Invisapeeps 2.0

tigerlily wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

tigerlily wrote:

---

I think Richard & PB are assuming everyone is saying that a black man can't be racist.

---

That's certainly what I was reading, tigerlily. At least in the scenario of LW's.

---

I didn't read their posts that way. I think they are saying that white people have a lot easier time of things than black people (simplifying generalizing here) and that has influenced the way a black man in a similar situation would think/feel. Therefore, a black LW might be racist, but he would have more contributing factors than a white man would seem to have in this same situation. Not than he CAN'T be racist, but that there's a lot more factors that MIGHT make it non-racist.

Personally, I think that if the LW prefers a certain race because they feel the alternatives are inferior, then he would be racist, no matter what race he is.

---

If that were his reason, yes. Does he actually say "inferior"?

tigerlily wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

tigerlily wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

tigerlily wrote:

---

I think Richard & PB are assuming everyone is saying that a black man can't be racist.

---

That's certainly what I was reading, tigerlily. At least in the scenario of LW's.

---

I didn't read their posts that way. I think they are saying that white people have a lot easier time of things than black people (simplifying generalizing here) and that has influenced the way a black man in a similar situation would think/feel. Therefore, a black LW might be racist, but he would have more contributing factors than a white man would seem to have in this same situation. Not than he CAN'T be racist, but that there's a lot more factors that MIGHT make it non-racist.

Personally, I think that if the LW prefers a certain race because they feel the alternatives are inferior, then he would be racist, no matter what race he is.

---

If that were his reason, yes. Does he actually say "inferior"?

---

I wasn't talking about the actual LW. Given the wording of the actual letter, I would think it wrong no matter the LW's race.

I believe the guy who wrote the letter is either racist, narcissistic/controlling or in 42's words, moronic. But that is based on my feelings and interpretations.

---

I'm leaning this way as well, again just being my own interpretation.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

huckleberry wrote:

---

I don't think 42 is denying that a black man writing to say he prefers "all black" children so wants to purchase a "white" egg would be racist, simply pointing out that such a letter would be coming from a completely different, and much more complicated context, and far less likely. And I think the point she's making is interesting.

And PB, you didn't ask me the (I agree, silly) question, but I'm not claiming to read his mind, just his words. I know I'm repeating myself, but he says he wants the kids to look like him. But since a baby conceived with a "black" egg would look just as much like him as a baby conceived with a "white" egg, he means he prefers to have white children.

---

So read his words (paraphrased): Wife of different race from me is infertile, and we are thinking egg donation route. Since we could select any race egg, I'd prefer one that looks like me. How to broach this?

According to you (and Prudie), such a sentiment is horrible, awful, cretinous, and downright Republican if it comes from a white guy. It is however complicated and nuanced if it comes from the black guy. It being the same sentiment, the fact is the only way anyone has to know which it is, is to read the guy's mind.

---

 Huh?  I said nothing at all about his IQ or his political leanings and I'm not Prudie.  Is there some reason you are accusing me of saying things I haven't?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about at this point, or why you want to argue with me.

The letter was written by a white guy, and in my view expresses a racist point of view.  One more time--a child conceived from a brown egg will look just as much like the LW as a child conceived with a white egg, the child just won't be white. 

If such a letter were written by a black guy, it would be racist, but because of the different context more complicated. 

No need to apologize, PB, I'm just confused by so much anger about things that I haven't said (and 42 hasn't said either).

The LW will have a "common thread" with a child conceived from a white egg or a brown egg-the LW is contirubting half the genetic material either way. He just doesn't want any brown threads mixed in with the white ones.

And no one said there were different rules for a black person, just that the implications are quite different.

Since we're doing hypotheticals, how about this? what if there were a drug that a pregnant non-white woman could take that would ensure that the baby would be white? Would it be alright for a white man to ask his non-white wife to use that drug?

And if there was a drug that a white woman could take while pregnant to ensure that the baby would be brown or black, do you think there would be a lot of demand for that drug?

Not exctly like that 42, but I have known folks to say things like "I have no problem with [insert racial, religious, ethnic, gender or other group] but I can't stand the ones who [insert behavior or trait that has nothing to do with race religion, gender or whatever]" and yet will strenuously deny harboring any unfair prejudice against anyone.

huckleberry wrote:

---

No need to apologize, PB, I'm just confused by so much anger about things that I haven't said (and 42 hasn't said either).

The LW will have a "common thread" with a child conceived from a white egg or a brown egg-the LW is contirubting half the genetic material either way. He just doesn't want any brown threads mixed in with the white ones. (1)

And no one said there were different rules for a black person, just that the implications are quite different. (2)

Since we're doing hypotheticals, how about this? what if there were a drug that a pregnant non-white woman could take that would ensure that the baby would be white? Would it be alright for a white man to ask his non-white wife to use that drug? (3)

And if there was a drug that a white woman could take while pregnant to ensure that the baby would be brown or black, do you think there would be a lot of demand for that drug? (4)

---

1. Because he himself isn't brown. If he were and insisted on brown, it's the same situation (equally noxious or no).

2. Perhaps and perhaps not.

3. I'd say that's a personal matter between the two of them. (Maybe the drug is her idea.)

4. Not likely, no.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

huckleberry wrote:

---

Not exctly like that 42, but I have known folks to say things like "I have no problem with [insert racial, religious, ethnic, gender or other group] but I can't stand the ones who [insert behavior or trait that has nothing to do with race religion, gender or whatever]" and yet will strenuously deny harboring any unfair prejudice against anyone.

