Discussion:
While athel is repenting his sins...
Add Reply
occam
2021-12-04 17:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 04/12/2021 18:44, ***@gmail.com wrote:

.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
You may not be a racist, but you definitely are a dimwit. No one can be
accused of insulting you by pointing out facts.
Arindam Banerjee
2021-12-04 22:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
While athel is repenting his sins,
What sins, and how?

a good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel.
UK appears to be a better place to them, seems the obvious answer.

They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Wherever they are not wanted, I should think.
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
Most evidently.
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
You sound like a champion of freedom and a light for unfortunates.
Maybe you should reconsider how brightly your light will shine when you let in too many unfortunates who will not be passive for long. They will become Marxists of some sort, green shall we say.
As the fate of the Bengali Hindus in West Bengal shows, where refugees from East Pakistan have caused disaster that cannot be overcome.
The only time warfare is necessary and justified is when it is used to AVOID the plight of refugees.
The good king wages war to keep peace and prosperity in other regions, so that the people there remain there.
That is ancient Indian wisdom, long forgotten everywhere.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
occam
2021-12-04 23:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
Would you care to work through that reasoning step by step? There seem
to be some unsupported presumptions lurking in it.
When my home is on fire and I jump into the neighbour's garden (an his
neighbour's garden) until I get to a safe place, am I escaping from my
home or the neighbour's garden?
lar3ryca
2021-12-05 04:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
Would you care to work through that reasoning step by step? There seem
to be some unsupported presumptions lurking in it.
When my home is on fire and I jump into the neighbour's garden (an his
neighbour's garden) until I get to a safe place, am I escaping from my
home or the neighbour's garden?
I find it very interesting that Canada has a law that specifically addresses
the situation of a refugee seeking asylum in Canada via a second country.
I was unaware of it until Trump was elected and started talking about
deporting people who were in the US as refugees.

There was an inrush of refugees coming from the US, walking across the
border at places where there was no facilities for immigration and customs
personnel. The law states that any of those refugees cannot claim asylum
in Canada if they are coming from a country that is not the one they are
actually fleeing from, through another country.

That certainly didn't stop our Prime Minister from letting them all in, whether
or not they entered legally or illegally.
occam
2021-12-05 07:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by lar3ryca
Post by occam
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
Would you care to work through that reasoning step by step? There seem
to be some unsupported presumptions lurking in it.
When my home is on fire and I jump into the neighbour's garden (an his
neighbour's garden) until I get to a safe place, am I escaping from my
home or the neighbour's garden?
I find it very interesting that Canada has a law that specifically addresses
the situation of a refugee seeking asylum in Canada via a second country.
I was unaware of it until Trump was elected and started talking about
deporting people who were in the US as refugees.
There was an inrush of refugees coming from the US, walking across the
border at places where there was no facilities for immigration and customs
personnel. The law states that any of those refugees cannot claim asylum
in Canada if they are coming from a country that is not the one they are
actually fleeing from, through another country.
That certainly didn't stop our Prime Minister from letting them all in, whether
or not they entered legally or illegally.
Good point. This is something that Britain has not done, and will not do
under the current Brexit regime. Rather than welcoming the refugees with
open arms, it is accusing France of not doing its bit in preventing them
leaving its shores.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 09:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by lar3ryca
Post by occam
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
Would you care to work through that reasoning step by step? There seem
to be some unsupported presumptions lurking in it.
When my home is on fire and I jump into the neighbour's garden (an his
neighbour's garden) until I get to a safe place, am I escaping from my
home or the neighbour's garden?
I find it very interesting that Canada has a law that specifically addresses
the situation of a refugee seeking asylum in Canada via a second country.
I was unaware of it until Trump was elected and started talking about
deporting people who were in the US as refugees.
There was an inrush of refugees coming from the US, walking across the
border at places where there was no facilities for immigration and customs
personnel. The law states that any of those refugees cannot claim asylum
in Canada if they are coming from a country that is not the one they are
actually fleeing from, through another country.
That certainly didn't stop our Prime Minister from letting them all in, whether
or not they entered legally or illegally.
Good point. This is something that Britain has not done, and will not do
under the current Brexit regime.
Aren't you overlooking cases where Britain did exactly that? Cases such
as Badreddin Abadlla Adam, who in June last year Boris put up in a
3-star hotel in Glasgow? Yes, do by all means look him up. Or look up
the chap who tried in September last year to set his accommodation on
fire, was arrested for arson, and was then released without charge. *Of
course* they're being allowed to stay. They're even being allowed to
commit arson.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Paul Wolff
2021-12-05 12:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They
spend thousands of pounds and risk their own lives,
and the lives of their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France
and Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are not
escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
Would you care to work through that reasoning step by step? There seem
to be some unsupported presumptions lurking in it.
When my home is on fire and I jump into the neighbour's garden (an his
neighbour's garden) until I get to a safe place, am I escaping from my
home or the neighbour's garden?
Does this question mean you aren't going to answer mine?

