Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(07-03-2020, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your statement contributes to the idea that there’s a “right way” to be black.  That type of thinking leads to people like Terry Crews being called a “coon” and an “Uncle Tom” because they don’t think the “right way”. Maybe that wasn’t your intention and I’m certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt given your explanation.

Well here's why I don't think my little joke contributes to the idea there is a right way to be black.

It is not possible to study subjects like world history, US history, the history of the Civil War or of Civil Rights, or black history, without recognizing subgroups of human population defined as "black," "native American," "European," albeit according to shifting criteria.  Merely recognizing that such groups exist and can be studied as such is not, at the same time, a claim each is monolithic, unchanging, and absent social, historical and cultural difference.

Scientific polling, which began in the 1932 election cycle, has since tracked the voting habits of demographics like "blacks," and now includes "Asian," "Latino," and "colleged-educated women."

If it falls out that since 1965, "blacks" have voted predominately Democrat--above 80% in EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION--then how are pollsters and social scientists and historians to treat that information? I say they should not suppress it because it might make black voters who vote for Trump feel bad, anymore than they should do away with the demo "college-educated women" because the revelation Trump is doing poorly with that group might make female Trump voters without college degrees feel "dumb." Without these demographic groupings, we lose any refined understanding of voter interests and behavior.

So from a social scientific POV, simple reference to this demographic history, even in a joke, is a reference to a historical/statistical fact, not a "blanket statement" about blacks on the order of "they all like watermelon." If that were not the case, it would be impossible to study "blacks" or African Americans from a social science/historical perspective.  The ability to distinguish between "blanket statements" and practical analytical categories is essential to the practice of good social science.

Certainly someone COULD use the aforementioned statistic as part of an argument claiming any African American voting for a racist president is an Uncle Tom, implying there is a right way to be black, but that would require specific additions and claims beyond a simple, figural understatement of the black vote for Trump.  Otherwise, any "right way" claim is just projected into the statement. It would be analogous to claiming a simple joke about how poorly Trump does among white, educated women is at the same time a statement about the right way to be a woman, questioning the femininity/womanhood/motherhood of those who vote for Trump. If such uncontrolled inference passes muster, then it is really impossible to rationally discuss and criticize voter choices. Any statement critical of any demographic can become a rorshach blot onto which readers can project their unique anger at individuals, groups, or society as a whole.

Final note: it is unsurprising if there are African Americans who fault other African Americans for voting for Trump, who is routinely accused of racism. It is certainly a fact that some African-Americans fault others for not being "black enough" or black the right way. But in my years on the Bengals message board I have never made that my fight. Where I have spoken in depth about race, it has always been to critique essentialist constructions of what is finally a social, not a biological construct. Occasionally I have urged my fellow posters to eschew ascribing racism to other posters on the board or intervened to urge benefit of the doubt.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 02:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Well here's why I don't think my little joke contributes to the idea there is a right way to be black.

It is not possible to study subjects like world history, US history, the history of the Civil War or of Civil Rights, or black history, without recognizing subgroups of human population defined as "black," "native American," "European," albeit according to shifting criteria.  Merely recognizing that such groups exist and can be studied as such is not, at the same time, a claim each is monolithic, unchanging, and absent social, historical and cultural difference.

Scientific polling, which began in the 1932 election cycle, has since tracked the voting habits of demographics like "blacks," and now includes "Asian," "Latino," and "colleged-educated women."

If it falls out that since 1965, "blacks" have voted predominately Democrat--above 80% in EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION--then how are pollsters and social scientists and historians to treat that information? I say they should not suppress it because it might make black voters who vote for Trump feel bad, anymore than they should do away with the demo "college-educated women" because the revelation Trump is doing poorly with that group might make female Trump voters without college degrees feel "dumb." Without these demographic groupings, we lose any refined understanding of voter interests and behavior.

So from a social scientific POV, simple reference to this demographic history, even in a joke, is a reference to a historical/statistical fact, not a "blanket statement" about blacks on the order of "they all like watermelon." If that were not the case, it would be impossible to study "blacks" or African Americans from a social science/historical perspective.  The ability to distinguish between "blanket statements" and practical analytical categories is essential to the practice of good social science.

Certainly someone COULD use the aforementioned statistic as part of an argument claiming any African American voting for a racist president is an Uncle Tom, implying there is a right way to be black, but that would require specific additions and claims beyond a simple, figural understatement of the black vote for Trump.  Otherwise, any "right way" claim is just projected into the statement. It would be analogous to claiming a simple joke about how poorly Trump does among white, educated women is at the same time a statement about the right way to be a woman, questioning the femininity/womanhood/motherhood of those who vote for Trump. If such uncontrolled inference passes muster, then it is really impossible to rationally discuss and criticize voter choices. Any statement critical of any demographic can become a rorshach blot onto which readers can project their unique anger at individuals, groups, or society as a whole.

