Matthew J. Mayhew's IHE Hostage Video

[little bongo]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist. I think most of us jump right to the second two, discrimination or antagonism, and say, "Hey now, I don't do those things... and since you absolutely want to know every single detail about this, let me tell you about all my lovers from those racial and ethnic groups..."

But we're all guilty of the first one, prejudice, often in ways that seem very small or that we don't even recognize, but there they are. Our language is such that once we talk about racism, that's often where the discussion ends. Anna Devere Smith's "Fires in the Mirror" comes to mind, in the piece derived from the interview with Robert Sherman called "Lousy Language."

And then there's the fear, and if it is ever appropriate to use the terms "genius" and "President Trump" in the same sentence, I think that's where it is--the prejudice that starts out small and seemingly harmless gets prodded, stoked, and ignited, and Trump is darn good at it. But you don't have to let your fear make your decisions. And you don't have to give fear your vote.

[marshwiggle]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist.

So saying "All white people are (a bit) racist" is, in fact, racist.

[writingprof]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist.

So saying "All white people are (a bit) racist" is, in fact, racist.

So is thinking it.  We're all guilty.  So none of us are. 

[mahagonny]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist. I think most of us jump right to the second two, discrimination or antagonism, and say, "Hey now, I don't do those things... and since you absolutely want to know every single detail about this, let me tell you about all my lovers from those racial and ethnic groups..."

But we're all guilty of the first one, prejudice, often in ways that seem very small or that we don't even recognize, but there they are. Our language is such that once we talk about racism, that's often where the discussion ends. Anna Devere Smith's "Fires in the Mirror" comes to mind, in the piece derived from the interview with Robert Sherman called "Lousy Language."

And then there's the fear, and if it is ever appropriate to use the terms "genius" and "President Trump" in the same sentence, I think that's where it is--the prejudice that starts out small and seemingly harmless gets prodded, stoked, and ignited, and Trump is darn good at it. But you don't have to let your fear make your decisions. And you don't have to give fear your vote.

I wouldn't quarrel with that really, but to add...
And then there's irrational fixation and mania. The idea that, whatever amount of attention we have been giving to the problem of racism is never enough. And along with that, the idea that every trace of it can and must be eradicated permanently.
Part of the reason this is so easy for Trump to do what you describe is that he is a natural at it. But another reason is the presence of people on the left who inject racism into almost every talk about almost any problem. When everyone's talking about racism a lot, white people feel accused. It doesn't help your candidate win the election that certain educated white people enjoy being accused. And the message of the growing black conservative population is that  these democrats have had the black votes for years without solving much of anything.
And there was Hillary campaigning on 'expanding women's rights.' Didn't work, and didn't deserve to. Nothing says 'not 2016' like a feminism pitch.

[marshwiggle]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist. I think most of us jump right to the second two, discrimination or antagonism, and say, "Hey now, I don't do those things... and since you absolutely want to know every single detail about this, let me tell you about all my lovers from those racial and ethnic groups..."

But we're all guilty of the first one, prejudice, often in ways that seem very small or that we don't even recognize, but there they are. Our language is such that once we talk about racism, that's often where the discussion ends. Anna Devere Smith's "Fires in the Mirror" comes to mind, in the piece derived from the interview with Robert Sherman called "Lousy Language."

And then there's the fear, and if it is ever appropriate to use the terms "genius" and "President Trump" in the same sentence, I think that's where it is--the prejudice that starts out small and seemingly harmless gets prodded, stoked, and ignited, and Trump is darn good at it. But you don't have to let your fear make your decisions. And you don't have to give fear your vote.

I wouldn't quarrel with that really, but to add...
And then there's irrational fixation and mania. The idea that, whatever amount of attention we have been giving to the problem of racism is never enough. And along with that, the idea that every trace of it can and must be eradicated permanently.
Part of the reason this is so easy for Trump to do what you describe is that he is a natural at it. But another reason is the presence of people on the left who inject racism into almost every talk about almost any problem. When everyone's talking about racism a lot, white people feel accused. It doesn't help your candidate win the election that certain educated white people enjoy being accused. And the message of the growing black conservative population is that  these democrats have had the black votes for years without solving much of anything.

According to the most noisy progressives, it never will be totally solved; the capitalist white supremacist patriarchy will always try to oppress everyone else. And since everything is "systemic", it can't be fixed until everything is burned to the ground so society can start over.

[little bongo]

Well, there's fear and there's baggage. We give words connotative power, and then the words become name-calling. As for casually throwing around "the r-word," well, if you're exhibiting "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group," then you're a racist.

So saying "All white people are (a bit) racist" is, in fact, racist.

Sure. Does that work for you?