But I'm not so niggardly, and will give you answers to yours.
1) I don't know where you were when you began jumping.
2) Why did you jump into your neighbour's garden anyway?
3) If you were escaping from anything, it was probably from the fire.
4) What were your grounds, if any, for believing that your house fire
would spread to engulf your neighbour's garden?
5) Why did you not stop escaping as soon as you were safe?
--
Paul
CDB
2021-12-05 13:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
.... good time to ask
why refugees are continuing to cross the channel. They spend
thousands of pounds and risk their own lives, and the lives of
their children, to escape from where?
Not Syria and Iraq. They are trying to escape from France and
Germany aren't they?
No they are not. They are neither French nor German. Hence they are
not escaping from France/Germany but from their country of origin.
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would be
offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Now tell us about your friends.
Post by occam
You may not be a racist, but you definitely are a dimwit. No one can
be accused of insulting you by pointing out facts.
Hey. That's my favourite kind of insult.
Paul Wolff
2021-12-05 16:03:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?

I just try to avoid the R-word. My rationale for that includes that I
believe genetic ancestry has no bearing on the moral worth of any human
being, and that I still don't actually know what it really means or how
to separate racist from non-racist behaviours in other people's eyes.
For all I know, I'm racist when I light my Chanukah candles without
being a proper Jew. "I know it when I see it" doesn't cut the mustard,
/pace/ Justice Potter Stewart.
--
Paul
Whoops, past sunset again...
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 16:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt). There is no sense to be had from
people who can spawn such balderdash.
Post by Paul Wolff
I just try to avoid the R-word.
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-05 17:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman has the right to do that, because he knows what he
is talking about. You do not, because you have demonstrated over and
over your abject ignorance of the history of race relations over the past
four centuries in North America, and your blindness to it in your own
country.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-05 19:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Heathfield
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman has the right to do that, because he knows what he
is talking about. You do not, because you have demonstrated over and
over your abject ignorance of the history of race relations over the past
four centuries in North America, and your blindness to it in your own
country.
North America, & North American experience, shall dictate how speech on
other continents may be conducted?

I shall have to give that idea some thought.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-05 21:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Heathfield
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman has the right to do that, because he knows what he
is talking about. You do not, because you have demonstrated over and
over your abject ignorance of the history of race relations over the past
four centuries in North America, and your blindness to it in your own
country.
North America, & North American experience, shall dictate how speech on
other continents may be conducted?
Heathfield chose to contribute interventions in a conversation touching
on such matters.

He exhibited utter ignorance of the facts ongoing of racial oppression.

He emitted his already-familiar bizarre notions about not caring about
giving offense.

He also applied that attitude to, IIRC, denying there was any sort of
racism / racial tension in Britain.

Just a few days ago he made some sort of remark about "the P-word."
Post by Sam Plusnet
I shall have to give that idea some thought.
Good advice.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-05 21:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Heathfield
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman has the right to do that, because he knows what he
is talking about. You do not, because you have demonstrated over and
over your abject ignorance of the history of race relations over the past
four centuries in North America, and your blindness to it in your own
country.
North America, & North American experience, shall dictate how speech on
other continents may be conducted?
Not all of them. Just PTD, I think. He will keep trying, bless. I don't
think he's ever forgiven me for plonking him (for posting precisely the
kind of idiocy you cite above).
See what I mean? The first time he's responded to me in years, and
he calls "idiocy" what is (what you would call) bog-standard social
theory.

