In short, feminism seeks not freedom, but carte blanche entitlement, and must be exposed for the dangerous sophism that it is.

Hear it too many times, but not from Daran. There’s your borgification for you. Racist.borgification parading as righteous indignation – standard gimmick in race-chasing* politics.

*Term borrowed from the blog Booker Rising.

In conclusion, if you feel singled out because of your color, DON’T SWEAT IT, you’re not bothering anyone just by being black or white. If you were doing something stupid, then that might be a catalyst for racial discrimination, but if you’re just going about your business and doing your part in society, there should be nothing to worry about.

I take random jaunts through black neighborhoods all the time, and I honestly don’t care if I’m welcome there or not, it’s a FREE COUNTRY, and I’m following the laws. I don’t care if black people walk through all white neighborhoods, just follow the laws and you’re cool.

That would be true if you all shared the same opinions. The fact that white privelege does not limit white peoples speaking their minds about POC isn’t borgifying white people. The privelege in a sense has borgified you (it gives you that privelege whether you want it or not), but pointing out your privelege is not borgifying white people. And that’s what I did. Point out your white privelege.

“This is a red herring. The only things that might conceivably impact your personal safety are your IP, which you disclose to me when you post here, your avatar (if it is your true likeness) and your posting name (if it relates to your real-world identity in some way). I assume you’ve already assessed those risks and have judged accordingly.”

Im sure its a red herring to someone who doesn’t have to live with it. To those of us that do, it’s a suvival strategy you don’t just turn on and off. I don’t know what you’re capable of. I do know it’s not hard to track people down. I do in fact take a risk in engaging with you. Not having to worry about it, or instantly dismissing it as an inconcievable threat is a luxury I do not have.

“Whether or not I post a rebuttal (which is what you’ve been complaining about all along)”

No, rebuttal is what YOU have been complaining about. I’m critising your MANNER of rebuttal and the priveleges it exposes. You are equating that with not being allowed to respond at all.

“it is still the case that the effect of your view is that you assert authority to speak my mind.”

Who’s asserting authority over who’s mind here? So tell me more of my view, O downtrodden and censored white man.

“You are reading something into it which isn’t there.”

You mean, like the way you’ve read into what I’ve written and decided it means I’ve said (or believe) my interpretation of your intent is the correct one? Like that?

Lemme boil it down as simply as I can

Your words were offensive. There is not a reason, excuse or justification under the sun that changes that for me. There is not reason, excuse or justification in the world for using objectifying language that I will ever find acceptable and not offensive. Be it on purpose, laziness, ignorance what have you. No reason, excuse or justification changes the offensiveness. Ever. But if you tell me your intent as if it changes something, then prepare to hear my opinion on your intent. It will not be positive.

In the future, if you feel as if you’re not being allowed a rebuttal on Alas, take it to an open thread, because several exist for this very purpose. I believe the most recent one gives people free reign to vent about things they do not like.

Now, that being said, respond all you like. I have nothing more to add and I think everything that can be said has been said. Frankly, Im just sick to death of engaging in conversations with people who think they’re the injured party because they said something offensive and weren’t patted on the head and told it’s OK when they tried to explain how they didnt really mean it like that.

I “got” to speak three times because I was faster at responding, before Amp decided to shut the whole thing down. He stopped any futher comments *I* would have had too, and point of fact, I couldn’t continue to comment on HIS comments, even though I have an issue with his post.

You got to speak about me without rebuttal from me once (comment #37) before his first attempt to shut the whole thing down. You made a further three further comments, (#41, #42, and #45) afterwards, of which one, #41 wasn’t about me, and which I’m not counting. That’s a total of three.

“I take back what I said about whites not being Borgified. That’s exactly what you’re doing here.”

What Im doing here is pointing out that our society has not limited white people’s ability to speak their minds about minorities. It’s not borgifying white people, it’s pointing out they have been favored by the system so to speak. Had I borgified white people I would have said White people always speak their minds about minorities.
“You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. It is either irrelevant or it is not.”

Your words were: “POC have heard you speak your mind, heard your point of view, heard your intentions, heard your reasons and understand none of you are saying anything new. There’s never been a limit to white people’s speaking their minds, especially about minorities”.