---

Tell me about it, huck. My head is still spinning from Rob Parker's remarks.

---

 I'm really confused why you bolded my example and then posted about Rob Parker.  The remarks you're referring to do not resemble the one I quoted in structure, subject or content.  What's the relevance?

I researched Mr. Parker (sports journalist???) but have no idea how he is relevant to this discussion or why he makes PBJ's head spin.

huckleberry wrote:

---

I think the remarks by Rob Parker were rather dopey. I guess I see the analogy you meant but seems to me the comments were a stupid (and I suppose racist in a sense) version of saying that Griffin has forgotten where he came from.

I was referring to folks who are bigots but either say or possibly even believe they are not, so I was very confused. Don't think Parker falls into that category.

---

Okay, so Dan Marino (a panelist) challenges Tom Brady's patriotism because he married a foreigner. You wouldn't say that's bigoted? Or are the rules different for Marino?

ETA: That's all hypothetical of course. Marino's certainly every bit as lame as Parker re commentary, but Marino never said such a thing.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Saturday 15th of December 2012 09:14:32 PM

I think the remarks by Rob Parker were rather dopey. I guess I see the analogy you meant but seems to me the comments were a stupid (and I suppose racist in a sense) version of saying that Griffin has forgotten where he came from.

I was referring to folks who are bigots but either say or possibly even believe they are not, so I was very confused. Don't think Parker falls into that category.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

 

Now just imagine if, nation-wide, every single person who automatically assumed a white man who wanted a white child was a bigot were called out on their double-standards. More generally, imagine if everyone who assumed the worst about a white guy (or just a man) were called out on their own double-standards. ("Reverse sexism" is just as silly a term.) And this happened every single time.

YES it gets tiresome. It might get so tiresome, people would lay off "white men" and just evaluate one another as individuals.

And if we weren't careful, we might actually get peace on Earth and good will toward men!

ETA: Peace on Earth! Good will to the House of Huck (and all).

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Saturday 15th of December 2012 11:29:48 PM

---

 I cannot imagine that many people would assume every white man who wanted a white child was a bigot because these white men would presumably be married to white women so what else would they expect to have but white children?

Regarding the bolded are you saying white men are somehow a persecuted group, when you say "lay off white men"?

huckleberry wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

huckleberry wrote:

---

PB, I'm not sure if there's something about the way I write that makes my posts hard to follow for you or if you deliberately misunderstand me. (1)

I said I was talking about folks who claim or believe they are not bigots, but voice sentiments that demonstrate decidedly racist thinking. (2) I don't think that Rob Parker falls into that category, i.e. the category of people who are racists but deny or fail to recognize that they are. He may well be a racist in a sense (3) and I said his remarks were stupid.

I can't figure out if you're one of those people who, whenever the topic of whites discriminating against people of color comes up, has to offer an example of a black person saying something racist (as if that somehow make discrimination ok?) (4) or if you're just determined to "out" me as a reverse racist (5) or something. Either way, it's frankly tiresome. (6)

---

Huck, may tidings of comfort and joy find their way to you. (As they just now did to me -- carolers at my door.)

1. You asked the question, "what's the relevance?" I answered it, so not sure what I misunderstand.

2. This is true. Parker never claimed to not be a bigot, so in that sense my analogy falls short.

3. How would one be "racist in a sense"? Any more than one might be pregnant in a sense?

4. If conduct XYZ is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it. This was my point.

5."Reverse racism" is one of the silliest terms out there. A person either believes or doesn't believe that races are equal.

6. YESSSSSSSSSSSS. It is tiresome, very tiresome, isn't it Huck?

Now just imagine if, nation-wide, every single person who automatically assumed a white man who wanted a white child was a bigot were called out on their double-standards. More generally, imagine if everyone who assumed the worst about a white guy (or just a man) were called out on their own double-standards. ("Reverse sexism" is just as silly a term.) And this happened every single time.

YES it gets tiresome. It might get so tiresome, people would lay off "white men" and just evaluate one another as individuals.

And if we weren't careful, we might actually get peace on Earth and good will toward men!

ETA: Peace on Earth! Good will to the House of Huck (and all).

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Saturday 15th of December 2012 11:29:48 PM

---

 Your analogy didn't fall short, it had nothing to do with my point.  And you are again ranting at me for applying a double standard, which I have not done. 

I have never said anything unfair to "white men."  I have given my opinion about the sentiments expressed in this particular letter, which is written by a white man who does not want to have brown children. 

Parker is a black man who does not approve of the politics (Republican) and "white" behavior of a black man.  A somewhat logical analogy would be a white man disapproving of another white guy's politics (Democrat) and "black" behavior.  Yes, there are racial stereotypes involved, but it is not bigotry in the usual sense, i.e. unfairly stereotyping a member of another racial, ethnic or gender group.

I don't know if this is just your way of arguing, but I'm tired of your repeated accusations that I apply double standards depending on the person's race and sex.  You have absolutely no basis for saying that, and it is wierd and offensive to me that you keep doing it. 

---

No it wasn't.

It was written by a white man who would have been fine with having brown children had they come from his wife. BUT, since they had to go out and buy eggs anyway, wanted a preference that otherwise would never have been presented.

I'm tired of your repeated accusations that I apply double standards depending on the person's race and sex.
Then don't apply double standards

In my book, conduct is not one of those race-specific constructs. Conduct is defensible, period, or it's boorish, period. (But then I'm a Republican, so take for what it's worth.)