I don't know what "He will keep trying, bless" means. Nor what
"all of them" refers to.
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-05 17:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
You changed "claiming not to be racist", when no accusation had been
made and the argument given was a non sequitur, to "pleading not guilty"
(as if Spains had been accused), and changed "suspect" to "admission of
guilt".
Post by Richard Heathfield
There is no sense to be had from
people who can spawn such balderdash.
Post by Paul Wolff
I just try to avoid the R-word.
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race?
It comes from centuries of history, notably in your country and mine.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 17:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
You changed "claiming not to be racist"
No, I didn't. It was a direct quote.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-05 17:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
You changed "claiming not to be racist"
No, I didn't. It was a direct quote.
You changed it with an "i.e." to "pleading not guilty". That's a different
thing, as I explained.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 18:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
You changed "claiming not to be racist"
No, I didn't. It was a direct quote.
You changed it with an "i.e." to "pleading not guilty".
I did not change it, sir. I added my interpretation, yes. But I did not
change anything.
Post by Jerry Friedman
That's a different thing, as I explained.
Well, "change" doesn't mean what you seem to be trying to suggest it means.

But we are heading rapidly towards a maze of twisty little passages, all
alike, so I'll leave it there.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-05 20:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
You changed "claiming not to be racist"
No, I didn't. It was a direct quote.
You changed it with an "i.e." to "pleading not guilty".
I did not change it, sir. I added my interpretation, yes. But I did not
change anything.
Okay, your interpretation was quite different from what you were
interpreting.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
That's a different thing, as I explained.
Well, "change" doesn't mean what you seem to be trying to suggest it means.
In that case, I'll say that your "i.e." wasn't true. Quinn's statement wasn't what
you said it was.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But we are heading rapidly towards a maze of twisty little passages, all
alike, so I'll leave it there.
I won't argue about the meaning of "change".
--
Jerry Friedman
Anders D. Nygaard
2021-12-07 23:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>

/Anders, Denmark
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-08 02:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).

The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2021-12-08 03:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Right. Actually, the prediction that [Morgan Freeman] won't
get to play Lear for a major Hollywood studio is fairly safe,
since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from plots
reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black
actors don't get because they're black, and (fewer) parts that
white actors don't get because they're white...
On the other hand, here are the lead performers from the Broadway
production of the musical "Six", playing the wives of King Henry VIII:

Loading Image...
--
Mark Brader | "This is a moral that runs at large;
Toronto | Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge."
***@vex.net | -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-08 05:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Right. Actually, the prediction that [Morgan Freeman] won't
get to play Lear for a major Hollywood studio is fairly safe,
since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from plots
reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black
actors don't get because they're black, and (fewer) parts that
white actors don't get because they're white...
On the other hand, here are the lead performers from the Broadway
http://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/ee9/fba/376744342fee1009d5b18d063bf34836a3-six-queens-lede.rhorizontal.w700.jpg
That is indeed the other hand. In fact, way back in 1980, Freeman won an
Obie Award (for Off-Broadway acting) as Coriolanus.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-12-08 13:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
Julius Caesar in our Shakespeare in the Park production:
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>

Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
--
Where we are, when we are ... nothing but lies told by the senses.
-- Trance Gemini
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-08 16:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>
Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
Yes, and Mrs. Siddons played Hamlet in 1775.
I saw Dame Judith Anderson as Hamlet when she toured in 1970 (at the
age of 73).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Anderson#1960s.
In retrospect, Shakespeare wasn't a good choice. I've seen Kenneth Branagh's film
of /Much Ado About Nothing/, with Denzel Washington in the minor role of Don
Pedro. But I was looking for something commensurate with Freeman's age.
My point is that there are some film roles--Batman, for instance--where Hollywood
insists on white actors, and as long as that's true, people talking about Hollywood
will have reasons to use the terms "black" and "white", as people talking American
society as a whole do.
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-08 20:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
I can't quite believe there is any link between the Arabic name
Idrissa/Idris and the Welsh name Idris.

<checks>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(name)

suggests no link, but it does mention a former neighbour & friend in the
"People with the name" table.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-08 20:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
I can't quite believe there is any link between the Arabic name
Idrissa/Idris and the Welsh name Idris.
So we should think of him as Welsh rather than English?
Post by Sam Plusnet
<checks>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(name)
suggests no link, but it does mention a former neighbour & friend in the
"People with the name" table.
small world
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-09 00:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
I can't quite believe there is any link between the Arabic name
Idrissa/Idris and the Welsh name Idris.
So we should think of him as Welsh rather than English?
That seemed very unlikely[1] to me, but that was what caused me to
investigate.

