on the monster thread about racism and intentionalism. (Nominally. It’s really about two bright, stubborn men.)
I approved a few comments that got hung up in moderation, but I’m not going into that thread to really read it until I have coffee.
Henry fucking Kissinger couldn’t get Jeff Goldstein and Patrick Frey to discuss something civilly at this point; I certainly cannot.
I wonder whether their differences have to do with mixing up where our duties lie as people who are going about our lives, communicating with each other, versus our duties as citizens. For the first set of circumstances, I think the Patterico code (we must try to be polite in our communications) has some merit, but for the second set of circumstances—the matter of how we deal with each other in any group—I feel we must revert to the Goldsteinian code, which essentially gives the speaker or writer the benefit of a doubt when it comes to potentially evil motives.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 158 comments… read them below or add one }
Hahahahaha.
I have no such Patterico code, and if Goldstein has such a code, it applies only to his friends, and certainly not to me. I never get the benefit of any doubt — hell, I don’t even get the benefit of having MY STATEMENT ABOUT MY INTENT accepted, at any time.
I say I didn’t call R.S. McCain a racist, and did not intend to? Fuck me. I called him one.
Because, you know, we care so much about the author’s INTENT and all.
He claims to care about intent — but when he’s arguing with someone he doesn’t like, he just ignores their statements about their intent. He seizes their intent and replaces it with his own. I call this “intentionalism nose off.”
I say I think Obama is a good man trying to do what he thinks is right, as opposed to a bad man deliberately imposing bad policies to destroy the nation? Well, I don’t mean it. I just want a pat on the back. Intentionalism nose off.
I say I am not saying R.S. McCain is a racist? Well, I am. I just don’t understand what I mean. I need Jeff Goldstein the linguistic fraud to explain my intent to me. Intentionalist nose off.
He would explain, of course, that he is consistent. That all these things are true, and what HE says is really what MY INTENT is. It’s just that I’m a) lying about my intent or b) to dumb to realize what my intent is, or c) somehow otherwise mistaken about my own intent.
Where in all this is the Grand Principle that I get to decide my own message? Where is all that great rhetoric about seizing others’ messages, when Goldstein is out there determining FOR ME what MY MESSAGE really is?
How am I getting the benefit of any fucking doubt here from Jeff Goldstein, Joy?
Where in all this is the Grand Principle that I get to decide my own message? Where is all that great rhetoric about seizing others’ messages, when Goldstein is out there determining FOR ME what MY MESSAGE really is?
Jeff said that to call a statement racist (not racist-sounding, which is different) without imputing some kind of racist intent to the speaker is logically impossible.
That’s not the same as telling you what you think or what your words actually mean. He’s splitting a different hair than you are. You’re saying that one racist statement does not a racist make.
It’s a damned fine distinction, and lots of people are missing it.
Though at this point, your personal opinion of Jeff makes it hard to hold the lab table still enough to show you where the various hairs are being split.
Hi Joy
I bugged out last night after midnight and I’m only on my 2nd cup o coffee.
It’s unfortunate that when Patrick can’t turn off the DDA mode he refuses to understand plain English and repeats his same misunderstanding louder – louder – Garrett Morris-like.
A statement separated from it’s author can’t be properly judged as to meaning. It is as neutral as a singular act of sexual intercourse. Context goes to intent. If one judges a statement as “racist” then the author was acting as a racist when they wrote it, just as if one judges that singular act of sexual intercourse “rape” then the person was acting as a “rapist” at the time of the intercourse.
So the person who proclaims that the statement/act was “racist”/”rape” cannot then claim they are NOT saying the author/actor is a “racist”/”rapist”. At that point, it is an exercise in character assassination. “Oh, I’m not saying YOU are a [judgement], but what you did WAS [judgement].” What that tactic does is then put the burden of proof on the accused.
As I said late last night:
It is a kafkaesque experience to be accused of racism by someone with an agenda.
I speak from recent experience.
Eh, but what do I know. I’m an average person and therefore, unable to understand the way language works.
oh god, when does the caffiene kick in???
I better put in some disclaimers…. I’m NOT saying that Pat had any other agenda at the time he decided to indict RSM. However, while Pat was “troubled” by that particular quote, I was troubled by how the issue was addressed by Pat’s tactics.
and oh, the claim that JeffG is ONLY concerned about charges of racism towards the melanin-challenged? I posted on the Tiger Woods reaction thingy. JeffG clearly stated at the very beginning his interest lay exclusively in the language claim that one can say racist things without be a racist. Indeed, he even posits if Pat’s goal is/was to purge the conservative movement of racist reprobates, that “may very well be a worthy goal”.
it got crazy after that
What I am saying is that
whoops… even my editing-fu is not in full swing
What I am saying[wanders away in search of more caffeine and some sustenance]
As posted at PW, a continuance to my last in this thread:
Yeah, I know, Darleen. I’ve been called a racist merely for discussing the word “nigger” as a word, rather than styling it as “the n-word.”
I do that, of course, because to me in general the phrase “n-word” gives that insult more power over people’s psyches than it should have.
But “racist” is the new “nigger.” YMMV, and probably does.
(Of course, in Patrick’s world no one’s mileage ever varies.)
Joy
actually, IMHO, “racist” is the new “child molester”. It is as if being hit with a water balloon filled with grape juice, you’re hard pressed to ever get that stain out.
Maybe the overuse of the race-card can socially/culturally dilute the charge, but in the workplace, mere whisper of that word causes cardiac infarctions in the HR department.
I went through months of weirdness when a probationary employee of mine who I was NOT going to pass into permanent employment because she was just a plain lousy employee, desperately started tossing out the “racist” accusations against me, my assistant (Guatamalen) my immediate boss (Hispanic) and my big boss (black). Took me four extra months of watching my every word and hand gesture, writing almost a novel length journal on her, and basically devoting a ton of energy every day to second guessing everything in my department until I got word from downtown I could cut her loose.
Stuff like that should NOT happen. And it is our judicial system that has allowed it.
Fuckin’ judicial system. You ever notice that it’s full of fuckin’ Jews and fuckin’ Micks? Fuck.
I mean, they’re fuckin’ verbose. Especially the guys. Ya know?
Yes, I know you do. But coming up with a name for your misunderstand doesn’t make it any less of one.
All you continue to show is that you haven’t understood from the jump what it is I’m talking about.
Which I kept telling you, even while you insisted you’d understood. Nose on, nose off — none of that makes any sense.
I am not denying that you may have intended to say that Stacy McCain is not racist; or is racist; or may possibly be racist (whichever one matches your actual intent, and whatever your saying today what your position has always been). I’m saying that the argument you produced in support of your intent fails to signal that intent, because the argument commits you to a different logical conclusion than the one you intended.
Failure to signal your intent is not a failure to intend. I am not taking your intent; I’m pointing out how you failed to communicate it, and how in doing so, you’ve actually argued something that you didn’t want to argue.
In the simplest terms, say you watch a movie. You like the movie. Somebody asks you if you liked the movie. You intend to signal that you liked it very much. So you stick your thumb in your ass and bark like a reef seal.
