is out there, somewhere. I’m not going to send you there, but here it is:
[T]hough I believe very strongly that Attila is not just wrong, but really, really wrong about Patterico’s motivation (which I believe she has no way of knowing), that’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it. Not worth ruining a perfectly good friendship over.
This is not all that complicated, really.
Jeff G. has said right in the comments section here… that it “doesn’t make sense” to call a statement racist unless you also believe the speaker is/was racist. And if that’s all he’d said, I wouldn’t have bothered to take issue with his reasoning. I can see both sides on that one, though I don’t agree. It is what he said next that really bothered me.
I don’t have to rephrase or interpret what he said to make my point. I can refer to Jeff’s exact words, from a comment on this post:
My point is that it makes no sense to call a statement racist that hasn’t proceeded from racism. So if you call a statement racist, you are calling its utterer racist. If McCain, in the context he was making the argument you quote, had no racist intent, the statement can’t be racist. Simple as that.
Posted by: Jeff G at December 11, 2009 10:22 PM
“If you call a statement racist, you are calling its utterer racist.” Not a lot of wiggle room – actually, not any – is there?
So, yes. One thing I noticed early on when I was blogging is that 90% of the time when you are defending against a position that you find inconsistent or hypocritical, there is a complementary hypocrisy in your own position that enabled you to find the inconsistency in the other party.
So one of the reasons I’ve been so hard on Patrick for what I perceived to be an unwarranted maligning of R.S. McCain is that I do in fact define a “racist” as someone who has written or said or done something racist.
Now, I do have the Merriam-Webster dictionary [the copy editor’s companion—10th edition, print, and 11th edition, online] on my side. However, if Patrick truly sees a sharp distinction between “racist” in its adjectival sense and the inflammatory label “a racist” (noun form), then I should probably try harder to read his writings in that light—keeping in mind that he draws a distinction that I do not.
(Of course, as a side note, my major beef with Patrick’s post wasn’t his “motivation,” but rather what I perceived to be a lapse of judgement, given how prejudicial the term “racism” is.)
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Patterico post clearly sets up R.S. McCain as a racist. The technique of putting the quote out there (out of context of course) and then letting his readers vote if you will, followed by pointing out how McCain has been (alledgedly) trying to dodge he even said or wrote it.
The bigger question is why did Patterico focus on McCain? I doubt it was due to Tiger Woods, Patterico had to foresee some controversy (perhaps not to this extent).
Why was Patterico willing to throw McCain under the bus? Patterico will not answer that one.
Even Slimy James Wolcott noted that: “The catalyst for this duel at Diablo was an inquiry into whether certain moldy comments written in the nineties by conservative journalist and carnival barker Robert Stacy McCain revealed telltale residue of racism.”
The dispute then went from a debate on intent to Patterico accusing Jeff of being a mad man, Jeff accusing Patterico of lying and hypocrisy.
As Jeff noted: “Wolcott, naturally, tried to help that one along, even as it made his gelatinous thighs quiver with a forbidden longing.”
And you have Joe for validation, Little Miss Attila.
Nice that somebody else sees through JeffG’s childish “theories.”
ponce, you and James Wolcott make a nice couple.
nk, I hope Darleen slaps your face one day.
Luckily I was able to guess where the passage above came from, and go read the whole thing.
I generally think that refusing to link an argument you’re discussing is stupid. Why wouldn’t you want readers to read the very argument you’re discussing?
But then, reading the source material is more important to some than others.
“So one of the reasons I’ve been so hard on Patrick for what I perceived to be an unwarranted maligning of R.S. McCain is that I do in fact define a “racist” as someone who has written or said or done something racist.”
What percentage of people in America do you think have said something racist at one point in their lives, Joy?
Serious question. I would like to know your estimate.
I suppose I’d make it 10-20, with at least half of the total being the result of what I would call “systemic racism,” and you would call “being an actual racist.”