[1] Father from Sierra Leone, Mother from Ghana, born in London.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
<checks>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(name)
suggests no link, but it does mention a former neighbour & friend in the
"People with the name" table.
small world
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-09 12:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
I can't quite believe there is any link between the Arabic name
Idrissa/Idris and the Welsh name Idris.
So we should think of him as Welsh rather than English?
That seemed very unlikely[1] to me, but that was what caused me to
investigate.
[1] Father from Sierra Leone, Mother from Ghana, born in London.
Well, the first Bond was Scottish ...
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
<checks>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(name)
suggests no link, but it does mention a former neighbour & friend in the
"People with the name" table.
small world
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-12-09 20:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They say there's going to be a black Bond (Idris Elba is mentioned) before
there's a woman Bond.
I can't quite believe there is any link between the Arabic name
Idrissa/Idris and the Welsh name Idris.
So we should think of him as Welsh rather than English?
That seemed very unlikely[1] to me, but that was what caused me to
investigate.
[1] Father from Sierra Leone, Mother from Ghana, born in London.
According to Wikip his first name is Idrissa, but he uses the shortened
form of it.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
<checks>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(name)
suggests no link, but it does mention a former neighbour & friend in the
"People with the name" table.
small world
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2021-12-08 17:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>
Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
Yes, and Mrs. Siddons played Hamlet in 1775.
In retrospect, Shakespeare wasn't a good choice. I've seen Kenneth Branagh's film
of /Much Ado About Nothing/, with Denzel Washington in the minor role of Don
Pedro. But I was looking for something commensurate with Freeman's age.
My point is that there are some film roles--Batman, for instance--where Hollywood
insists on white actors, and as long as that's true, people talking about Hollywood
will have reasons to use the terms "black" and "white", as people talking American
society as a whole do.
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.

I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal rating
the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared to similar
products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or anti-woke sentiments.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Tony Cooper
2021-12-08 18:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:46:39 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>
Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
Yes, and Mrs. Siddons played Hamlet in 1775.
In retrospect, Shakespeare wasn't a good choice. I've seen Kenneth Branagh's film
of /Much Ado About Nothing/, with Denzel Washington in the minor role of Don
Pedro. But I was looking for something commensurate with Freeman's age.
My point is that there are some film roles--Batman, for instance--where Hollywood
insists on white actors, and as long as that's true, people talking about Hollywood
will have reasons to use the terms "black" and "white", as people talking American
society as a whole do.
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal rating
the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared to similar
products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be interesting?

Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the product can't
be responsible for the negative reaction. It must be because the
viewers are (whatever)phobic.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Quinn C
2021-12-09 02:51:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:46:39 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal rating
the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared to similar
products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be interesting?
As I hinted, for me it's more or less on a par with the related shows
I've watched (Arrow, Supergirl). If the rating was one point lower, I'd
take that as an honest opinion, but three points - there must be some
difference between the shows that's indiscernible for me.
Post by Tony Cooper
Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the product can't
be responsible for the negative reaction. It must be because the
viewers are (whatever)phobic.
Is that your opinion, after seeing the show - and some similar ones? If
not, then your comment also reflects a familiar attitude - of denial.
Crowd-bullying against women and minorities is a well-known phenomenon
on the Internet at this point.

Unless I confuse it with a similar one, this was a subject when the show
was announced and got a lot of negative reviews before the first episode
was even out.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
CDB
2021-12-09 15:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2
is Black besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this
with a minor character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal
rating the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared
to similar products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or
anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be interesting?
As I hinted, for me it's more or less on a par with the related
shows I've watched (Arrow, Supergirl). If the rating was one point
lower, I'd take that as an honest opinion, but three points - there
must be some difference between the shows that's indiscernible for
me.
Post by Tony Cooper
Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the product
can't be responsible for the negative reaction. It must be because
the viewers are (whatever)phobic.
Is that your opinion, after seeing the show - and some similar ones?
If not, then your comment also reflects a familiar attitude - of
denial. Crowd-bullying against women and minorities is a well-known
phenomenon on the Internet at this point.
Name a group that isn't being crowd-bullied on the Internet. White
hetero cis-males certainly are.

