Dear White Folks:
Black People are Sensitive to Race. So? And? What?

I can't respect any publication that abuses capitalization that way.

Squirrel said:

Again, I've been followed and asked to empty my pockets in a store by clerks. Everything else is fine but it's ones like those that always bug me when these topics come up.

So instead of being empathetic to the fact that a race of people is subjected to the same unjustified treatment you experienced you use your own story as an indication that their feelings are invalid? Or are you providing an anecdote in an attempt to contradict what black people in particular feel is treatment brought on by their race?

Hatred of children is never a bad thing.

I'm saying that those particular incidents are not limited by race, or at least not "black". Latino children face that same stigma. Is it a factor? Yes. She asks "have you ever" in an attempt to make the reader feel guilty. On those ones, I can answer yes and then don't. I can't answer yes to the other ones personally but I have very close family who can, so I agree with her there.

I get it, the vast majority of people reading that article do not have inner city childhoods so they aren't exposed to that but, like Jon mentioned, a noticeable chunk of race related discussions lately feel more like class related to me. Now that is a completely different conversation than the one she poses.

I'm not saying the article is invalid I'm just saying that when bullet points similar to those come up my ADD mind wanders away and it's hard for me to come back.

Relevant to the idea that poor is the "new black." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People's_Campaign

Ha. So does this mean that my collection of "Poor People's Pub" T-shirts is gonna be racist now?

http://partialobjects.com/2011/03/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-compartmentalize/

Been on a jag of reading blogs like the above. I despair for our society.

Tennessee House Passes Bill To Allow Criminal Prosecution For Harming Embryos:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/20/468484/tennessee-criminal-prosecution-harming-embryos/

I thought Republicans were trying to limit the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors. I mean, that's why they made it legal for doctors to lie to women about the state of their fetus, right? And these are embryos.

Spankminister said:

While not everyone is as goddamn dumb as John Derbyshire, there are plenty of people around who don't get "why black people won't stop talking about race." There are people for whom that article is probably a revelation, and it has to do with race, at least partly. When people talk about privilege, they are talking about the people for whom the questions in that article are purely hypothetical.

I've seen interviews with both Morgan Freeman and Bill Cosby in which they say the only way to end racism in America is to stop talking about race. I'm not sure it's really a matter of "dumb" or "not dumb." Surely there is room for radically different approaches to problems that are chaotic in nature because there are simply too many variables? This is the same (morality aside, I'm talking simple math) as the trickle-down vs. trickle-up economic argument. There are appropriate circumstances for both models. Arguing that one or the other is an "incorrect" model is silly.

The problem is that race does matter to a lot of people, oftentimes completely unconsciously and without malice*. Sometimes, it doesn't hurt anyone, like when picking a place to live or picking people with whom you play video games. Sometimes, it does hurt people, like when deciding when someone should get a job or not, or when someone should get convicted or not, or when trying to tell if someone walking through your neighborhood is a threat.

*Some racism is just straight up personally prejudiced bigotry, which I feel is pretty rare these days (it's at least socially unacceptable). Most racism is just failing to recognize unconscious, non-malicious assumptions about people of a different race, which is why a lot of people feel it's important to talk about race.

Duke just came out with a study about conviction rates related to racial composition of a jury: Is justice blind?

Here's the gist:

An interesting piece on reproductive rights in science fiction:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/04/24/reproduction-science-fiction

Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

I don't know what would be worse: if everyone in the press in 2004 had agreed to not talk about it, or if they genuinely did not know.

Fun times with Mitt Romney.

^^My working theory at the moment is that Romney was sent back from the future to kill Sarah Connor, but is so comically inept at it that he's been made the post-apocalypse's number one comedy.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

At least my job isn't that bad

It's not about the comsumers like yourself, it's about the bottom line. There's only the illusion of choice, captialism at it's finest.

That's something I can get behind.

HE-YOOOOOOOOO

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

" The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. "

So in other words what he's saying is not "tax me" but rather "tax all those other rich people who aren't willing to be taxed because they lack sufficient committment to the greater good of society".

"The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy."

Ah-ha. So there's your message: Don't bother being charitable because only super-smart people like Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards know what needs spending money on. If you go around giving money privately you'll just give it to local women's shelters or teacher's-assistance organizations, and not things we need like repeated studies to determine whether clearing brush in the mountains around Santa Cruz would have a negative environmental impact, or ensuring that anyone who wants to sell rabbits for use as pets is properly licensed to do so, or ensuring that former police commissioners who live in suburban Arizona get paid like they lived in downtown San Francisco.

RobotBastard said:

" The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. "

So in other words what he's saying is not "tax me" but rather "tax all those other rich people who aren't willing to be taxed because they lack sufficient committment to the greater good of society".

No, he's saying "Tax me as well as all those other rich people who aren't willing to be taxed because they lack sufficient committment to the greater good of society".

RobotBastard said:

"The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy."

Ah-ha. So there's your message: Don't bother being charitable because only super-smart people like Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards know what needs spending money on. If you go around giving money privately you'll just give it to local women's shelters or teacher's-assistance organizations, and not things we need like repeated studies to determine whether clearing brush in the mountains around Santa Cruz would have a negative environmental impact, or ensuring that anyone who wants to sell rabbits for use as pets is properly licensed to do so, or ensuring that former police commissioners who live in suburban Arizona get paid like they lived in downtown San Francisco.

Again, no. The message isn't "don't give to charity" - it's that charity alone is simply inadequate to do what needs to be done. Nonetheless, it is important to note that charities are not all equal - some are most definitely better than others.

Yeah, you're being overly dense there.

"I'm pretty sure you can figure out what he's actually saying."

I quoted what he was actually saying. What he's actually saying is that when people say "write a check" he thinks that isn't good enough because there are still some people who don't donate to charity--er, excuse me, don't donate to proper charities--and that's Just Not Right.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing to suggest that donations shouldn't go to causes you disapprove of, and if you think that religious organizations shouldn't get tax breaks then you agree.

Taxes=charity donations?

Thanks RB, I learned a lot today.