From an intentionalist perspective, you have just created a sign for “I liked that movie very much.” But have you signaled it in such a way that people are likely to interpret it correctly? Probably not. Now, through trial and error, you can probably make your meaning clear. Or (and here’s the norm) you can choose a conventional sign that you’re pretty sure people will understand (say, a thumbs up).
If I as the receiver of the message take your thumb in the ass, barking gesture to mean that you enjoy a nice rim job from seals, otters, or sea lions, I would be in error as to your intent. And I would be wrong about what your sign is — and therefore wrong about what you meant by it.
If I then went about telling people that Patrick likes to get rim jobs from manatees, and I ascribed that desire to you, I would be doing a disservice to your intent, and I wouldn’t be adhering to your meaning.
On the other hand, the way you signaled your intent was such that it led to an easy misunderstanding. You intended to signal that you liked a movie. You failed to signal that intent.
But the intent, as you can see, hasn’t changed.
You can shriek and scream and stamp your feet and go about your New Critical / formalist way of reading; but that doesn’t change the fact that when you do so, if you are not appealing to the intent of the utterer, you aren’t really “interpreting.”
That’s all their is to it, nose on, nose off.
Darleen, did you ever respond to my point that you are robbing the word “racist” of any meaning if you conclude that someone is inherently “a racist” when they have said one racist thing?
You made the analogy to a “murderer” being someone who has committed a murder. But that’s how society defines the word murderer: as someone who has committed a murder.
Society does not define “a racist” as someone who has said a single racist statement at some point in their life. Else we would all be racists. The word, as most people use it, connotes a pattern.
Society does not define “a criminal” as someone who has committed a single crime at some point in their life. Else we would all be criminals. The word, as most people use it, connotes a pattern.
I’d post this in whatever threads on which Pat uses this argument about my fraudulence, and about various noses, but I’m not sure which are active. So for the time being, I’ll just point here.
Unless it’s a single “racist statement,” alone, all by itself?
You can be racist at any given moment. All you need to do so is adopt the idea of the superiority of some races over others.
This doesn’t commit you to being a perpetual racist. And yes, it’s likely true that most of us at one time or another have been racist.
That society gives us a pass because we haven’t exhibited a pattern does NOT mean we haven’t been racist.
“On the other hand, the way you signaled your intent was such that it led to an easy misunderstanding.”
Nope. I was clear and you lied about what I said.
As usual.
Society does not define “a racist” as someone who has said a single racist statement at some point in their life. Else we would all be racists. The word, as most people use it, connotes a pattern.
No, Patrick. I don’t see it that way–I see it more like Darleen does, as being akin to rape or murder. You did the racist act? You are a racist. Racism is evil, Buddy.
That’s why I think we should be more careful in describing acts as racist–so as not to rob the word of its meaning.
I mean, you’ve been actively out there telling people I said something that I already TOLD YOU I didn’t say and didn’t mean.
Intentionalism nose off; you’re a fraud.
“No, Patrick. I don’t see it that way–I see it more like Darleen does, as being akin to rape or murder. You did the racist act? You are a racist. Racism is evil, Buddy.”
Under Goldstein’s theory, it doesn’t matter how you see it. We’re talking about what I said, and whether I called McCain a racist. I said that he had said a racist thing, but that doesn’t mean he should be labeled a racist for all time. Then Goldstein came along AFTER I SAID THAT and said “Frey called McCain a racist.”
Bullshit. I did not, I made it clear I did not, and I again denied it when Goldstein accused me of it. Which he called “backpedaling” even though it was a reaffirmation of what I had said all along.
This is stealing my meaning from me. It’s a betrayal of everything he claims to stand for.
Intentionalism nose off.
He is a fraud.
Goldstein:
“it’s likely true that most of us at one time or another have been racist.”
McCann:
“No, Patrick. I don’t see it that way–I see it more like Darleen does, as being akin to rape or murder. You did the racist act? You are a racist. Racism is evil, Buddy.”
If y’all are in agreement on this, then between the two of you, you just said that we are all racists.
Which I somehow doubt you think. Meaning: evidently you disagree with each other about some aspect of this.
Talk amongst yourselves, then, and try to reconcile this. Me, I have a Disney movie to go see.
Context, Patrick.
Which was
So you’re saying poking your thumb in your ass and barking like a seal made it clear that you liked a movie?
I am actively showing people that your argument says something that you claim you didn’t intend it to say.
Which only means that you didn’t do such a great job signaling your intent, because you constructed an argument in support of that intent that, when parsed, commits you to a different end point than you thought you were reaching.
My argument has nothing to do with what McCann thinks or doesn’t think.
By what maneuver would you combine our arguments, take some aggregate, then divide it back up as if each of felt exactly half of the whole?
I was clear. I said we’ve all likely been racist at some point. Could have been for a second or an hour of fifteen years.
Society would likely only label those who are habitually racist as racists. But again, that’s society giving those who exhibit no pattern a pass.
I said that you’re argument commits you to calling McCain a racist. That’s not the same thing. I said, in effect, following Patrick’s logic, he is committed to the idea that, because what we have is a “racist statement,” and because the statement belongs to Stacy McCain, Stacy McCain is racist.”
That’s my argument. Which I offered as an assertion, which I then tried to prove. You keep stomping your feet like a little child, pretending I’m not addressing your concerns, but here I am, doing so, and your responses are curt, and don’t speak at all to my rebuttals.
It is no such thing. Your meaning is there, fixed at the time you turn your intent into language. I’m just pointing out that you did a piss poor job of communicating that intent — and in fact, you seem to have undercut it by constructing an argument that militates logically against your intent.
That’s not a betrayal of everything I stand for. It’s an affirmation of it.
Sounds like we believe the same things, mostly. You just did a right crappy job of reading my post — and took a post that said “I am not saying McCain is a racist” and turned it into “Frey said McCain is a racist.”
Good interpretin’!
And with that, I am gone for a coupla hours at least.
Okay. So again in this thread I’ve made linguistic arguments that speak to Frey’s stated concerns about intentionalism.
His response has been to ignore those responses, reassert his claims as if they haven’t been addressed, and dismiss me as a “fraud.”
Congrats.
And I’m the fraud?
Last question before I go:
Jeff, clear answer requested:
Was McCain’s statement racist?
Actually, your argument did all the work. I just pointed out how. If your intent is to say “McCain is not a racist,” next time you might want say that with an argument that backs up the assertion.
I don’t believe so, judging from everything I know of the context. But if I believed it was racist, I’d have to say McCain is racist — at least in this instance.
Which naturally doesn’t commit him to being racist at any time thereafter.
I’m going to respond to the substantive argument in a post, later, when I get back.
The basic argument is above: everyone commits crimes, not everyone is a criminal. If I say a statement is racist, and explicitly say the man is not necessarily “a racist,” then only a liar or someone misreading my post says that I have called the man a racist.
It’s pretty much that simple.
If you say everyone is “a criminal” it robs the word of any meaning.
Or someone who can prove that you’ve called him a racist by examining the logic of your proposition.