When you equate “white people speaking their mind” with me speaking mine, then you borgify me and other white people.

“Your view, in effect, is that POC has authority to speak about the white person’s mind without rebuttal.”

Um, no. My view is that POC don’t always have the luxury of stopping and hearing a white persons rebuttal, because it could get us killed or have very very negative results. While you’re worried about how fair it is to you, I have to worry about you being some sort of racist that could cause harm to me or have a negative impact on my life.
This is the problem with intent. It’s very easy to deny or change afterwards. And I’m the one taking a risk with regards to believing your intent or not. You get to conveniently decide that I’m just speaking your mind for you.

This is a red herring. The only things that might conceivably impact your personal safety are your IP, which you disclose to me when you post here, your avatar (if it is your true likeness) and your posting name (if it relates to your real-world identity in some way). I assume you’ve already assessed those risks and have judged accordingly.

Whether or not I post a rebuttal (which is what you’ve been complaining about all along) has no bearing on your safety, and even if it did, it is still the case that the effect of your view is that you assert authority to speak my mind.

“I don’t particularly want everyone to think I made a lazy mistake. (Why would I want that?) I offered an alternative explanation solely to strengthen the case that your explanation wasn’t the right one.”

This sounds to me like you’re saying it wasnt laziness.

You are reading something into it which isn’t there.

I “got” to speak three times because I was faster at responding, before Amp decided to shut the whole thing down. He stopped any futher comments *I* would have had too, and point of fact, I couldn’t continue to comment on HIS comments, even though I have an issue with his post.

“I take back what I said about whites not being Borgified. That’s exactly what you’re doing here.”

What Im doing here is pointing out that our society has not limited white people’s ability to speak their minds about minorities. It’s not borgifying white people, it’s pointing out they have been favored by the system so to speak. Had I borgified white people I would have said White people always speak their minds about minorities.

“You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. It is either irrelevant or it is not.”

One can have an opinion on something, regardless of it’s relevance.

“Your view, in effect, is that POC has authority to speak about the white person’s mind without rebuttal.”

Um, no. My view is that POC don’t always have the luxury of stopping and hearing a white persons rebuttal, because it could get us killed or have very very negative results. While you’re worried about how fair it is to you, I have to worry about you being some sort of racist that could cause harm to me or have a negative impact on my life.

This is the problem with intent. It’s very easy to deny or change afterwards. And I’m the one taking a risk with regards to believing your intent or not. You get to conveniently decide that I’m just speaking your mind for you.

“See, you’re doing it again. I have already said it was laziness. I have never said it wasn’t laziness. Why are you now saying it wasn’t laziness?”

“I don’t particularly want everyone to think I made a lazy mistake. (Why would I want that?) I offered an alternative explanation solely to strengthen the case that your explanation wasn’t the right one.”

This sounds to me like you’re saying it wasnt laziness.

Perhaps you and others might at some point come to the realization POC have heard you speak your mind, heard your point of view, heard your intentions, heard your reasons and understand none of you are saying anything new. There’s never been a limit to white people’s speaking their minds, especially about minorities.

I take back what I said about whites not being Borgified. That’s exactly what you’re doing here.

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve heard me speak my mind before or whether you’ve heard other white people speak their minds before, or whether it’s something you’ve heard before or if it’s something you haven’t.

You do not have authority to speak my mind. If you speak it, then you do so unauthoritatively. and you have no legitimate complaint if I reply to your speech.

“You’re here, though, and free to comment, so that didn’t happen.”

And you have this blog, so it didn’t exactly happen to you either.

Yes it did. The power to speak is the power to be heard. Here, we have the same audience, which to my knowledge is just the two of us, and perhaps TS is still here. On Alas, where you got to speak three times without an opportunity for me to reply, the audience is in the tens or hundreds.

Moreover, I haven’t spoken your mind, then complained about you replying on the subject.

“This is incoherent. If my intent is irrelevant, then it cannot make it even worse.”

No, it’s merely the result of repeating your intent until I form an opinion on it.

You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. It is either irrelevant or it is not.

And my opinion now is that it’s worse than if you had thought of black people as colors. Smacks of them just not being worth the extra effort or taking a little more care in your words.