Anonymity lets humans show their true colours.
Post by Quinn C
Unless I confuse it with a similar one, this was a subject when the
show was announced and got a lot of negative reviews before the first
episode was even out.
Quinn C
2021-12-09 18:54:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2
is Black besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this
with a minor character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal
rating the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared
to similar products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or
anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be interesting?
As I hinted, for me it's more or less on a par with the related
shows I've watched (Arrow, Supergirl). If the rating was one point
lower, I'd take that as an honest opinion, but three points - there
must be some difference between the shows that's indiscernible for
me.
Post by Tony Cooper
Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the product
can't be responsible for the negative reaction. It must be because
the viewers are (whatever)phobic.
Is that your opinion, after seeing the show - and some similar ones?
If not, then your comment also reflects a familiar attitude - of
denial. Crowd-bullying against women and minorities is a well-known
phenomenon on the Internet at this point.
Name a group that isn't being crowd-bullied on the Internet. White
hetero cis-males certainly are.
I disagree. Criticism aimed at "white hetero cis males" is substantially
different from what I'd classify as bullying.

What happens is blaming them collectively for the misdeeds of some among
them. Like blaming all white people for slavery, or all Germans for the
crimes of the Nazis.

The Nazi thing gave me early practice in how to deal with that: I admit
that terrible things were done in the name of all Germans, and I accept
a heightened responsibility for making sure such things don't happen
again, and certainly not in my name.

