseudo intellectual, psychobabbly bullshit to me and if that reinforces your position that "White Fragility" is epidemic here in the US, I'm happy for you.

But I'm sure that a lot of pretentious, artsy fartsy blowhards, are having orgasms over it in their cloistered ivy covered temples of academe.

[Skittles]

108. CORRECT

[Jetboy]

109. Sometimes there is just right and wrong. What BLM did to Sanders was wrong. n/t

[Monk06]

110. From Vanilla Nightmare to White Fragility. This post proves one thing. Adrian Piper is more

influential than I believed or she deserves.

[joshcryer]

120. The responses here are absolutely fascinating.

I can't believe how people can't just say "there are some good points there, and maybe I disagree with some other points."

Nope, just kneejerk responses exemplifying, absolutely to the core, the meat of the argument being put forward.

[marle35]

135. The people with the knee-jerk responses

know the OP is directed at them, I guess.

The rest of us sit back and watch the havoc.

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. Ssshhh! They still haven't figured out that no "Democrat" can get the nomination without blacks.

[MADem]

164. But they intend to shout down any of those people who dare to speak up.

That'll work!!! "We Stand Together" is code for "Shut Up, Black People!!!"

And no--I am NOT making this up:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410529/--We-Stand-Together-WTF

Here's the worst part--Symone Sanders, the new 'spokesperson' for Sanders on these matters, is black. This probably won't end well for her--I hope she's being paid well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

165. I actually think Symone (a female Cornel West) will work to BS' detriment, but don't tell anyone.

You can't make us follow where we don't want to go. Just ask the Republicans who push Michael Steele, Ben Carson, and others on the stage for "outreach". It doesn't work, and neither will Symone.

I'm sorry, but I don't think of BS as an ally, and if his single digit approval among minorities is any indication, I'm not alone. Like you, I hope Symone takes the money and runs, or she may wish she had.

[MADem]

166. I think this idea of hers is just stupid....why not just bellow "Shut UP Shut UP Shut UP!" at

protesters?

Symone Sanders told the crowd to cheer “We Stand Together” over and over if a disruption came in Portland, signaling that the campaign is preparing strategies to prevent Black Lives Matter from shutting it down again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410529/--We-Stand-Together-WTF

Yeah, that'll make 'em love ya!

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. Honestly, I think BLM is done with BS & his supporters. They have nothing to fear going forward.

You'd think they'd be grateful to have a few POC in the room, if only for the cameras, but I'm not here to offer them campaign advice.

[MADem]

191. Really!

Of course, you have to wonder if Ralph Nader isn't sabotaging the effort, sending over his Communications Director to work for Sanders and invent that "Shout 'em down" idea....!

The optics--if they ever choose to implement that kind of "Scream Them into Submission" thing--will be terrible. Talk about a viral YOUTUBE!

[Buns_of_Fire]

137. Okay, so let me get it straight: I'm fragile if I get angry,

I'm fragile if I become afraid,

I'm fragile if I feel guilty,

I'm fragile if I argue,

I'm fragile if I say nothing and don't argue (which I assume would include just being quiet and listening), and

I'm fragile if I walk away from it.

Sums up the possibilities nicely. And since I think the two loudmouths in Seattle were acting like assholes, I must be a racist, too. And probably a misogynist. I thank the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy (love that name!) for setting me straight on my fragility.

[Facility Inspector]

140. Should they just "Bow Down?"

[Armstead]

141. As someone who has written a couple of "fragile white" OPs, I think this is bullshit

I've written some "fragile white" posts in response to the bullshit actions of those "activists" who disrupted Sanders' speech on Saturday.

But rather than "feeling fragile" I was pissed off at obnoxious and counterproductive behavior on both a human,visceral level and on a political level. I was also very discouraged at the implications on how that represented a schism that is creating a totally unnecessary obstacle to the much larger process of social and economic reform on many issues -- including racism.