You seem to keep missing that one.
Once again, as simply as possible: if you say a statement is racist, what makes the statement racist? Is it racist-sounding? That is, is it racist-sounding to you? Or is the statement made by a racist?
In the first instance, you are no longer necessarily dealing with the author’s statement. You are dealing with your own ability to signify the marks he’s given you, without taking into account what he meant by them.
In the second instance, you can have a racist statement, because the intent that makes the statement racist has been provided by the author. Which leads you to conclude that the author is racist in his relation to the racist statement he made.
This does not commit the author to being forever racist.
Declaring it so doesn’t make it so.
I think it’s simple, too. Just not in the way you believe it to be.
In your construction, “Everyone commits crimes, but not everyone is a criminal,” the equivalent for the argument at hand over the sign in question might be, “Everyone makes racially-charged statements, but not everyone is a racist.”
Well, I haven’t said that, but so long as we’re here, no, it doesn’t.
It takes away some of the power, but the meaning is the same.
In the end, all that matters is which political party America’s growing minority populations think harbor the racists.
“Honest, In my heart I wasn’t being racist when I called Obama an Uncle Tom,” doesn’t carry much weight in the real world.
Smart-assed hyperliteralist point-scoring that fails to address the point I was making.
Because you have no good response.
If you do, let’s hear it. You agree we have all committed crimes, right? Yet it would silly to brand us as “criminals” as a result. You want a pattern before using that word communicates what most would understand that word to mean.
Similarly, McCain’s statement was racist. What state of mind did he have to have when making it? I already explained that in a post. Not repeating it, you lazy fuck. You’re the one who claims to know what I mean without even reading what I say. That’s why you always misstate my positions — you don’t care what I am really saying. You like to put words in my mouth so you can refute what you pretend I have said.
Fraud.
Wow.
Do any of the other “intentionalists” here believe it is appropriate to respond to an argument you have not even read, because you can “suss out” the meaning based on who says it?
Besides Joy, that is, who has done it twice now.
I wrote a whole post about this and Goldstein is pretending I have not addressed it.
Typical lying from this liar.
Prediction: if he ever responds to my post he’ll agree but will claim I am backtracking or that I am “now conceding” what I have argued all along.
Like he did with the McCain stuff. Hey martyr boy! You said I backtracked on McCain. Since I did not, care to prove it with links, you dishonest race-card playing hypocrite?
Prove I backtracked. You liar.
Arghh!!! I’ve been reading Patterico and Protein Wisdom for years….I’m just not much of a poster….but I want to say something that Little Miss Attila started to touch on above.
Does anyone see what politcal correctness and ‘speech codes’ have done to us? It’s all crazy pretzel logic now! I grew up reading Italian joke books, Irish joke books, Polish joke books and making fun of everyone! I’m Irish and I cannot tell you how many times I have made the drunken Irish jokes about myself and my family. I’ve laughed at Italian jokes even though I am not Italian. I have ‘gasp’ used the ‘N’ word inappropriately on many occasions, but guess what? I’ve dated black guys! Oh my god! I’ve even made jokes about Injuns! Honest Injun!
I AM NOT A RACIST!!! Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me….the fact that we have let liberals brainwash us all into constantly wondering if anything coming out of our mouths brands us as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc is absolutely INSANE!!! I say what I want when I want. The people who know me know it’s just words…..sheesh! I refuse to watch what I say because of someone else’s gay(inappropriate use of the word gay) sense of what is appropriate or not. I worked in New York City for many years and we ALL joked with each other. White guys calling black employees Aunt Jemima (and getting a laugh from the black lady because she had a towel on her head like Aunt Jemima), talking about the guidos to the Italians….everyone understood that they are just words.
The liberals win cuz they’ve turned us all into babies who take offense at the first mean sound coming from someone’s mouth…whether it was meant to be mean or not.
I’m not saying racism or sexism, etc. don’t exist, but picking apart sentences looking for intent is just insane!
Annie
PS As an outside observer back when Jeff Goldstein got banned on Patterico I have to say that it was obvious what he was saying about the tree and the hanging and it was a silly excuse to say he was threatening violence…I child could see what he meant.
Was McCain’s statement racist?
It was RACIST. SOUNDING.
That’s where you needed to start your argument, Pat. You needed to say at the beginning, before anything else, that the statement by RSM SOUNDED RACIST.
Not WAS racist. SOUNDED racist.
And then from there try to determine if there were racist intent in its utterance, and if there were good evidence to show such a thing, you could reasonably say THIS IS A RACIST STATEMENT.
But no, you’re too busy playing ‘gotcha’ on this blog with Jeff’s words and ideas.
Whatever.
For the fourth time, let me put this question directly to you, Patterico, in hopes that you’ll finally answer it:
Out of curiosity, how long does it brand you as a racist for, Patterico?
After the whiplash 180 you pulled on the previous LMA thread when you found out that a quote you thought from “Joe” was actually from one of your co-bloggers (your Dec-11 5:48pm and 10:11pm comments), this is probably not a line of indictment that will turn out well for you.
The response was perfect. Once again, you’ve set yourself up as judge and jury on the matter, even though you haven’t the wherewithal to render a fair or impartial verdict. You’re a preening ass at this point, and you’re looking worse and worse, even as you attempt to make me personally the target.
I don’t care what most would consider the word to mean in another context. In the context we’re dealing with, you are a criminal when commit a crime.
Repeat it, don’t. It’s not like you have any idea what you’re talking about…
If you say so.
I said I could tell you position from your conclusion. Because there are only so many ways you can get to where you ended up. Again, not the same as what you are suggesting.
But you do seem to be whining quite a bit.
Do any of the other “intentionalists” here believe it is appropriate to respond to an argument you have not even read, because you can “suss out” the meaning based on who says it?
Besides Joy, that is, who has done it twice now.
Just for the record, Patrick, when was my first transgression? Was it when I publicly agreed with Jeff at some point during the Rush Limbaugh/”dog called boy” saga, or at some other point?
Annie, what you’ve said is really the crux of it, because anyone can be insensitive at some point or other. As you yourself implied, there’s even a difference in various metropolitan areas: I actually find it shocking how some New Yorkers and Chicagoans seem (to me) to obsess about ethnicity and throw slurs at each other in a way that is good-natured to them, but wouldn’t be my Southern Californian cup of tea at all.
Once we live in a world in which no joke is actually a joke, we are lost. And we are halfway to that point already.
(And don’t get me started on those to whom the word “nigger” is merely the black equivalent of “white trash.” That difference of connotation has probably already gotten people killed over . . . nothing. Stupid, the things people argue about.)
Where is this post by Patrick that I supposedly haven’t responded to? Anybody know?
What Goldstein does not understand is that, if you say “you are a criminal” when what you really mean “you are a criminal at the moment you commit a crime, but that does not mean you are inherently a person with a criminal personality” then you are almost certain to be misunderstood. Otherwise I could call all of you criminals right now.
Let’s start a poll. Who, after me, will Patrick publicly judge next?
My money’s on Dan Riehl.