White hetero cis males aren't attacked for wanting to have a voice or
occupy space despite their identity. We all know that they have a voice
and lots of space anyway (again, as a collective). Still, every other
day I read complaints online that "white cis men aren't allowed on TV
any more" (meaning that they aren't dominating every single show).
--
But I have never chosen my human environment. I have always
borrowed it from someone like you or Monk or Doris.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.152
CDB
2021-12-10 14:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season
2 is Black besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do
this with a minor character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the
dismal rating the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb
compared to similar products is mainly due to anti-gay,
anti-Black or anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be
interesting?
As I hinted, for me it's more or less on a par with the related
shows I've watched (Arrow, Supergirl). If the rating was one
point lower, I'd take that as an honest opinion, but three points
- there must be some difference between the shows that's
indiscernible for me.
Post by Tony Cooper
Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the
product can't be responsible for the negative reaction. It
must be because the viewers are (whatever)phobic.
Is that your opinion, after seeing the show - and some similar
ones? If not, then your comment also reflects a familiar attitude
- of denial. Crowd-bullying against women and minorities is a
well-known phenomenon on the Internet at this point.
Name a group that isn't being crowd-bullied on the Internet.
White hetero cis-males certainly are.
I disagree. Criticism aimed at "white hetero cis males" is
substantially different from what I'd classify as bullying.
What happens is blaming them collectively for the misdeeds of some
among them. Like blaming all white people for slavery, or all Germans
for the crimes of the Nazis.
The Nazi thing gave me early practice in how to deal with that: I
admit that terrible things were done in the name of all Germans, and
I accept a heightened responsibility for making sure such things
don't happen again, and certainly not in my name.
White hetero cis males aren't attacked for wanting to have a voice
or occupy space despite their identity. We all know that they have a
voice and lots of space anyway (again, as a collective). Still, every
other day I read complaints online that "white cis men aren't allowed
on TV any more" (meaning that they aren't dominating every single
show).
if you still have that article about Cancel Culture, you should lend it
to Lewis.
Lewis
2021-12-09 19:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2
is Black besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this
with a minor character.
I don't consider this top quality TV, but I believe the dismal
rating the series (but not the episodes!) gets on Imdb compared
to similar products is mainly due to anti-gay, anti-Black or
anti-woke sentiments.
Not because it is a dismal series that fails to be interesting?
As I hinted, for me it's more or less on a par with the related
shows I've watched (Arrow, Supergirl). If the rating was one point
lower, I'd take that as an honest opinion, but three points - there
must be some difference between the shows that's indiscernible for
me.
Post by Tony Cooper
Yours is a familiar position, though. The person or the product
can't be responsible for the negative reaction. It must be because
the viewers are (whatever)phobic.
Is that your opinion, after seeing the show - and some similar ones?
If not, then your comment also reflects a familiar attitude - of
denial. Crowd-bullying against women and minorities is a well-known
phenomenon on the Internet at this point.
Name a group that isn't being crowd-bullied on the Internet. White
hetero cis-males certainly are.
Uh huh. Spoken like a clueless and tone deaf white male. It's the
difference between someone on the sidewalk in front of your house
lighting a cigarette and someone on your law lighting a burning cross.
--
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many
people who believe it.
Quinn C
2021-12-09 13:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>
Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
Yes, and Mrs. Siddons played Hamlet in 1775.
In retrospect, Shakespeare wasn't a good choice. I've seen Kenneth Branagh's film
of /Much Ado About Nothing/, with Denzel Washington in the minor role of Don
Pedro. But I was looking for something commensurate with Freeman's age.
My point is that there are some film roles--Batman, for instance--where Hollywood
insists on white actors, and as long as that's true, people talking about Hollywood
will have reasons to use the terms "black" and "white", as people talking American
society as a whole do.
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.
And the season 1 character was non-white.
I don't remember that. The actress isn't visibly so, anyway.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Lewis
2021-12-09 19:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
[racism, race]
I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
I'll wait till it's imaginable that a major Hollywood studio could give him the
lead in a film of /King Lear/.
God is not good enough?
<URL:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/fullcredits>
Right. Actually, the prediction that he won't get to play Lear for a major Hollywood
studio is fairly safe, since Hollywood doesn't seem to do Lear (as distinct from
plots reminiscent of Lear).
The point is that, right or wrong, there are parts that black actors don't get
because they're black, and (fewer) parts that white actors don't get because
they're white, and that seems like a good reason to continue to say people
are white, black, and other races.
The world beyond Hollywood can be quite different. Here's the cast of
<https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/women-take-over-the-capitol-in-julius-caesar>
Not only an all women cast, but women of color in most of the important
roles.
Yes, and Mrs. Siddons played Hamlet in 1775.
In retrospect, Shakespeare wasn't a good choice. I've seen Kenneth Branagh's film
of /Much Ado About Nothing/, with Denzel Washington in the minor role of Don
Pedro. But I was looking for something commensurate with Freeman's age.
My point is that there are some film roles--Batman, for instance--where Hollywood
insists on white actors, and as long as that's true, people talking about Hollywood
will have reasons to use the terms "black" and "white", as people talking American
society as a whole do.
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.
And the season 1 character was non-white.
I don't remember that. The actress isn't visibly so, anyway.
Maybe it was the other main character, then. As I said, it's not a show
I watch myself.
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Umm, I think so, Brain, but what if the chicken won't wear the
nylons?"
Quinn C
2021-12-09 23:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Batwoman (in the current TV series of that name) since season 2 is Black
besides being gay. It's probably much easier to do this with a minor
character.
And the season 1 character was non-white.
I don't remember that. The actress isn't visibly so, anyway.
Maybe it was the other main character, then. As I said, it's not a show
I watch myself.
Her main cooperator - her "Alfred", if you will - is a black guy, and
she has an Asian step-sister who becomes part of the team. That all
happened in season 1.
--
"THIS IS IMPORTANT," one of the homunculi said to me. "THERE ARE
NO MEN AND NO WOMEN AND NOTHING ELSE."
-- Mieko Kawakami, Breast and Eggs
Rich Ulrich
2021-12-05 20:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 16:39:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
Wait! Isn't that effectively the position of Roman Catholics,
concerning confession of sins? I think one can't get away with
telling their priest, "Father, I am sinless. No matter how far back
I look, I have nothing to confess, no bad thought or ill deed."