There may be some legitimate and accurate points in this "scholarly" article. But the context it is posted is not helpful.

I'll just respond to this OP with a couple of points.

1) I'd be embarrassed as hell and highly critical if some white supporters of Sanders -- or some Occupy types -- were to barge onto the stage at a Hillary Clinton rally and immediately started throwing a Reality TV style tantrum and emulating Snookie or a Jerry Springer show candidate. I'd cringe if they stood two feet away from Clinton started a "look at me, I'm so baaaad" in-your-face Reality TV style rant, and told the entire audience that they were just a bunch of Corporate Nazis....Speaking for myself, I'd apologize for that, instead of justifying it.

2)Racial attitudes and reactions are very complex, and often do extend into individual psychology as well as social attitudes and behavior. We probably need that kind of difficult conversation publicly. But if they are ever to be honestly and constructively addressed on DU -- or in larger society -- it would require all sides to agree to set aside their defensiveness and pride. We'd all have to make some difficult admissions about ourselves and our race, and potentially insulting things about each other. And it would have to include include setting aside "white fragility" and "black fragility" and honestly acknowledge the underlying issues in a constructive spirit.

But trolling posts on DU about "white fragility" and Jersey Shore style catfights at political rallies are not that conversation.

[OneGrassRoot]

145. About your #1...

btw


I'm working through some of these things this morning, and your post is one which helps me do so. Thanks.

What I'm focusing on is message. I guess I'm breaking things down to "focus on the message, not the messenger."

Every movement has individuals who may protest and raise awareness of the message of the movement in ways that many deem unacceptable our even outright disgusting. Our tolerance for protests seems to be a very individual thing, much of which is based on our personality type (some want militant activism, others more orderly protests and everything in between). Obviously how strongly we support the message/issue itself is the strongest driver.

But how some protesters choose to protest shouldn't remove our support for the message of the movement itself.

Similarly, every political candidate is going to have supporters who act in a way that is counter to the demeanor and message of the candidate, but I don't feel that should sway our opinion of the candidate his/herself -- depending upon their reaction to events, however.

There are always going to be excuses to remove ourselves from supporting an issue or a candidate if we allow ourselves to be swayed by followers/supporters rather than the message/candidate.

I consider myself a Bernie supporter but have no compulsion to apologize for the actions of some Bernie supporters who may have offended others.

I am a #BLM supporter but feel no need to apologize for the disruptors of the Seattle rally.

It feels like this cycle of judging based on the actions of a relative few (percentage wise) rather than stay focused on the message, is what throws us wayyyyy off base and is one way we are divided so easily.

I don't know. I'm still contemplating it all.

[Armstead]

151. Thanks...Coffee and work call, but will try to respond later

[PeaceNikki]

144. The way people are reacting here you'd think they kicked his dog or threw a brick at him.

JFC, they interrupted a stump speech, get a grip.

[Rex]

167. Insecurity check.

Just call it what it is - white insecurity. White people feeling irrational toward black people based on sterotypical fears learned in modern society by their peers and mentors. Any challenge to their worldview is met with hostility and contempt.

We white people dominate a lot of the world. We don't like to be reminded of that or our very bloody history to make it that way.

IMO.

[TheSarcastinator]

171. How exactly do you know what color the posters on this site are? Are you Psychic?

Total nonsense and idiocy.

[Turin_C3PO]

192. How do you know who's white?

What if the poster is black? Hispanic? Indian? Arabic? And let me guess, if you're white (I have no clue if you are) then you exempt yourself from said "white fragility" right? LOL. Posts like these are laughable because they have no basis in truth, only the Ivory Tower musings of Limousine Liberal Third WAY supporters (Not all of them, but many). Divisive bullshit.

Sanders 2016.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

194. The funny thing is, no one thinks THEY'RE the limousine/Latte liberal!!!

I'm sure a lot of people are getting a chuckle at watching hundreds of other be called white racist supremacists thinking "HA HA NOT ME!!!!!"