Appropriate response to rioting

[Parasaurolophus]

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

[mahagonny]

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Another response for this:

Are you by any chance watching CNN? They just had Sheila Jackson on. She gave a several minute interview where she agreed with the republican congressman who said 'Presidential Trump has committed an impeachable offense. I don't know what kind of impeachment document the democrats will hand us, but as long as it's not politicized it can easily be supported.' (I thought; why did he have to make that stipulation? It's a fairly staightforward situation. the megalomaniac is pissed that he lost, and he's trying to get the more emotional thinking among his following to overthrow by feeding them lies. Everyone's looking at the same thing. Who's gonna politicize this? I soon found out.)
Jackson gave him credit for putting principle over party, gave a brief sober account of what DJT has done recently that threatens the nation, and almost made it to the end before gratuitously making a dig at white people. 'We cannot tolerate white aggression...blah blah...' Then seemed to catch herself and reel it back in. Forgetting, perhaps, that most of the targets of the violent assault are white people who risked their lives that day to do the work they're hired for.

I am just an adjunct professor commenting on a forum. I am not directing public discussion in the media. These race hustler politicians are the people you vote in. If you're tired of having us point out when they seem unable to process discernible life events without playing the race card, you could stop sending them to Washington.

She's probably on a reparations kick. Well played, congresswomxn.

Incidentally, if Kimberly Klacik sides with Trump this time, I'm all done with her.

First of all, what do you mean the people "you" vote in?  I didn't vote for that person. 

Second, you are the very thing you are so upset about: You make everything about race and racism. If Trump set of a nuclear war, your response would be a post about BLM.

Third, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?

[Langue_doc]

Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.

[mahagonny]

Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.

Interesting stories, perhaps:
A colleague just retired at work. He was one of those who was always there at white privilege and systemic racism discussions with bells on, searching his psyche for latent racism, striking a blow for the Black American, so he thought. Another time I over heard him and friend cracking each other up because one of them had a Japanese student named 'Yusuke' which they thought sounded like 'you suck.'

Some years ago I was working in London. My British friend Dave was just bristling with anger at white folks on the television that he thought were fascists. I don't know if they were or not. All I could see at the time was an interviewer asking them 'why won't you renounce white supremacy? Why not, why not?' and them responding 'why do I get singled out for this question? What have I done?'
The next day Dave was telling Irishman jokes. 'Why is an Irishman like a hemorrhoid? Because...they're a pain in the ass, but they're OK if they stay up there where they belong.'
Human beings are funny people.

Third, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?

The republicans I like are talking more about individualism and the need to stress what we are capable of individually and together, rather than fixating on government catering to special interest demands.

ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America.

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Forumites, let's not get personal.

I too find it problematic that the name "Karen" is used to ridicule and stigmatize entitled women of a certain skin color. I know several Karens, all of them Caucasians, who are the opposite of the Central Park Karen.

As for pronouncing names correctly, we can only try to approximate the correct pronunciation. However hard I try, I cannot pronounce tones let alone hear them. It's the ridiculing that I find problematic as well as offensive, not the accented pronunciations.

ETA: This is a response to mahagonny's post just above.

Interesting stories, perhaps:
A colleague just retired at work. He was one of those who was always there at white privilege and systemic racism discussions with bells on, searching his psyche for latent racism, striking a blow for the Black American, so he thought. Another time I over heard him and friend cracking each other up because one of them had a Japanese student named 'Yusuke' which they thought sounded like 'you suck.'

Some years ago I was working in London. My British friend Dave was just bristling with anger at white folks on the television that he thought were fascists. I don't know if they were or not. All I could see at the time was an interviewer asking them 'why won't you renounce white supremacy? Why not, why not?' and them responding 'why do I get singled out for this question? What have I done?'
The next day Dave was telling Irishman jokes. 'Why is an Irishman like a hemorrhoid? Because...they're a pain in the ass, but they're OK if they stay up there where they belong.'
Human beings are funny people.

Third, and most importantly, the President and the Republicans have played the race card unendingly, ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America. This predates Trump, and has actually been the defining feature of the party since it started the Southern strategy. Seems to me that Republicans have the much more destructive weaponization of race. So why aren't you upset about those race hustlers?

The republicans I like are talking more about individualism and the need to stress what we are capable of individually and together, rather than fixating on government catering to special interest demands.

ginning up their supporters on the idea that white people are actually the most oppressed group in America.