If I didn’t think it worth the effort, I wouldn’t have undertaken to make the effort in future. I won’t be doing it for your sake, be sure about that.

“then talk about the harm my words cause. ”
I am. You’re not making the connection. It’s not just POC who are harmed by your words. You are as well. People hear those words and often
a) stop listening, having decided you’re just an idiot racist
b)critisize you and not give a flip about your intent
c)listen to you go on about you intent, read as you complain your thoughts were appropriated and come to the conclusion your intent is worse and you’re so full of privelege you can’t even see how complaining about appropriation of intent is part of privelege.
None of which are the responses you seem to want, as you state you dont want people believing you think of Obama as a color or thinking you made a lazy mistake.

You’re mischaracterising what happened:

1. White person says something which is (or is percieved to be) racist.
2. POC challenges.

At this point, are are in agreement that the white person should shut up about their mind. What we disagree about, is that I think that the POC should also shut up about the white person’s mind. Your view, in effect, is that POC has authority to speak about the white person’s mind without rebuttal.

It harms me if I concede that authority, and I do not consider it racist to refuse to do that.

Then what happened:

3. POC speaks about white person’s mind.

That, in my view changes things. The white person is now entitled by reason of his authority to speak his own mind to reply to the POC’s comment, and that is what I did.

“And the relevance of what you believe is?”
Evidently, it’s relevant enough for you to trot over here and write about it.

I don’t think I have. I’m pretty certain that you are the first, indeed the only person to raise the issue of whether or not you believed me. Apparently you think it’s relevant enough for you to trot over here a write about it, though.

“Moreover, the only reason I wanted everyone to know this, was because you suggested otherwise.”
Which is #3.
So, now that you’re able to speak your mind, go ahead then.
If it wasnt laziness, what was it? What was your thought process behind using objectifying language?

I thought we’d already agreed that my thought processes were irrelevant, and that you weren’t interested in them.

I repeat. What this is about – the only thing this has been about since your second response on Alas – has been my authority to speak my mind. I don’t particularly wish to speak about my thought processes then. My concern is that you don’t appropriate my authority.

Since my idea is wrong, and you did in fact have it in mind, and it wasn’t a lazy mistake, what then?

See, you’re doing it again. I have already said it was laziness. I have never said it wasn’t laziness. Why are you now saying it wasn’t laziness?

Perhaps you and others might at some point come to the realization POC have heard you speak your mind, heard your point of view, heard your intentions, heard your reasons and understand none of you are saying anything new. There’s never been a limit to white people’s speaking their minds, especially about minorities.

“You’re here, though, and free to comment, so that didn’t happen.”

And you have this blog, so it didn’t exactly happen to you either.

“This is incoherent. If my intent is irrelevant, then it cannot make it even worse.”

No, it’s merely the result of repeating your intent until I form an opinion on it. And my opinion now is that it’s worse than if you had thought of black people as colors. Smacks of them just not being worth the extra effort or taking a little more care in your words.

“then talk about the harm my words cause. ”

I am. You’re not making the connection. It’s not just POC who are harmed by your words. You are as well. People hear those words and often

a) stop listening, having decided you’re just an idiot racist

b)critisize you and not give a flip about your intent

c)listen to you go on about you intent, read as you complain your thoughts were appropriated and come to the conclusion your intent is worse and you’re so full of privelege you can’t even see how complaining about appropriation of intent is part of privelege.

None of which are the responses you seem to want, as you state you dont want people believing you think of Obama as a color or thinking you made a lazy mistake.

“And the relevance of what you believe is?”

Evidently, it’s relevant enough for you to trot over here and write about it.

“Moreover, the only reason I wanted everyone to know this, was because you suggested otherwise.”

Which is #3.

So, now that you’re able to speak your mind, go ahead then.

If it wasnt laziness, what was it? What was your thought process behind using objectifying language?

Since my idea is wrong, and you did in fact have it in mind, and it wasn’t a lazy mistake, what then?

I think it depends on what circles you dwell in because I have certainly seen–and on occasion participated–in the borgification of whites. It is unfortunately just as common, which ironically the tendency to accuse whites of being racists.