There is no sense to be had from
Post by Richard Heathfield
people who can spawn such balderdash.
I tend to feel that way about priests in general (much balderdash),
but I do follow their point, and have to grant it. You are not "with
them" on their notion of inevitable sin if you deny it, so you are
in error, e.g., sinning (at least, in the eyes of the Faithful).
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Paul Wolff
I just try to avoid the R-word.
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman was an interesting God.
--
Rich Ulrich
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 21:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 16:39:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Paul Wolff
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
No, but to do so one must to pick one's discussion participants
carefully. There are some who see racism everywhere they look (e.g.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", i.e. pleading not
guilty is an admission of guilt).
Wait! Isn't that effectively the position of Roman Catholics,
concerning confession of sins?
Yes, it is.
Post by Rich Ulrich
I think one can't get away with
telling their priest, "Father, I am sinless.
"Gotcha, my child! Hubris! Think you're Jesus, do you?" They generally
have an answer to everything, and you can't succeed even by doing
*exactly* as you're told.
Post by Rich Ulrich
No matter how far back
I look, I have nothing to confess, no bad thought or ill deed."
You're only making things worse for yourself! ;-)
Post by Rich Ulrich
There is no sense to be had from
Post by Richard Heathfield
people who can spawn such balderdash.
I tend to feel that way about priests in general (much balderdash),
but I do follow their point, and have to grant it. You are not "with
them" on their notion of inevitable sin if you deny it, so you are
in error, e.g., sinning (at least, in the eyes of the Faithful).
Good priests tend to be skilled reasoners, and their theology is built
fairly solidly on their axioms. Reason matters. When Flambeau tried to
pose as a priest, he overlooked this and thus gave himself away to
Father Brown:

The world seemed waiting for Flambeau to leap like a tiger. But he was
held back as by a spell; he was stunned with the utmost curiosity.

"Well," went on Father Brown, with lumbering lucidity, "as you wouldn't
leave any tracks for the police, of course somebody had to. At every
place we went to, I took care to do something that would get us talked
about for the rest of the day. I didn't do much harm--a splashed wall,
spilt apples, a broken window; but I saved the cross, as the cross will
always be saved. It is at Westminster by now. I rather wonder you didn't
stop it with the Donkey's Whistle."

"With the what?" asked Flambeau.

"I'm glad you've never heard of it," said the priest, making a face.
"It's a foul thing. I'm sure you're too good a man for a Whistler. I
couldn't have countered it even with the Spots myself; I'm not strong
enough in the legs."

"What on earth are you talking about?" asked the other.

"Well, I did think you'd know the Spots," said Father Brown, agreeably
surprised. "Oh, you can't have gone so very wrong yet!"

"How in blazes do you know all these horrors?" cried Flambeau.

The shadow of a smile crossed the round, simple face of his clerical
opponent.

"Oh, by being a celibate simpleton, I suppose," he said. "Has it never
struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men's real sins
is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil? But, as a matter of
fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren't a priest."

"What?" asked the thief, almost gaping.

"You attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Paul Wolff
I just try to avoid the R-word.
Indeed. What is this insane obsession people have with race? I'm with
Morgan Freeman on this. "I am going to stop calling you a white man and
I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."
Morgan Freeman was an interesting God.
Bruce: Is this heaven?

God: No, this is Mount Everest. You should flip on the Discovery Channel
from time to time. But I guess you can't now, being dead and all.

Bruce: [after a pause] I'm DEAD?

God: Naw, I'm just messing with ya.

Bruce: That's not funny, man! That is NOT funny.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Paul Wolff
2021-12-05 20:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.

But there again, back-tracking: I don't recognise half of the so-called
"races", which bewilders me, like the "race" of the American
vice-President; but I can more easily recognise sexual orientation and
identification (even if I reject the word "gender" for it).

(In haste, maybe not thought through, supper is burning.)
--
Paul
Quinn C
2021-12-05 21:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.
You don't support the forming of any kind of interest group? Of course
unions vs. employers is clearly "us vs. them", is that "racism" as well?
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Paul Wolff
2021-12-05 21:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.
You don't support the forming of any kind of interest group? Of course
unions vs. employers is clearly "us vs. them", is that "racism" as well?
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
--
Paul
Quinn C
2021-12-05 22:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.
You don't support the forming of any kind of interest group? Of course
unions vs. employers is clearly "us vs. them", is that "racism" as well?
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.

But whether it should be called "racism" or not wasn't the important
part of my objection.

LGBTQ people experience being disadvantaged or excluded. If you have no
ill feelings against them and don't want to disadvantage or exclude
them, that's good, but the threshold to be called an "ally" is higher:
for that, I expect you to actively help stopping those things from
happening, even when they aren't your doing.

