long read, but really a good one....

[Spidey]

I have to admit…there demonstrates the difference between someone that bought into that psychobabble and someone that didn’t.

[callmeslick]

I’d like to hear your summation.

Gladly.

good job on the summary.

[snoopy]

Here's my question for the author:

If the recent downturn of the American middle class is really some sort of sub-conscious motivation for white man's racism, why do these types of racial tensions predate 9/11 and the recent economic times?

I think he's reaching a bit too much to pull two different things together. Yes, I think there are complex psychological issues that come into play, but I don't think it's really valid to get that deep into it until you're talking about individuals and specific cases. Sure some people might be motivated as this guy describes... others might just a supremacists, and others might just be ignorant or trouble makers.

In my opinion, here's the root of the issue: There's a cultural divide between urban culture and what I'll call "good old boy" culture here in the US. If we're really going to move forward, both cultures are going to need to change.

[Spidey]

...both cultures are going to need to change.

Bingo!

And that article completely misses the part black people play in the dance. (save a few)

[vision]

I have to admit…there demonstrates the difference between someone that bought into that psychobabble and someone that didn’t.

I never said I bought into it, I said it was an interesting and unique perspective. I was simply explaining the article because you apparently couldn't wrap your brain around the concepts, thus your horribly mis-characterized "summary" of it.

Here's my question for the author:

If the recent downturn of the American middle class is really some sort of sub-conscious motivation for white man's racism, why do these types of racial tensions predate 9/11 and the recent economic times?

The author never said these tensions started recently, only that this white-dread "seems so recent, humiliating and, to them, inexplicable." It also mentions "working-class" whites, not middle class, and this is an important distinction. The problem isn't an after-effect of economic changes.

...I don't think it's really valid to get that deep into it until you're talking about individuals and specific cases.

The concept of ressentiment necessarily dictates that it is applied to a whole society, not an individual.

In my opinion, here's the root of the issue: There's a cultural divide between urban culture and what I'll call "good old boy" culture here in the US. If we're really going to move forward, both cultures are going to need to change.

The author mentions that as part of the problem, not the root of it. Again, ressentiment is at play. It has more to do with whites and expectations they put on themselves and each other than actual race relations. The escalating racial tension is more or less a byproduct.

And that article completely misses the part black people play in the dance. (save a few)

Again, the article is specifically about white ressentiment. It is not about black/white relations or how each race affects the other. The author pointed out several times that racial tension is a byproduct. Why are you looking for something that isn't supposed to be there?

[callmeslick]

Here's my question for the author:

If the recent downturn of the American middle class is really some sort of sub-conscious motivation for white man's racism, why do these types of racial tensions predate 9/11 and the recent economic times?

not presuming to speak for the author, but the economic trend with the US middle class is anything but 'recent'. I've talked about it being a problem for nearly 30 years now. The trajectory is(as would be predicted) steepening as time goes on, but the core dynamics of the decline of the broad middle class in the US economy were in place by 1985, at least.

In my opinion, here's the root of the issue: There's a cultural divide between urban culture and what I'll call "good old boy" culture here in the US. If we're really going to move forward, both cultures are going to need to change.

I disagree, siding more with the writer here, and might suggest that the fact you are attuned to a cultural divide, when the crushing of the middle class goes on apace in both 'worlds' you cite equally, might make one wonder how such 'divides' get played up to a public eager to sieze on them. IMHO, the culturing thing might be called a divide only if one refers to economic disparity as a near-infinite chasm. Focusing on the trivial serves only those who benefit from the important differences.

[Spidey]

I have to admit…there demonstrates the difference between someone that bought into that psychobabble and someone that didn’t.

I never said I bought into it, I said it was an interesting and unique perspective. I was simply explaining the article because you apparently couldn't wrap your brain around the concepts, thus your horribly mis-characterized "summary" of it.

And you apparently can’t wrap your brain around sarcasm.

You said Will put his fingers in his ears somewhere around the second paragraph, because there was some obscure reference to murder….NO the first reference to “murderous intent” was right in the pretext, and that alone should keep anybody from “getting the message” because it’s a blatant lie. The number of blacks being “murdered” by whites, is actually in decline…has been for a while.

And that article completely misses the part black people play in the dance. (save a few)

Again, the article is specifically about white ressentiment. It is not about black/white relations or how each race affects the other. The author pointed out several times that racial tension is a byproduct. Why are you looking for something that isn't supposed to be there?

Because pointing the finger at one group, does a disservice to the entire issue.

...................

Just a side note....

In fact, if you go back in history, plenty of this so called “murderous intent” was the by-product of affluence and privilege…not the lack of it.

Again...just more holes in the entire premise.