You asked what state of mind someone has to have to make a racist comment. I explained this in a post that quoted Beldar.
“I say what I want when I want.”
That’s great if the Republicans are content with permanent minority status.
Merriam-Webster’s online edition (11th edition):
“Main Entry: 2, criminal
Function: noun
Date: circa 1626
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime”
Nothing there about personality.
Goldstein understands this quite well. What Goldstein doesn’t understand is why calling someone a criminal in the discussion of their committing of a crime has to be the same as calling them a criminal in discussion of their character, or of their long-term vocation.
I’ve argued that it makes no coherent sense to call a statement racist unless it can be attached to a racist. All that’s required is that the utterer be racist at the time of the utterance.
You have concluded that McCain’s statement proceeded from racist thoughts, have you not? Therefore, you have concluded that the statement is racist.
Are you comfortable in saying Stacy McCain is racist in that instance?
Merriam-Webster’s, again:
“Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \?r?-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective”
Not only is there no breakout meaning for “racist” as distinct from “racism,” there is no acknowledgement of the Pattericoian distinction between the adjectival and the noun forms of “racist,” in which the adjectival form is just fine–but the noun form is something very, very bad.
I am left to infer, therefore, that Patrick is, himself, a bit of an intentionalist, at least in the Humpty Dumpty sense of insisting that when he uses a word, it means exactly what he wants it to mean–nothing more, nothing less.
Patrick wants his cake and to eat it to.
I’ve argued that it makes no coherent sense to call a statement racist unless it can be attached to a racist. All that’s required is that the utterer be racist at the time of the utterance.
Frey has concluded that McCain’s statement proceeded from racist thoughts. Therefore, he concluded that the statement is racist.
So. Was not McCain racist in instance Frey raised for examination and scrutiny?
Nothing I said or wrote ever committed Frey to saying McCain is a racist in perpetuity. But with respect to the statement at hand, to conclude that it is racist is to conclude that its utterer is racist.
If he wishes to get around that by saying that he is unwilling to call McCain racist because people might misunderstand — that one instance does not a racist make — that ship sailed the moment he began probing this issue in the way he did, and at the level of stakes you were playing.
So go ahead, Patrick, say you don’t know if McCain is now a racist. But he must have been when he wrote the comment, otherwise it makes no sense to call the comment racist.
Call that comment racist-sounding, and suddenly people realize that it’s you who are responsible for hearing racism in a statement that may not have been intended that way.
And you are clearly more comfortable exploring other people’s racism than in probing why you have such a ready propensity to find it where it may not be.
Patterico says:
Interesting use of irony quotes around “criminals”. As if you were trying to disambiguate your meaning from the literal meaning of the word.
What was the purpose of adorning the word “criminals” with quotation marks if not to ensure that your reader interpreted it in the broader sense?
If that word “communicates what most would understand that word to mean” then why was it necessary to indicate that you yourself were using it in a special fashion, as the quotation marks indicate?
Pat @ 11:39
(there was a break in the rain and we ran out, got our tree and I haven’t been at the ‘puter for hours. Jumping back in, I’m starting here… I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet…I’ll scroll through and answer as I get to ’em)
Pat asks me
First off, I never said one comment a racist makes. I think I’ve been very very clear *IF* a statement is JUDGED racist, it can only be judged so IF the author of the statement made it from an INSTANCE of racism. That is not only logical, but it then makes it very clear to the person doing the judging to be prudent and sure of themselves before they open their piehole and say “RAAAACCCIIISSSTTT!!!”
Something that is “racist-sounding” and labeled so offers a less emotionally-charged forum in which BOTH author and listener can explore WHY the statement “sounds racist”. It can be misunderstanding due to convention (words & phrases acceptable at one time or in another location are not acceptable in the time or location of the listener) or, somewhere along the line maybe the author WAS racist at the time (or even afterwards) and the conversation reveals it. But that ferreting out of the author’s intent starts with the listener saying “excuse me? but I don’t think I understand” and works forward. It doesn’t start with a nuking of “RACIST!” and then walking it back.
You of all people should know that for a lot of first time DUI offenders, the experience is a huge wakeup call to their own poor thinking/judgements. That one misdemeanor charge doesn’t make them a criminal forever.
Someone never says a racist thing UNCONSCIOUSLY. Maybe out of laziness or resentment or ignorance they’ve always bought into “well you know, those people are [fill in behavior]” …. Irish=drunks, Scots=skinflints, Mexicans=lazy, etc. But the racist intent was still there. Doesn’t mean the person is incapable of learning about other people and never makes another racist statement.
A statement doesn’t float around like an untethered balloon. It may be racist-sounding to your ears, but if you judge it racist, it is because the author was racist in that instance.
“I’ve argued that it makes no coherent sense to call a statement racist unless it can be attached to a racist. All that’s required is that the utterer be racist at the time of the utterance.”
Sure. I’ll agree with {that second statement of yours}. I have never said anything different. If you want to say I did, prove it.
What you don’t understand is that this doesn’t make him “a racist.”
Because when you say someone is “a racist,” most people will understand that as an indictment of the person generally. And, your chest-beating about the intent of the speaker being privileged aside, the way most people understand the phrase matters AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRYING TO DIVINE YOUR REAL INTENT.
See, whenever YOU want to ignore the intent of a speaker you don’t like, you just tell them that they “failed to signal their intent properly.” Intentionalism nose off. So fine: if you say someone is “a racist” then you are signaling your intent badly — if what you really mean is that they are “a person who was animated by racist thoughts, conscious or not, at the time they uttered a particular racist phrase, but who may not be animated by racist thoughts at other times, and thus might not show a pattern of racist thoughts or actions.”
And if that’s what you mean, then it’s also a poor signaling of your intent to say that the speaker must “intend” racism. The common understanding of “intend racism” is that the speaker is consciously speaking in a racist manner. However, your speech can be animated by subconscious, deeply held racist thoughts, and yet racism might not be “intended” in the way that the ordinarily listener would understand the phrase, even if that listener is doing his best to interpret your words according to your true intent, as he should.
You’re so wedded to the use of the word “intent” that you use it even when its use will cause your argument to be misunderstood by reasonable people trying their best to understand what you are trying to say.
What your readers don’t understand is that you are perfectly willing to privilege your interpretation of someone’s words over the speaker’s own interpretation. To put it simply, you, Jeff Goldstein, are perfectly willing to tell someone that they DON’T REALLY MEAN WHAT THEY THINK THEY MEAN.
Your readers think your philosophy makes them safe from unreasonable misinterpretations of their words, but it doesn’t. All it takes is a charlatan willing to mouth the right terminology, who PRETENDS to appeal to the author’s intent — and that charlatan can proceed to secretly IGNORE the author’s intent. All he has to do is claim that the best interpretation of that intent is not the author’s, because he has failed to signal his intent properly, or is lying about his intent, etc.