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

And if you are an honest actor then you can give a better answer to my question about Republican "race hustling." Why aren't you more upset about the Southern strategy? Why is this sort of race hustling something you choose to ignore? If you can't engage with this side of the conversation productively then you have no credibility to complain about Democrats doing something you think is similar.

[mahagonny]

[sigh]....do I have to, when readers here already believe it? OK, here's somewhere to start:

Show evidence for the bolded.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/07/whos_a_racist_thomas_sowell.html

[Parasaurolophus]

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.

I mean, if you like, go ahead (although you might find that the caricature works best when it's more firmly grounded in truth, and more widely recognizable). As long as you understand the ways in which the two cases (i.e. Kamala vs. Karen) are different.

[Sun_Worshiper]

[sigh]....do I have to, when readers here already believe it? OK, here's somewhere to start:

Show evidence for the bolded.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2013/07/whos_a_racist_thomas_sowell.html

Yes, you do have to show evidence for a claim. Are you actually an academic? Do you tell your students to make claims without providing any well sourced evidence to support them?

Amusingly, this article you shared does not show any evidence that white men are the most disliked. Here is every stat from the article, none of which relate to your claim:

• "31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racist."
• "Among whites, according to the same Rasmussen poll, 38 percent consider most blacks racist and 10 percent consider most whites racist."
• "49 percent of Republicans consider most blacks racist, as do 36 percent of independents and 29 percent of Democrats."
• "29 percent of Americans as a whole think race relations are getting better, while 32 percent think race relations are getting worse."

[marshwiggle]

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

[mahagonny]

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

You're ridiculing a particular woman's name because she's Black and not on your political side. That's different from using her name generically to stand in for a particular kind of behaviour you think is problematic but ultimately paradigmatically associated with her.

OK. But henceforth I will refer to racist Caucasian women as Professor Parasaurolophus. I have friends named Karen and you know, we need to get along. One of them is black. So you see, that doesn't work.

on edit: I do agree that an individual's name is their property and it's their right to have you pronounce it right.

I mean, if you like, go ahead (although you might find that the caricature works best when it's more firmly grounded in truth, and more widely recognizable). As long as you understand the ways in which the two cases (i.e. Kamala vs. Karen) are different.

No, the point is since you're into character assassination, to be fair to everyone, you get a turn.

[marshwiggle]

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.

From psychology, it has been firmly established that the best way to incetivize behaviour is with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, the more inconsistent the response is to rioting, the more it encourages rioters. So the fact that some riots get dealt with harshly but some get ignored for a long time means that they are going to be more frequent than if you ignored them all or dealt with them all more harshly. And given the cosrs associated with the damage done, dealing with all more harshly would be much cheaper and less disruptive to communities.

[Sun_Worshiper]

White men are the most disliked members of our society, yes. Not oppressed. I don't hear that claim.

Show evidence for the bolded.

It might be more obvious to say "the one group who it is most OK to criticize, mock, and accuse of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. publicly with impunity." The things that can be said publicly about white men would blow up the Internet and the media if they were said about any other group.

The is not evidence, it is just another claim unaccompanied by supporting data. Show me poll data, or something comparable, to substantiate the claim that whites are the most disliked group. If you don't have data then don't make the claim, or caveat the claim with a disclaimer that you have failed to cite evidence to support it. If this was part of a peer review I'd recommend rejection of your article; if it was a student paper I'd have to dock you points.

This is basic stuff folks.

[Parasaurolophus]

No, the point is since you're into character assassination, to be fair to everyone, you get a turn.

Oh shit, you've got me bang to rights!

[mahagonny]

Well I'm not going to fret and fume. Cool people will use the term Karen with a wink and a smirk and thus quickly spot each other.
I expect to share our land with a certain number of kooks and bubbleheads. What really does bother me about this is it means while I am pro-union I have nowhere to go but to the republican party. And hope they have the sense to run some good people next time. But the more people who think Aunt Jemima is offensive, but the 'Karen and Becky...[sneer]' is not, the easier it will be for Trump's children to have a future in politics.
I see why the tenure track and their associated hangers-on are so fervent with the white privilege and racism hunting expedition. Part of it is, there are so few blacks on the tenure track, you better appear to be bending over backwards to help, because they can easily come for you.