[snoopy]

Here's my question for the author:

If the recent downturn of the American middle class is really some sort of sub-conscious motivation for white man's racism, why do these types of racial tensions predate 9/11 and the recent economic times?

not presuming to speak for the author, but the economic trend with the US middle class is anything but 'recent'. I've talked about it being a problem for nearly 30 years now. The trajectory is(as would be predicted) steepening as time goes on, but the core dynamics of the decline of the broad middle class in the US economy were in place by 1985, at least.

In my opinion, here's the root of the issue: There's a cultural divide between urban culture and what I'll call "good old boy" culture here in the US. If we're really going to move forward, both cultures are going to need to change.

I disagree, siding more with the writer here, and might suggest that the fact you are attuned to a cultural divide, when the crushing of the middle class goes on apace in both 'worlds' you cite equally, might make one wonder how such 'divides' get played up to a public eager to sieze on them. IMHO, the culturing thing might be called a divide only if one refers to economic disparity as a near-infinite chasm. Focusing on the trivial serves only those who benefit from the important differences.

This is a chicken and egg moment. Does culture cause economy, or vice versa? I think calling culture trivial in comparison to economy is just as wrong as pretending that poverty doesn't tend to drive people to crime and addiction. I guess it comes down to this: I don't believe that economic and skill equality today translates to social, economic, skill (or otherwise) equality tomorrow. We're here today (with racial tensions) because we've all developed attitudes and biases that perpetuate the situation. I don't believe that magically hitting the economic "reset" button would solve anything. I do believe that cops pulling African Americans over simply because of their skin color, and African Americans in turn being aggressive toward cops will only perpetuate the problem. And, I believe that the problem is self perpetuating - the suspicion breeds aggression, and the aggression breeds suspicion.

[callmeslick]

well put, Snoopy. Don't agree to the letter, but well put nonetheless.

[vision]

And you apparently can’t wrap your brain around sarcasm.

Poorly delivered.

You said Will put his fingers in his ears somewhere around the second paragraph, because there was some obscure reference to murder….NO the first reference to “murderous intent” was right in the pretext, and that alone should keep anybody from “getting the message” because it’s a blatant lie. The number of blacks being “murdered” by whites, is actually in decline…has been for a while.

The word you are looking for is byline, not pretext. Now look up the definition of murderous and see that the use of this word is perfectly sound. No lies were written there. Yes, it is a very colorful way to word something, but this is Salon we are talking about. Also, the decline in black deaths by whites is irrelevant to the point of the article. The fact they still happen, is — but even if there were no murders the point of the article still stands.

Because pointing the finger at one group, does a disservice to the entire issue.

Jim Sleeper has written two books on race relations. Do you really think he can fill two books worth of material with a one-sided view? You think he is some amateur? Though I haven't read them myself, I doubt it. Again, you are looking for something that isn't supposed to be there. The article introduces a single concept, not a comprehensive overview racism, and definitely not a solution to it either.

In fact, if you go back in history, plenty of this so called “murderous intent” was the by-product of affluence and privilege…not the lack of it.

Ressentiment is not a lack of affluence and privilege. You are talking about something else.

Again...just more holes in the entire premise.

You have yet to point out a single hole. You apparently still don't understand the point of the article.

[callmeslick]

tough to point out the holes when one doesn't grasp the premise in the first place......

[Spidey]

The word you are looking for is byline, not pretext.

Wrong, a byline has to do with author identification, I am referring to the “PRETEXT” that being this…

“White anger's latest murderous turn, fueled by right-wing media, must be addressed head-on, and not by moralizing”

Just above that is the HEADLINE.

[vision]

BYLINE.

You are looking extra ignorant now. Congratulations.

[Spidey]

I know exactly what a byline is…

The text I’m referring to meets none of the criteria.

But instead is by definition a “pretext”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretext

“A pretext (adj: pretextual) is an excuse to do something or say something that is not accurate. Pretexts may be based on a half-truth or developed in the context of a misleading fabrication. Pretexts have been used to conceal the true purpose or rationale behind actions and words.”

Get it?

I said right from the beginning and so did Will, that the entire thing is based on a false premise.

[vision]

I said right from the beginning and so did Will, that the entire thing is based on a false premise.

And as I've already pointed out, there is no false premise. Learn what words mean. Murderous does not necessarily mean someone was murdered. And even if no one died at all the points made in the article would still be exactly the same. I'm sorry you can't get over yourself enough to see that.

Also, I believe you are using the word pretext incorrectly. What exactly is that opening statement concealing? What secondary action is committed under the shield of those words? What is "White anger's latest murderous turn...” an excuse for? Wait, do you mean the white cops killing black men is an excuse to write a philosophical article?

I'm pretty sure the word you are looking for is pretense, not pretext.