What they also fail to realize is that, by telling an author that he has failed to signal his intent properly, you are privileging the interpretation of the listener (you) over that of the speaker (in this instance, me). They’re fine with that as long as the speaker is a leftist or one of those conservatives you like to mock. What they don’t realize is that there is no bulwark against this happening to them as well. It all rests on the reasonableness of the person who claims that his interpretation of the speaker’s true intent is the best.
Darleen at 9:45:
“So the person who proclaims that the statement/act was “racist”/”rape” cannot then claim they are NOT saying the author/actor is a “racist”/”rapist”.”
Let’s remove the double negatives to make that clearer. Since we’re talking about racist statements and not rape and not acts, I will also strip out references to acts and statements:
“So the person who proclaims that the statement was “racist” must necessarily be claiming that the author is a “racist.”
Now let’s go to Darleen’s latest comment:
“First off, I never said one comment a racist makes.”
Whaa? That’s what you said at 9:45.
“You of all people should know that for a lot of first time DUI offenders, the experience is a huge wakeup call to their own poor thinking/judgements. That one misdemeanor charge doesn’t make them a criminal forever.”
Indeed. And that is PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING, and what you have been arguing AGAINST. Yet you imply that I have argued the opposite with the use of the phrase “You of all people should know . . .” Indeed I do. That is why I have been trying to explain to you all day that you can say someone did a criminal act without labeling them a criminal.
Did they act in a criminal way at the moment of the crime? Surely they did. Can you TECHNICALLY use a dictionary definition to call them a criminal? I suppose you can. But people will consider you an idiot if you someone a criminal who had a DUI 35 years ago, used it as a wake-up call, and has been on the straight and narrow ever since.
Similarly, you can say one racist statement. If you do, you must have been animated by racist thought, whether conscious or not, at the time of the utterance. But that does not make you a racist for all time. Which, to answer star4, is another way of saying that it’s unfair to call them “a racist,” period, because calling them “a racist” is generally understood to mean that they have exhibited a pattern of racist thoughts or acts.
I did not feel that about McCain because I don’t have the proof. I had one statement that I read in its full context, along with several half-assed explanations he offered, and I concluded that all his offered context did nothing to change the conclusion I still hold: it is a racist statement.
As I have said all along, that does not mean he is “a racist.”
And Goldstein badly misrepresented my argument when he said: “Frey called McCain a racist.” I did not do that. I did not intend to do that. I did not say anything that could fairly be read that way. I merely said what I said, and Jeff Goldstein misinterpreted it — likely because he has a longstanding grudge against me and wishes to make me look bad whenever possible. It has affected the way he interprets my words such that he claims I have said precisely the opposite of what I say and what I mean.
Pat @ 12:03
Then Goldstein came along AFTER I SAID THAT and said “Frey called McCain a racist.”
Bullshit. I did not
:::sigh:::
yes you did Pat. You looked at the context and, for you, RSM’s statement was clearly racist. You made statements to ME to that effect.
You cannot call a quote “clearly racist” then pretend RSM, at that instance of writing a clearly racist statement, wasn’t acting from racist intent. Oh, you waffled by saying “maybe yes, maybe no” … really a shitty manuever IMO in order to let others call RSM racist for you. You do the set up, get the buy in then step into the wings after the reveal.
And again, Jeff did not say you called RSM a racist forever he only pointed out that logically you cannot say RSM’s statement is CLEARLY racist even in context without also saying the author of that statement was racist while writing it, in that once instance.
I have two cats at home. Watching you try to cover your illogic in this instance is like trying to watch them cover up a mess on the tile floor.
Whoops, I badly misread Goldstein’s statement:
When I said this:
I meant to express agreement with the SECOND sentence of his quote. I strongly disagree with the FIRST sentence. In fact, Joy, so that people don’t get confused about my position, could you please change this:
to this:
Because that’s what I meant to say.
And yes, I did fail to signal my intent properly in this instance, and that is why I am rushing to clarify it.
you must have been animated by racist thought, whether conscious or not,
ANIMATED BY A RACIST THOUGHT (no such thing as an unconscious thought lets throw out that humbug right there)
Pat you just described INTENT. If RSM’s statement is CLEARLY RACIST, then he wrote it with RACIST INTENT (animated=self-directed action) and was a RACIST at the instance he wrote it.
DING DING DING….
Darleen,
I have already addressed the argument you made in your latest comment.
You are being incoherent today, as I illustrated in one of the above comments, careening back and forth between the position that a single act (crime, racist statement) labels the person as “a criminal” or “a racist” — and then turning a 180 and lecturing ME about the fact that it doesn’t.
Just bizarre.
Pat
If I’m not a racist at any particular instance, it is impossible for me to write a racist statement. YOU may hear something YOU think is racist. But if I was NOT ANIMATED BY RACIST THOUGHTS, my statement cannot be racist no matter how much you think it sounds like one.
“Pat you just described INTENT.”
I addressed this in my post quoting Beldar. Jaysus H. Keerist . . . did anyone read it?
And I just made the argument again.
Maybe I described “intent” in the specialized way you guys use the term. But not in the way that that term would be understood by most people — even those trying to divine your intent. So if you use that term, you will be signaling your intent badly.
It’s all explained in the post. And I’ll do another one on it. Probably have to wait until tomorrow.
Pat
I’m not being incoherent. I’ve said it makes one a [judgement] for that INSTANCE the person did [act].
I have only spoke in instances.
“If I’m not a racist at any particular instance, it is impossible for me to write a racist statement. YOU may hear something YOU think is racist. But if I was NOT ANIMATED BY RACIST THOUGHTS, my statement cannot be racist no matter how much you think it sounds like one.”
We agree there. What you don’t understand is that this is what I have said all along.
Goldstein claimed I backtracked on McCain. I asked for proof. Has that proof been presented?
But not in the way that that term would be understood by most people
You know most people? Fancy that.
Even my 7 year old twins know “intent”. It means “doing it on purpose.”
As parents we KNOW when “I didn’t mean it!” is bullshit. Kids learn fast about intent.
How is it that so many adults forget what they learned in kindergarten?
From my Beldar post:
“for a statement to be racist, it does have to be the product of racist thought.”
BOOM. There it is, right there. AND IT’S NOT BACKTRACKING. Now let’s put it in context:
I’m trying to explain to you that your use of the word “intend” IN THIS CONTEXT will confuse a lot of people. Bad way to signal your intent.
Gotta go. Will try to converse on the iPhone but it’s harder.
“It means “doing it on purpose.””
Racism can be subconscious.
What you don’t understand is that this is what I have said all along.
Um, no. You said RSM’s statement was clearly racist. That means he was racist at the time he made the statement. You have continually rejected that.
If he was not animated by racist thoughts at the time of writing it, you cannot call it clearly racist. You can ONLY call it “racist sounding to me”. And you didn’t.
“Racism can be subconscious”
BULLSHIT. I reject that fully. I have never bought into the pernicious mendacity of “unpacking my knapsack of white privilege”
If I have continually rejected that then prove it with a quote. Do not confuse “racist” with “a racist.”
Yeah, Darleen–don’t confuse a word with the exact same word, dressed up with an article in front of it.
So much for playing the honest broker.