As for systemic racism (or systemic anything), we're just talking about a way of doing things that most likely originally had racist intent, or misogynist intent, or whatever system we're talking about. (Aeschylus and his Oresteia are particularly illuminating about forming democracy around a patriarchy, for example.) Some people say the only way to change is to burn and destroy. Some want to improve systems from within. We're not saying anything new here. The only things that are new, are, well, us. We're new, comparatively speaking. That's kind of interesting--maybe even a little exciting.

[dismalist]

Discussions of racism tend to degenerate into discussions of definitions of words, emotions, and attitudes. Only acts matter for law: Discrimination in employment and education is goddamned illegal! Indeed, reverse discrimination has long been sanctioned by law. 

As for the mishap which set off current protests, arson, and violence, the George Floyd killing, is there any disagreement about it at all? Does anyone condone it? No, everyone condemns it.

This is a manufactured problem largely abetted by the Corona lockdowns and shutdowns, making everybody more bored than usual. So, let's riot: Better than television; almost as good as movies.

When was American society and governments more racist, in 1965 or today?

[spork]

[. . . ]

let me tell you about all my lovers from those racial and ethnic groups..."

[. . . ]

I resemble that remark!

[jimbogumbo]

As for the mishap which set off current protests, arson, and violence, the George Floyd killing, is there any disagreement about it at all? Does anyone condone it? No, everyone condemns it.

From the GOP candidate for Senate in Delaware:
https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1288631547214606348

[mahagonny]

As for the mishap which set off current protests, arson, and violence, the George Floyd killing, is there any disagreement about it at all? Does anyone condone it? No, everyone condemns it.

From the GOP candidate for Senate in Delaware:
https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1288631547214606348

This is the first I've heard that the whole video was a fraud. I doubt it. But I have to say, just viewing politics as a spectator sport, it's kind of a guilty pleasure, but interesting to watch black people on the right going after the left. I mean, this is a new experience other than maybe, way back when,  the whole Clarence Thomas kerfuffle.
But there was one way in which we were not provided of the whole story. First there was the video of Floyd on the ground saying 'I can't breathe' and Chauvin's knee on his neck which of course, no less now, is fairly horrifying. But we came to find out later that another earlier segment of the video showed him in the squad car saying he couldn't breathe. Which still doesn't make Chauvin look that much better (and  it seems to be permissible to talk about his history of complaints about rough treatment of perps, whereas mention Floyd's checkered past and you're asking for it) but I would guess, as a layperson, it means the trial will be quite different from what we had been led to expect.
So -- don't ask me; I've said too much already. Probably someone will get mad.
If he's acquitted, things will be unpleasant.

[mahagonny]

Sorry I got off on the wrong trolley. I thought you were referring another candidate for office, Dr. Winnie.

[marshwiggle]

As for the mishap which set off current protests, arson, and violence, the George Floyd killing, is there any disagreement about it at all? Does anyone condone it? No, everyone condemns it.

From the GOP candidate for Senate in Delaware:
https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1288631547214606348

This is the first I've heard that the whole video was a fraud. I doubt it. But I have to say, just viewing politics as a spectator sport, it's kind of a guilty pleasure, but interesting to watch black people on the right going after the left. I mean, this is a new experience other than maybe, way back when,  the whole Clarence Thomas kerfuffle.
But there was one way in which we were not provided of the whole story. First there was the video of Floyd on the ground saying 'I can't breathe' and Chauvin's knee on his neck which of course, no less now, is fairly horrifying. But we came to find out later that another earlier segment of the video showed him in the squad car saying he couldn't breathe. Which still doesn't make Chauvin look that much better (and  it seems to be permissible to talk about his history of complaints about rough treatment of perps, whereas mention Floyd's checkered past and you're asking for it) but I would guess, as a layperson, it means the trial will be quite different from what we had been led to expect.

I had the same reaction as you; kind of a "Wait! What????"
There really needs to be some medical expert who has no axe to grind in this case looking at the toxicology and medical reports to be able to say how likely breathing problems were based on the medical conditions, drugs in the system, etc. Since I am NOT such an expert, I have no idea how to interpret the videos.
And they definitely will matter in the trial.

[writingprof]

The Chronicle has a new piece that comments on the Mayhew performance at some length.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-moral-contortions-of-the-new-university

If one can get past its silly generalizations ("the United States has never been good at producing public intellectuals") and antique values ("as far as I'm concerned, universities are where you go to learn how to read Akkadian cuneiform tablets, the scansion of Ovid, and stuff like that"), it is possible to find some trenchant commentary.  To wit:

[Mayhew] is renouncing his former standing as a rational individual in order to blend into a mass movement that very emphatically makes no room for his individual rationality.