Patterico, you still haven’t answered my question (which I’ve asked you directly about a half-dozen times, now).
You said:
““I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time.””
I asked:
Out of curiosity, how long does it brand you as a racist for, Patterico?
Serious question. I would like to know your answer.
“Patterico, you still haven’t answered my question (which I’ve asked you directly about a half-dozen times, now).”
Yes, I have.
Sorry you missed it.
“I suppose I’d make it 10-20, with at least half of the total being the result of what I would call “systemic racism,” and you would call “being an actual racist.””
And the other half are the result of what, in your view?
Luckily I was able to guess where the passage above came from, and go read the whole thing.
Oh come on Patterico, Walcott sends you personal signed copies of his stuff.
Joe, The blogger quoted by LMA is not Wollcott, but anyone who is reasonably familiar with bloggers that LMA links to regularly could figure out the identity of the unnamed blogger fairly easily.
LMA, I think my position in this is much like yours, which brings up an interesting question. If it is OK to speculate whether statements written more than ten years ago were racist, shouldn’t it also be OK to speculate whether statements written within the past year — the past week, even — might be anti-Semitic. After all, if one can make racist statements without being an actual racist, then another should be able to make anti-Semitic statements without being an actual anti-Semite, correct? I mean it’s just trying to bring out the truth, isn’t it?
Well, except that “money-grubbing” is sort of the least of what Pat said about Jeff. The “lying fraud” stuff seems worse.
And we can try to draw the parallel all day long, but don’t seem to be raising Patrick’s consciousness at all. Everyone’s been hammering at this for days, but if Pat doesn’t want to see the allegory here . . . then he doesn’t want to.
And there’s one argument in Pat’s favor that galls me, but . . . the fact is, RS McCain was being a bit coy about this issue before Patterico stepped in. I did not agree with how Patrick tackled this, as it seemed like an ill-judged move to me, but after he wrote that post RSM did, indeed, address that old quotation more directly than he had before.
The lame ass “allegory” might be easier to “get” if JeffG and Darleen didn’t call everyone that disagrees with them anti-Semites.
“I suppose I’d make it 10-20, with at least half of the total being the result of what I would call “systemic racism,” and you would call “being an actual racist.””
And the other half are the result of what, in your view?
Yes, but “money-grubbing” is the charge most easily politicized, just as “revulsion” was the low-hanging fruit in Stacy McCain’s piece. The words are so loaded that their context no longer matters. Once you use them, you’ve moved out of the middle ground into one side or the other.
Patterico’s problem is that his response is seriously disproportionate to the status he assigns to his accuser. He is reacting as if Jeff’s writings pose some type of existential threat to him. The more Patterico rants about Goldstein, the longer casual viewers and other bloggers will continue to keep the controversy alive. When you use a sledgehammer to dispatch a fly, don’t be surprised when you knock a hole in your wall.
As to your comments about Stacy and his “slipperiness” concerning those old writings, I understand both sides of the story. Stacy and I are close to the same age and both of us grew up in the South in the Civil Rights era. Both of us probably have Klansmen within too few degrees of separation than we’d like among our circle of acquaintances, if not within our own extended families.
When you try to bring people out of those circles, you choose the tactics you think best-suited for your task. Sometimes, you go for the home run and you choose open confrontation. Sometimes, you play station-to-station ball, with small accomplishments over a period of time. I’m not going to judge Stacy. He was there and I wasn’t. He knew how he wanted to proceed and what tactics he needed to use in that particular battle. Anything we say about it now has the blessings of 20/20 hindsight that he didn’t have at the time.
I don’t think I missed it.
I just went back and checked the spots where I made the request (the relevant threads here at LMA on Dec. 9th, 10th, and 12th, and at American Power on Dec 9th) and none of those threads has a response to the question I asked.
Could you please provide a link to where you answered my specific question, or just reprint your answer here in this thread? Thanks.