OK, but here’s where I’m at with this:

1. I don’t think white people are particularly harmed by objectifying language.
2. I am not objectifying white people in my thoughts.
3. The use of “white” as a noun does not appear to be particularly offensive to members of the group so labelled.
4. Those that do express offence, do so, not because they actually find it offensive per se, but they find it offensive that black people ask for and get any kind of consideration they don’t. Such people tend, in my experience, to be dickheads whose feelings of offence I don’t particularly care about.
5. I’m not, therefore, sufficiently motivated to overcome my laziness.

I think it more of an asinine framing for what is actually quite a good idea: that every once in a while, you stop and have a good think about the way you think

.

I would agree if the people prone to suggesting that others “checked their privilege” bothered to examine their own way of thinking, including their opinions about groups they dislike. However, since that is unfortunately not the case, I think it is fair to say the idea is itself quite ridiculous, like an adult telling you not to hit people while punching you in the face.

Your criticism of those who say “check your privilege” is a good one, but the benefits of doing so, every once in a while, are to yourself. Good advice doesn’t become bad advice just because the person giving the advice is a hypocrite.

What I was attempting to get at was that I Dont Care what your views are, the affect of your word choice outweighs what you believe your motivation was and what I believe your motivation was.

Cool. I did it. You protested. I corrected. What was there left to discuss?

But you did continue to discuss it, and in so doing you appropriated my authority to speak my mind. The effect of your discourse outweighs what you believe your motivation was and what I believe your motivation was.

The whole ” I didnt mean it this way I meant it that way and I was just lazy” ..well, so what? Seriously. But you just *had* to make sure I didn’t believe you did it out of racism. Even here, your main focus is why I think you said what you said.

The focus was initially on what I said and then my correction of what I said.

Later the focus moved onto your appropriation of my authority to speak my mind.

Here the focus has been on what you were thinking when you appropriated my authority, not because you’re a particularly important person to me, but because this is a discourse which comes up repeatedly and which has the effect of limiting mine and other people’s ability to speak their minds.

Now in focussing on that, I’ve been mindful of the possibility of appropriating your authority to speak your mind. You’re here, though, and free to comment, so that didn’t happen.

This is what I’m supposed to give a shit about?

No.

I give a shit about it, though.

* * * * *

Notice what happens now, from the stars onward. You, pheeno, put the focus back on my thoughts.

Incidentally, the idea that you were offensive because you were lazy makes it even worse IMO. You knew better, you were just too lazy to make sure you didn’t use offensive descriptors. Wow.

This is incoherent. If my intent is irrelevant, then it cannot make it even worse.

So far, what seems to top the priority list is
1) my not misrepresenting your thought process (which to be honest, I dont truly believe you when you claim laziness. Heard it 1 too many times)

And the relevance of what you believe is?

and
2)my being given the “privelege” of posting a few more times than you
You discuss the offensiveness of your words as if it’s just an aside to whats REALLY important here. IE – You and peoples perceptions of your intent, and not any harm your words cause.
And *that* just so you know, is my problem.

What do you want me to do? Apart from (1) not do it again, which I’ve already agreed, and (2) permit you to speak about my mind without rebuttal, which I’m not willing to do.

If you want the focus to lie on the harm my words cause, then talk about the harm my words cause. Stop talking about my mind, and then complaining when I reply about my mind.

And you’ve missed #1 and #3 by a mile, in the How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism.

Perhaps we need a post on “How not to be insane when accusing white people of racism: a guide for POC”. “Insane” of course, is hyperbole. “Accuse” is loaded. “Criticise” is a better word.

1- You seem to be under the impression I called you a racist(or implied it) and went on to

You are mistaken. I’m “under the impression” that you criticised me for objectifying black people in my language use and thinking. I don’t know whether you attach the label “racism” to that, nor do I particularly care, but that’s what you criticised me for. Regardless of the label, your point about language use is conceded. Your point about my thinking is not.

2- focus on your thought process and making sure everyone knows it was just merely a lazy mistake and not purposely forgetting the word people in black people.

No, I wanted everyone to know that I did not think of Rice and Obama as colours. That’s it. That’s all. I don’t particularly want everyone to think I made a lazy mistake. (Why would I want that?) I offered an alternative explanation solely to strengthen the case that your explanation wasn’t the right one.