“NULLSHIT. I reject that fully. I have never bought into the pernicious mendacity of “unpacking my knapsack of white privilege.”
Me neither. But you can have deep-seated subconscious racist feelings and not consciously intend to express them.
Which is different.
Nullshit. Heh. Damn iPhone.
Joy, snark aside, there is a difference between being racist and being a racist, and it’s at the heart of my argument. If you’re just going to mock it I won’t waste my time.
I have now addressed Jeff’s arguments (such as they are) fully. Now he will come by and declare that I have not, or that I have backtracked or whatever. I’m not expecting honesty.
I’ll address all this in a post.
Still no proof I backtracked, I see.
Therefore, if McCain’s statement was racist, it proceeded from racist thoughts, or, flipping the script, from the thoughts of a racist. And I thought you said you didn’t call him that.
Patrick, do yourself a favor. Stop digging.
Oh, do detail that. What is the dividing line between being racist and being a racist?
Are we all criminals here because we’ve all gone one mile an hour above the speed limit at some point in our driving career?
There is a fellow named blah at Goldstein’s cesspool who gets it — he just doesn’t understand that I understand that Goldstein’s use of the word “intent” differs from ordinary usage.
I am trying to explain to him and Darleen that using terms in a different manner than their ordinary usage, without explaining that you are doing so, is a poor way to “signal intent.”
Says the guy who makes up his own meanings for words–ones that differ from the conventional ones.
Pablo: a pattern of racism.
Yes. A person who is engaging in racism is a racist, just as a person who is engaging in crime is a criminal. Statements don’t exist on their own, nor do crimes. Someone has to make them happen. Appropriate adjectives properly apply.
In my experience, most people are able to separate when we’re talking about one thing from when we’re talking about everything.
This little semantic game of yours is rather sad. You’ve conflated two issues: the linguistic questions involved in intentionalism, and the issue of how many racist acts make up a serial racist so that we can comfortably call someone who has engaged in such serial racism a racist.
And you found that definition of “racist” where, exactly?
Joy:
Are you talking about me????
That is my complaint about Goldstein.
I suspect you mean I don’t agree that your dictionary definition of “criminal” applies in every context.
So: answer Ponce’s question.
Or this one: would you criticize me if I said “Joy Mccann’s blog is frequented exclusively by criminals”?
And people say I’M the technical one????
Well, the formatting on that certainly got messed up. Hopefully people can tell the two of us apart.
It’s what the common man understands racism to be, Pablo. Just as the common man doesn’t understand intent in the way it’s used in linguistics and intepretation theory.
Which evidently I was hiding from people, this fact I was engaged in linguistic and hermeneutic arguments.
The common people need to be protected from anything other than their ingrained misuse of words.
Over at my site / cesspool, a commenter / aficionado of cesspoolism made the following very succinct statement, which gets to the heart of all this “common man” / “reasonable person” bullshit that is supposed to constrain and guide interpretation in Frey’s world: “So tommorow when ‘most people’ think ‘intent’ means something completely different, will all the the texts in existence change their meanings?”
This gets to the heart of the problem with tying meaning to convention. Conventions change; intents, once signified, cannot.
Which is why it is important to ground meaning by way of intent.
I get it. If I say “People in the know say Jeff Goldstein masturbates to pictures of young boys” and by that I intend to say “Jeff Goldstein insists on using a specialized definition of the word ‘intend’ than the definition that would be used by most blog readers” then I mean the latter and not the former.
Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.
But he’s not ceding language. No sir. Not Pat.
That is in response to your gratuitously insulting seal example. Because of the tit for tat!
Your job now is to go quote that without placing it in context. Bonus points if you argue that I asked for that because I reject the use of contextual cues (which I don’t, but the truth never constrained you before …).
Correct.
Where you’re incorrect is in saying that the definition of intent is what you believe most blog readers believe it to be.
“Me neither. But you can have deep-seated subconscious racist feelings and not consciously intend to express them.”
Projection is what this sounds like to me.
Shit, Frey. You are pathetic.
Oops. Looks like I didn’t do my job.
I’m a slippery one, I guess.
“Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.”
Lie.
I said you’re signaling your intent poorly.
This is an object lesson in why it’s pointless to engage you. You are a fucking liar.
Or too thick to understand my very simple point.
As I said, it’s a constant exercise in repeating: “That’s not what I said.”
I challenge you to quote my language where I supposedly said what you just claimed, liar.
“Where you’re incorrect is in saying that the definition of intent is what you believe most blog readers believe it to be.”
Where YOU are incorrect is in claiming I said that.
You are free to prove me wrong with a quote.
Ah. I take it the common man doesn’t have access to a dictionary. I feel special.
Yes, and virtually everyone will mistake your intent, due to your failure to signify it so that it can be interpreted correctly.
We might be getting somewhere.
I agree with your commenter, Jeff.
What you fail to understand is that I am not arguing anything different.
Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote.
I can substantiate it with one.
No, Patrick. You said that I’m using “intent” in a way that normal blog readers wouldn’t understand it.
I’m using a “specialized version”. Like I was doing with “racist.” Am I using the correct definitions or not? And if I am, how am I failing to signal my intent, particularly when I’m using these words in the context of linguistic arguments?
This constant suggestion that everything I say is a “lie” is remarkable.
In point of fact, the only person it’s pointless to debate with is you. But if I don’t do this, in another few months you’ll have someone else up for scrutiny based on your dangerous ideas of how language functions.
I do this as a public service.
“Yes, and virtually everyone will mistake your intent, due to your failure to signify it so that it can be interpreted correctly.”
Yup.
We don’t disagree on the basic principles.
Goldstein claims we do. But he can’t prove it. He just asserts it.
Okay. So you’re saying that I’m using intent correctly, but most people don’t know the correct definition, and so they’ll be confused?
Help me out here.
““Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.””
This quote is false. If you disagree then prove it with a quote.
I’m still waiting for that quote.
PROVE IT, GODDAMN YOU!!!
That’s getting tiresome, counselor.
No, he doesn’t. Should I prove it? With a quote?
Oh. So we’re back to “when I said intent is not necessary to make a racist statement, I was arguing the same thing as Jeff!” — with the exception being that Jeff understands intent to be necessary (but Pat can get around that by saying that he’s all for this thing that very much LOOKS and ACTS like intent, but it’s bad to call it intent, because that only serves to confuse the common folk).
Amazing how you always end up right where I am, but yet so many people are confused by where you are along the way.
You are well and truly pathetic. All it took for you to find your way to the correct position was reinvent the correct usage of words, dismiss the usage of others as unclear, and replace all those inconvenient things with your own new formulations.
And presto! I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
So you’re saying my use of “intent” and “racist” is perfectly accurate?
I need clarification.
“Jeff G said:
December 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Okay. So you’re saying that I’m using intent correctly, but most people don’t know the correct definition, and so they’ll be confused?
Help me out here.”
Close!
You’re using the word “intend” correctly, in your narrow linguistic world. But most people don’t understand the meaning you’re assigning to the word when you speak of “intending” racism. So you are signaling your intent poorly if you believe that your words will be read by people unfamiliar with your term — unless you explain the term in the post in which you use it.