Well anyway, if you have been reduced to arguing about that same opening line again, which is just Salon's shitty editing, then I guess there is no point in continuing to (not) discuss the article you don't understand.

[Spidey]

Pffffft…what’s to understand, a bunch of psychobabble. No the fact that I look more to the motivation behind crap like this and mock it, instead on gushing over it, is what you don’t like.

It’s probably because the link was posted by your lover boy, or even more likely because you can never miss an opportunity to insult someone.

Also, I believe you are using the word pretext incorrectly. What exactly is that opening statement concealing? What secondary action is committed under the shield of those words? What is "White anger's latest murderous turn...” an excuse for? Wait, do you mean the white cops killing black men is an excuse to write a philosophical article?

Close...but not exactly, it’s not concealing anything, It’s a lie, giving the excuse to write inflammatory crap like this.

[callmeslick]

Pffffft…what’s to understand, a bunch of psychobabble. No the fact that I look more to the motivation behind crap like this and mock it, instead on gushing over it, is what you don’t like.

It’s probably because the link was posted by your lover boy, or even more likely because you can never miss an opportunity to insult someone.

wow, another irony overload, and some deep thinking, you betcha!

Close...but not exactly, it’s not concealing anything, It’s a lie, giving the excuse to write inflammatory crap like this.

I'd agree, but would stick to exactly what the above actually says, given sentence stucture.



some of this stuff is starting to get funny!

[vision]

Pffffft…what’s to understand, a bunch of psychobabble. No the fact that I look more to the motivation behind crap like this and mock it, instead on gushing over it, is what you don’t like.

A philosophical concept coined by one of the world's great philosopher's is "psychobabble?" Maybe. And what is Sleeper's hidden motivation? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think since you didn't actually understand the article.

It’s probably because the link was posted by your lover boy, or even more likely because you can never miss an opportunity to insult someone.

Close...but not exactly, it’s not concealing anything, It’s a lie, giving the excuse to write inflammatory crap like this.

So I'm using the article as pretext to insult you? But that still doesn't explain what the byline of the article is a pretext for. I'm pretty sure you mean pretense.

[Spidey]

There is no “byline” at the top of that article, just a link to Sleepers page.

And no for the umpteenth time I didn’t mean pretense either. (although I could have used that term) Why the hell are you stuck on that, it’s the word I chose…get over it.

See what really bothers me here is just why the hell anybody feels the need to insult someone’s intelligence for getting something different out of an E-zine article then they did.

Put ten people in a room, have them read the same book…then ask some questions…and get ten different answers, are nine of them stupid.

[Spidey]

Pffffft…what’s to understand, a bunch of psychobabble. No the fact that I look more to the motivation behind crap like this and mock it, instead on gushing over it, is what you don’t like.

It’s probably because the link was posted by your lover boy, or even more likely because you can never miss an opportunity to insult someone.

wow, another irony overload, and some deep thinking, you betcha!

Close...but not exactly, it’s not concealing anything, It’s a lie, giving the excuse to write inflammatory crap like this.

I'd agree, but would stick to exactly what the above actually says, given sentence stucture.

Even a polite can be called stupid but so many times. And my insult was just silliness, you and he on the other hand intend to hurt.

And since when does “philosophy” take such an inflammatory and accusatorial tone.

And if I wanted to be picky, I would insult your intelligence due to the spelling of "structure".

[callmeslick]

like I said, this got to be just a funny read of a thread once the lines got drawn between those that bothered to read it, and those who dismissed it out of hand because they didn't like the lead line or such.

[vision]

There is no “byline” at the top of that article, just a link to Sleepers page.

The byline by definition is: "White anger's latest murderous turn, fueled by right-wing media, must be addressed head-on, and not by moralizing — Jim Sleeper"

See what really bothers me here is just why the hell anybody feels the need to insult someone’s intelligence for getting something different out of an E-zine article then they did.

I guess. But what you got out of it was completely different than what was written, and that's pretty scary.

Put ten people in a room, have them read the same book…then ask some questions…and get ten different answers, are nine of them stupid.

If that were the case, then we couldn't have an education system, or know anything for that matter. Words have meanings. Well, I guess that's true for poetry and some religious texts, but this isn't one of those.

My advice to you for the future is, if you don't know what something means, don't act like you do.

[Spidey]

Fine I will give you the byline thing, but it was still a lie.

Learn the difference between misunderstanding something and being critical of it.

There is nothing…not a damn thing in that story that is very difficult to understand. (and contains a hell of a lot more back seat psychology than philosophy)

No see I understood the entire thing, I just disagreed with most of it, and that made it look like I misunderstood, because my comments weren’t what you expected.

And no, psychology and philosophy aren’t processed by the brain the same way strict knowledge is. (as per your reference to the education system)

Now I’m going to let this go, because it’s getting really silly.