Moreover, the only reason I wanted everyone to know this, was because you suggested otherwise. This could have ended after my initial correction, but you chose to continue it. You were the one, who switched attention onto my thought processes. And you’re the one who is still focussed on them.

What I was attempting to get at was that I Dont Care what your views are, the affect of your word choice outweighs what you believe your motivation was and what I believe your motivation was. The whole ” I didnt mean it this way I meant it that way and I was just lazy” ..well, so what? Seriously. But you just *had* to make sure I didn’t believe you did it out of racism. Even here, your main focus is why I think you said what you said. This is what I’m supposed to give a shit about? Incidentally, the idea that you were offensive because you were lazy makes it even worse IMO. You knew better, you were just too lazy to make sure you didn’t use offensive descriptors. Wow.

So far, what seems to top the priority list is

1) my not misrepresenting your thought process (which to be honest, I dont truly believe you when you claim laziness. Heard it 1 too many times)

and

2)my being given the “privelege” of posting a few more times than you

You discuss the offensiveness of your words as if it’s just an aside to whats REALLY important here. IE – You and peoples perceptions of your intent, and not any harm your words cause.

And *that* just so you know, is my problem.

And you’ve missed #1 and #3 by a mile, in the How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism.

1- You seem to be under the impression I called you a racist(or implied it) and went on to
2- focus on your thought process and making sure everyone knows it was just merely a lazy mistake and not purposely forgetting the word people in black people.

I think there is an issue, which goes beyond its offensiveness, in using objectifying language. Black people tend to get borgified. Whites don’t get borgified this way, so there I’m more inclined to yield to laziness.

I think it depends on what circles you dwell in because I have certainly seen–and on occasion participated–in the borgification of whites. It is unfortunately just as common, which ironically the tendency to accuse whites of being racists.

I think it more of an asinine framing for what is actually quite a good idea: that every once in a while, you stop and have a good think about the way you think.

I would agree if the people prone to suggesting that others “checked their privilege” bothered to examine their own way of thinking, including their opinions about groups they dislike. However, since that is unfortunately not the case, I think it is fair to say the idea is itself quite ridiculous, like an adult telling you not to hit people while punching you in the face.

Actually, in context your statement in and of itself in not offensive (nor is it offensive or insensitive out of context).

In fact, the concept of ‘offense’ was never explicitly introduced into the discussion, though of course it was the backdrop to it – her offense at me for using objectifying language, and mine at her for appropriating my authority (author-ity) to represent my own views.

I think there is an issue, which goes beyond its offensiveness, in using objectifying language. Black people tend to get borgified. Whites don’t get borgified this way, so there I’m more inclined to yield to laziness.

There was no need to “check your privilege”–something of a rather asinine idea

I think it more of an asinine framing for what is actually quite a good idea: that every once in a while, you stop and have a good think about the way you think. I’ve certainly borgified black people before.

–as the term “black” is a descriptor further reinforced by the fact that some of the members of that group refer to themselves as “people of color”–another rather asinine idea.

The problem is not with “black” as a descriptor, but with “black” as a noun. “Black” in “black people” is an adjective. “of colour” is an adjectival phrase. The noun in both cases is “people”.

I could argue both for and against “Person of Colour”. My usual practice is to say “POC” for people who aren’t white, which satisfies my laziness, avoids offence, and avoids the derailment that might result from a with-reference-to-whites designation. “Black”, I tend to reserve for those individuals to look black to me, basically those whose ancesters were indigenous to Subsaharan Africa, and Australia, or for people who self-identify as “black” regardless of their skin colouring.

(Of course, white people aren’t really white. I’m sort of pinkish.)

But to address the question, it would appear that pheeno is the person of privilege given how she was allowed on several occasions to disregard the decisions made by the owner of the blog. Now the real question is whether that was unexpected?

It was an interesting experiment, (not that I intended it to be one, of course). There’s no question that Amp privileged her, which is Amp’s prerogative of course, by not sanctioning her. I’m sure I would gotten a thread ban if I had defied him like that. More interesting to me is the entitlement she asserted to appropriate my authority to represent my thoughts.

But to address the question, it would appear that pheeno is the person of privilege given how she was allowed on several occasions to disregard the decisions made by the owner of the blog. Now the real question is whether that was unexpected?