“Amazing how you always end up right where I am, but yet so many people are confused by where you are along the way.”
It’s almost as if someone was lying about my position, isn’t it?!?!
You can always prove me wrong WITH QUOTES!
Still waiting on them!
Uh, no. It means what it means and people in general understand the term. Present company excepted, of course.
I can see Patterico is one of those mean and nasty drunks. ‘Cause if he’s being this much of the south end of a northbound mule sober, it’s truly frightening to think of him with prosecutorial discretion.
Come on, Patrick. It’s not like he said you threatened to kill someone!
And how is that? What definition am I using? Narrow how?
Howso?
That would depend on whether or not the way I’m using it is particularly narrow or specialized, wouldn’t it?
“Must One “Intend” To Be Racist to Say Something That Is Racist? Short answer: no”
I’ve followed this debate (I was going to say argument, but I like debate better) since its early inception. As an old man I have seen language denigrate to the point where it is almost impossible to communicate clearly and concisely without some type of visual aids along with the words. Alas, I fear that it will only continue to worsen, until such time that we are drawing pictures on our smart phones and sending them to clarify our meaning.
That being said, “words have meaning” and they have clear meaning. They are the rules of society, they are what we refer to when arbitrating disputes. Just as board games, card games and sports have rules that you play the game by, communication has rules that you communicate by, and those rules are very simply defined words, defined by an impartial arbiter, say a dictionary.
If one does not know the word to say to communicate one’s thought, then there will be no communication unless some other sign can substitute. Conversely if one does not know the words of the utterer and interprets them to just be “gibberish” (think “machine gun” Spanish to a 2nd year Spanish student) there will be no communication. So what happens then……simple – the utterer and the receiver will try alternative methods of communication with both the utterer and the receiver striving to divine the intent of the utterer. Most of the time there is reasonable success and if there isn’t there are little or no consequences. I have danced to this music many times in places like Viet Nam (where mis communication could be lethal) Japan, Spain, France, Germany and many other non English speaking countries and most of my communication failures have simply resulted in inconvenience.
Communicating through the written word is different – the rules (defined meaning) MUST be paramount. This is where the saying, “words have meaning” is the prime directive in communication. The lag between utterance (writing, publishing) and reception (reading, divining intent) makes any slight mis communication difficult to reconcile immediately and therefore, it is incumbent on the receiver (reader) to divine the intent of the author. The author or the utterer OWNS the intent, forever – all the reader (receiver) can do is TRY to interpret that intent. Most of the times it is a successful endeavor – sometimes it ends up like this.
Oh, and one thing that I have learned in my many years is that it is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person. It is an exercise in futility. Can’t remember who said it but the quote goes like this, “When two people disagree, reason should be the final arbiter.”
““Must One “Intend” To Be Racist to Say Something That Is Racist? Short answer: no””
Indeed. Read the whole post, dillhole. I’m using the definition of “intend” that we normal people use.
Epic fail. Try again.
This comes nowhere close to what you claimed. In the post I say racism must be animated by racist thoughts.
Pathetic. You have no quote. You are a fraud.
FAIL.
Which is…?
Pablo linked the definition of intend. It’s the one I’m using. I suspect many normal people use standard definitions as well.
No thanks. That was pretty clear cut. I mean, you can’t get more clear cut than claiming that intent isn’t necessary to know that you don’t share my position.
Which come from where, and by way of what?
You mean I have no quote that satisfies you.
Not very far off from how you decide what’s racist and what isn’t.
Indeed you have.
“Dillhole.” Wow.
Patterico 4, JeffG 0
Are you playing wii at home Patterico against a mii Goldstein and then keeping score? I bet your Patterico mii has the “dicknose.”
Haha, you’re too easy.
pounce 1, jeffg 0
Unsubscribing now. If anyone needs me I can be found in my cesspool, working with the cultists on devious ways to gull the common folk with my narrow and specialized vocabulary of lies.
So what did you do last night Pat, wax your chest?
And Jeff surrenders. He relies on a title of mine where I EXPLAIN that the definition of “intend” I am using is the commonly understood one rather than his specialized linguistic one. I point this out and he runs back to his site and whines rather than engage my argument.
He made a specific assertion:
He has provided no quote to support this. He merely pretends to. This is not debate but typical Goldstein sophistry.
I challenged him to support it with a quote. He has failed T
Fucking iPhone.
This is typical. Jeff Goldstein, once confronted with an argument he can’t win, runs away to lick his wounds and seek solace from his sycophants.
Goldstein cannot produce a quote to support his lies about my position. It is clear.
““Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.”
Your assertion. Back it up. With a quote.
Patterico wins by KO.
Still undefeated.
If Goldstein has integrity he will give us that quote.
If he is a guy who makes unsupported assertions, he will not.
So far nothing. The smart money is on more nothing.
Fraud.
Patterico,
If you aim out instead of down, you’ll stop getting your pants cuffs wet.
Would either of you two feel revulsion about the prospect of having the other as a brother in law?
Thanks for providing the venue for the cage fight LMA
I’m gonna go donate a pint of blood on Monday…
“““Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.””
Goldstein said it. I am just asking him to back it up with a quote.
I’m insistent about it because he has misstated my position. I have no recourse other than to publicly demand that he prove it.
What would you do if someone misstated *your* position?
ponce
do you do anything else but suck Pat’s toes? Is that what an anti-intellectual “conservative” is defined by now-adays?
But you can have deep-seated subconscious racist feelings and not consciously intend to express them
No. Nada. That is Leftist “white privilege” bullshit. Period.
Again. CHILDREN learn about “on purpose” and “accident”.
No wonder “common sense” is so UNcommon and the insanity of “zero tolerance” and “moral equivalency” reigns supreme.
Are these people engaging in enabling indecent speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr_bizbxTiU
Hi Darleen.
CAn you combine that into one intelligible question?
I don’t know Pat, maybe you should ask R.S. McCain that question.
“Let’s ask your dishonest martyr of a blogboss. In your opinion, Goldstein, can you have deep-seated subconscious racist feelings and not consciously intend to express them?
And where’s the evidence of my backtracking on McCain?
And the quote to support your claim about my views above?
Bueller? Bueller?
“I don’t know Pat, maybe you should ask R.S. McCain that question.”
How did I misstate his position, moron?
“Are these people engaging in enabling indecent speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr_bizbxTiU”
That comes from somewhere between left field and deep left field.
You haven’t answered my questions, Darleen.
hey ponce
I’m an “average” “normal” person. Hell, I was a SAHM for 16 years (which makes me less-than in nk’s world)…raised 4 daughters, have 3 grandsons.
And funny thing is, they know what “intent” means.
I wonder how that happened?
” What would you do if someone misstated *your* position?”
If I thought as little of Jeff as you do, I’d ignore it. It’s not like he called you a racist. He pointed out a problem with your logic in how you expressed your evaluation of Stacy McCain. Most likely, if anybody but Jeff Goldstein (or Darlene, who you appear to see as Jeff’s MiniMe) had said that, you probably would have revised your statement to clear up the misunderstanding. Instead, you’ve spent the better part of three days calling Goldstein a poopyhead because he made fun of the way you talk.