“Luckily I was able to guess where the passage above came from, and go read the whole thing.
I generally think that refusing to link an argument you’re discussing is stupid.”
followed by:
“Yes, I have.
Sorry you missed it.” [with no link]
Joe, The blogger quoted by LMA is not Wollcott, but anyone who is reasonably familiar with bloggers that LMA links to regularly could figure out the identity of the unnamed blogger fairly easily
Thanks. I know. I was teasing Patterico about James Walcott’s description of this blog war. I see that Patterico now wants to revisit the Palin-Letterman joke controversy. Which just shows Patterico does not want to let this thing go.
Pat. Just. Can’t. Quit. Jeff.
That’s a recurring theme, star4, with the flip side of it being that Pat often says that those he’s sparring with haven’t answered his question (or hypothetical, as the case may be) when they’ve done so directly and repeatedly. It’s almost as if if he didn’t get the answer he was looking for he doesn’t think he got an answer at all. Mote, beam, etc…
Its okay star4 and Pablo, Patterico will (I suppose) school us all on the Letterman-Palin controversy. While it may have been relevant at the time, it seems rather low on most people’s list of concerns (Palin’s included). Apparently Patterico is going to show us some brilliant insight on why Jeff Goldstein was wrong for seeing a bad joke as a bad joke–but even if you disagree with Jeff the obvious answer is “so what?”
If Mr. Frey had really wanted McCain to stop being coy about that old quotation and address the issue more forthrightly, there were any number of ways to get him to do so –the most direct being to hit that Tip Jar of McCain’s with the mother of all money-bombs.
Or maybe he could have chosen to explain why he respectfully disagreed with McCain’s decision to remain silent.
Instead he went the Linda Richman this seems racist, discuss amongst yourselves route.
Who knows what Eeevilll lurks in the hearts of men? THE PATTERICO KNOWS!
Answer to star4 that he claims I didn’t give.
The limitations of Goldstein’s theories about the role of the listener, exposed: Jeff Goldstein Was Wrong to Defend David Letterman for Joking About the Statutory Rape of Willow Palin.
And no, I’m not saying that a statutory rape happened — but yes, I am saying that Letterman joked about it happening.
This example reveals the flaws in Goldstein’s arguments perfectly.
star4’s question:
Patterico’s “answer”:
Who thinks the question has been answered? READER POLL!
Patterico, thank you for pointing that out. I did indeed miss your en passant reply in the middle of a comment you addressed to “Darleen at 9:45:”.
Your original comment was:
“I’m not saying that one racist/prejudiced quote brands you as a racist for all time.”
My question was:
“Out of curiosity, how long does it brand you as a racist for, Patterico?”
Your linked comment contains:
“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.”
———–
Has your investigation into the matter revealed any evidence (beyond the single quote you initially proffered) of McCain exhibiting the pattern of racist thoughts or acts you mention in that reply, without which it would be unfair to call him a racist?
I would do it for you, but I am banned. I will post at LMA.
“Has your investigation into the matter revealed any evidence (beyond the single quote you initially proffered) of McCain exhibiting the pattern of racist thoughts or acts you mention in that reply, without which it would be unfair to call him a racist?”
My commenters noted him suggesting a bumper sticker reading “Have you whipped your slaves today?” on a Civil War listserv.
I mentioned this in a post. I don’t know if it’s his quote or someone pretending to be him.
Joy knows about this. She has read my posts on the topic.
“My commenters noted him suggesting a bumper sticker reading “Have you whipped your slaves today?” on a Civil War listserv.
I mentioned this in a post. I don’t know if it’s his quote or someone pretending to be him.”
Wasn’t this from a ‘list of bumper stickers sure to offend northerners’?
I never took it for more than the joke it seemed to be.
I should add that the way I read it was that this bumper sticker would reinforce generalizations applied to southerners by ignorant northern folks suffering from the very same lack of knowledge they themselves were projecting unto them?
Starting to see the irony?