Final note: it is unsurprising if there are African Americans who fault other African Americans for voting for Trump, who is routinely accused of racism. It is certainly a fact that some African-Americans fault others for not being "black enough" or black the right way. But in my years on the Bengals message board I have never made that my fight. Where I have spoken in depth about race, it has always been to critique essentialist constructions of what is finally a social, not a biological construct. Occasionally I have urged my fellow posters to eschew ascribing racism to other posters on the board or intervened to urge benefit of the doubt.  

That’s a very long winded way of saying it’s ok to make generalized (or stereotypical) statements as long as they are backed up by facts. Using the same logic it would be permissible to make a flippant comment about a murder committed by a black person. After all, statistically, they commit more than half of the murders in this country, so using your logic such a comment is backed by facts and is therefore acceptable.

I don’t find that acceptable and I don’t find your comment acceptable for the same reason. Attempt to justify it all you want, it wrong to say and you were wrong for saying it.

[Dill]

(07-03-2020, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That’s a very long winded way of saying it’s ok to make generalized (or stereotypical) statements as long as they are backed up by facts. Using the same logic it would be permissible to make a flippant comment about a murder committed by a black person. After all, statistically, they commit more than half of the murders in this country, so using your logic such a comment is backed by facts and is therefore acceptable.

I don’t find that acceptable and I don’t find your comment acceptable for the same reason. Attempt to justify it all you want, it wrong to say and you were wrong for saying it.

Well no, it's not a "long-winded" way of simply saying "it's ok to make generalized (or stereotypical) statements as long as they are backed up by facts," though it certainly assumes "generalized claims" should not overreach factual support. Looks like we BOTH disagree with your paraphrase here.

I argued 1) that one cannot process or discuss social/historical/political events, issues and people without reference to general categories, including "race," and that 2) mere reference to and deployment of those categories does not in itself constitute "blanket statement" or stereotyping.

Then I explicitly argued a distinction between practical social science categories and "blanket" or "stereotypical statements" as you are now calling them. Did you think I was doing that in favor of stereotypes??

Not clear how any of this, including a requirement statements "be backed up by facts," would justify "'a flippant comment about a murder committed by a black person' because 'statistically, they commit more than half the murders in this country.'" If by "flippant comment" you mean a negative, stereotypical value judgment, then in your example someone is simply adding a value judgment to a statement of fact that you, by the way, appear to agree is true.  That just sounds like an overreaching and improper inference. Pretty sure that I have never advocated for overreaching and improper inferences, above or anyone else.

The "short-winded" version--no, I did not say that anyone can make any old negative, stereotypical value judgment as long as it includes a "fact" in there somewhere. All manner of bad arguments may include "facts."  But that doesn't mean advocating respect for facts makes bad arguments "permissible."

When you say "statistically, [blacks] commit more than half of the murders in this country," are you deploying a practical social science category or just making a "blanket statement"?   Would you agree that the statement expresses an accurate statistical finding, and that it would hard or impossible to construct good social policy without such statistics?   Would you agree that that statement, as a statistical fact, is not inherently "racist" or a value judgment about black people, even if some poster over on Stormfront deploys it in a racist argument? Finally, would you agree that a call to respect factual statements such as the above, does not of itself somehow make the Stormfront argument "permissible"? If so, then you agree with me.

And if you agree so far, then what is wrong with recognizing, as a statistical fact, that the majority of black voters in the US vote Dem? Your previous argument implies doing that necessarily constructs those voters as some monolithic "other."  If it does, then I suppose we should no longer use the demographic "black" in assessing polling/voting results? Same for other groups?

And of course we should no longer joke about how few in that demographic vote for Trump. Because that would be a statement on the "right way" to be black, not about Trump's effectiveness as a candidate?

Your Crews connection looks simply free-associated, a thing that could happen simply by virtue of the fact the statistic exists and some African Americans argue about who's not black, all independently of my joke, which doesn't situate me in that debate. If the majority agreed my statement was "unacceptable," it would massively restrict the things it is possible to say about black voters, as opposed to other demographics. 

[GMDino]

#Breaking: Photo of selfie taken by @AuroraPD officers near site of #ElijahMcClain memorial. pic.twitter.com/VZbOWQjvhf

— Gabe Gutierrez (@gabegutierrez) July 3, 2020