Congratulations, Mr. DDA, you’re the temporary king of the Romper Room.
Where did I backpedal on McCain, Goldstein?
Provide the quote.
“And funny thing is, they know what “intent” means.”
Indeed. And it’s quite different from what Jeff Goldstein means. And from the dictionary definition Pablo provides.
What your daughters and grandsons think it means, is what I think it means. Something deliberate and intentional.
That is not what Jeff means. You realize that . . . uh . . . right?
“He pointed out a problem with your logic in how you expressed your evaluation of Stacy McCain.”
Since Goldstein took his ball and went home, do you want to explain this alleged “problem” to me?
Ten bucks says you can’t, using QUOTES.
Doesn’t count to make unsupported assertions about my position. Asshole liars can do that all day.
Quotes and links. Quotes and links.
Go for it.
“I asked readers to tell me whether you think this [McCain] quote is racist. Many of you said that it is. I agree.”
So the quote is racist, but McCain may or may not be a racist. But hey, Patterico is just asking questions.
My question is why? What was your motiviation for going after Stacy McCain? Just showing you are one of those conservatives willing to throw some Southern conservative under the bus for yoru own benefit? What is your angle in all of this?
Darleen,
I’m sure your grand kids know the difference between real world practical knowledge and the made up pseudo-intellectual crap your blog husband wasted his life studying, too.
“What was your motiviation for going after Stacy McCain?”
What is your “motiviation” for trying to set every blogger you know at war with the others?
Patrick
As I have posted on your blog, I do not usually get along with cops or prosecutors, having had bad experiences with both. Leaving aside my own issues in those experiences, I show up and join the coversation on your blog because I want to learn something from you all, and I want to see the world from a different perspective than from my own.
Thanks for providing that place.
I am older than you and hopefully wiser in some things… so here goes…. Let. It. Go.
At this point continuing the argument diminishes you both.
“Since Goldstein took his ball and went home, do you want to explain this alleged “problem” to me?
Ten bucks says you can’t, using QUOTES.”
Jeff did a far better job of explaining it than I ever would, so I’ll decline your invitation and your wager. The only reason that I can see for your inability to understand what Jeff is saying is volition on your part: because Jeff says it, you cannot accept it as being true in any way. And, since you assert that as a truth claim, there is no way for anyone to reason you out of it.
When you decide to take an honest look at things, I’m sure Jeff will still be around.
Seriously, are you drunk or something? I really do not like Charles Johnson and LGF…Oh yeah, I do not at all care for Andrew Sullivan’s jihad on Trig and Sarah Palin.
And of course there is you.
You make a trifecta of fuck nuts.
This brings us to the point where we must choose between three options: Is Patrick really this stupid or is Patrick full of shit? Or is it both?
You’re really doing a number on Jeff’s fist with your face, Pat. Don’t let all that blood get you down.
ponce, get the man a towel, stat.
Lot’s of accusations and repeated assertions here, but I still haven’t gotten the answers I need.
Just a lot of bile, and the occasional use of words such a “dillhole.”
Meanwhile, I wrote earlier in the thread, “Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean.”
Patrick’s response has been to feign OUTRAGE, and then demand I find a quote in which he used those exact words:
Leaving aside the hamfisted attempt to convict my by some ridiculous appeal to literalism, the fact of the matter is, during debates, your opponent will often draw what he feels to be quite reasonable conclusions from your positions, and then restate them in a way he finds useful and persuasive with respect to his own argument.
Frey acts like this is some OUTRAGEOUS blight on the long and honorable history of discourse — you know, where “You dillholing liar fraudy pants!” is perfectly acceptable, but where asking someone to define their terms is “sophistry” and part of some elaborate FRAUD — but in fact, all it is is me drawing what I believe to be a reasonable conclusion to the several instances Patrick has brought up what “most people,” or “blog readers,” etc., might think when confronted with such “narrow” or “specialized” terms such as
“racist” or “intent.”
I’ve maintained that I don’t use narrow or specialized definitions. I’ve asked Patrick to elaborate. So far, all we have from him to PROVE the ASSERTION that I deploy “narrow” or “specialized” terminology is his further ASSERTIONS that “most people” understand intent and racism differently than I do.
Now, I’m going to show you how this works, step by step. 1) I believe I am using fairly standard definitions of both “racist” and “intend” (the former provided here by our hostess; the later provided in a link from Pablo); 2) that belief has been directly confronted by Frey’s ASSERTION that I am using “narrow” and “specialized” definitions that “most people” won’t understand, or at least, won’t understand in this context; 3) If I believe I am using standard definitions, but the definitions Frey believes “most people” know make it impossible for them to understand both my usage of those terms and my greater argument (as a result), it is reasonable for me to conclude that the definitions “most people” know do not align with the standard definitions, which are the ones I used. THEREFORE, 4) it is reasonable for me to conclude — in a pointed way, in the midst of a debate — that Patrick Frey, speaking for “most people,” is relying on definitions “most people” believe, but which deviate from the standard dictionary definitions I was using.
Hence, “most people” aren’t using standard definitions. Now, given that I’m being criticized for using words in a standard way and simultaneously failing to use those words in a way that most people mean them, how am I to conclude anything other than that those words — “racist” and “intend” — have now been redefined as what “most people” believe they mean?
Now. You can argue with the reasoning here. But it’s clear that there is reasoning, and that my statement that “Patrick has now defined intent and racist by making the very scientific claim that words mean what “most people”, were they asked in a vaccuum, say they mean” is only a LIE in the very “narrow” and “specialized” sense that it isn’t a literal quote of Frey saying, “I hereby redefine these words thusly!”
Frey has spent a lot of time the past few days suggesting that he’s always held the same position (which, I take it, is that he doesn’t know if McCain is a racist or not).
As that position supposedly hasn’t changed (and I rather doubt that, frankly), I’m left to wonder what the point of his entire exercise has been? If McCain’s 1996 statement was “racist” (without its utterer being racist, which for reasons I’ve argued is linguistically incoherent), what have we learned from Frey, other than that one can make racist statements while not being racist (though those statements “have to be the product of racist thought,” which begs the question, how can a you have a racist thought without it proceeding from racism), is 1) that Stacy McCain may or may not be a racist, 2) that to conclude we have a “racist statement,” we need not have “intent” — though only if intent is understood to mean something other than what my standard usage, applied to a linguistic situation, suggests, and 3) that one man can spend several days pretending to investigate another’s potential racism, drag that fellow’s name through the mud, and then in the end declare himself publicly vindicated for getting nowhere, and doing nothing more than beating a 14-year-old horse until its owner finally came out and said something to the effect of, “dude. That’s my horse. Can you stop beating it, please?”
Which was fine with Frey, who never really wanted to beat the horse to begin with. It was, you see, his duty.
And now that he’s broken it, he’ll be proud to ride with it into battle during his next crusade.