If you don't, that doesn't make you a bad person, but you shouldn't make
claims like "being an ally" or "not being racist", which seem to paint
you in a good light compared to others. Now I don't think you,
personally, do, anyway, so it's not clear to me why you found it
necessary to object to my comments on allyship.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-06 12:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-06 15:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
That makes even more sense when looking at that other system of
oppression, gender. It should be clear that individual misogyny isn't
the main driver of women's disempowerment.
Individual feelings not being that important is also why one shouldn't
focus on the question whether a person "is" or "is not" racist. Better
to ask, by your actions, do you contribute to the perpetuation of the
system or to its dismantlement?
What can one person do, etc.
Quinn C
2021-12-06 17:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.

I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-06 17:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2021-12-06 19:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.

I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Paul Wolff
2021-12-06 20:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.
I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
We've got double confusion now. Is the discussion about a revisionist
definition of racism, or a racist definition of revisionism? No wonder
I'm all at sea, when I only want to be on firm ground and take everyone
at - oh my goodness, if I'd said "face value" I'd've been in deep
doo-dah, again.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-06 22:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.
I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
Revision of a definition to fit a political agenda.

You describe revisionist history.

Definitions aren't historical facts, so revisionist word usage is not
revisionist history.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-07 01:55:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.
I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
Revision of a definition to fit a political agenda.
You describe revisionist history.
Definitions aren't historical facts, so revisionist word usage is not
revisionist history.
Should one party to an argument get to (re)write the definition of all
the significant terms that must be employed in that discussion?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-07 15:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.
I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
Revision of a definition to fit a political agenda.
You describe revisionist history.
Definitions aren't historical facts, so revisionist word usage is not
revisionist history.
Should one party to an argument get to (re)write the definition of all
the significant terms that must be employed in that discussion?
That TC is unfamiliar with current vocabulary doesn't mean that the
vocabulary is a new invention.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-07 18:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:51:54 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
What is the understood definiton of "revisionist" here? My
understanding is that it describes a person who recounts some
historical fact in such a way that it conflicts with the actual fact.
I don't see any revisionism in any statement made in this thread.
There is an argument of sorts over what the facts are, but no one has
recounted facts in a manner that presents facts that have been altered
to suit.
Revision of a definition to fit a political agenda.
You describe revisionist history.
Definitions aren't historical facts, so revisionist word usage is not
revisionist history.
Should one party to an argument get to (re)write the definition of all
the significant terms that must be employed in that discussion?
That TC is unfamiliar with current vocabulary doesn't mean that the
vocabulary is a new invention.
I'm glad to see you felt no obligation to address my question.
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-06 23:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
Odd choice of words, given that one popular solution is to call the more
"traditional" interpretation of "racism" "racial resentment", to
distinguish it from "systemic racism" or such.
I didn't know that. And I think it's popular only among the minority (not a
racial minority) that uses "racism" the way you do.

(My suggestion is to use "race prejudice" or "racial prejudice". No,
fingers, not "radial".)
I'd see this as a bigger problem if the two interpretations were somehow
contradictory, but they're not. It's more about a shift of focus. Is it
a million individual decisions to discriminate that lead to the
experience of marginalized people, or is it ingrained habits that are
discriminatory, often without people noticing that that's what they're
doing. Like classifying Black English as "improper" or "uneducated"
(even in this group), or Black hairstyles as "inappropriate for school
or work" (or recently, Olympic swimming), to quote easy examples.
That's a different distinction than the one you made when you wrote
"when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other." My
preference, which so far hasn't spread to anyone else, is to use
something like "racial oppression" when one group exerts its power
to disadvantage the other, and leave "racism" meaning "racial prejudice".
I'm hoping that people notice when I say "what you just said was racist"
that I didn't say "you're racist". Or I point it out again, and hope
that the differentiation sinks in.
I doubt that anyone has noticed. "What you just said was a lie" implies
"You're a liar." "What you just said was blackmail" implies "You're a
blackmailer." Etc.
As the host of The Stacks said in the interview I alluded to recently,
she's often disappointed when "you did something racist" is the end of
the conversation, when really, it should be the beginning. How was this
racist? Let me understand this. What can I do to avoid this in the
future?
In a world where people have lost their jobs for doing something
considered racist, I'm not surprised. Has she ever gotten the response
she hopes for without setting it up carefully first?
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-12-09 13:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
Stop me if I've said this before. Oh, I have? Well, sorry, I'm going ahead. The
problem with that definition, though it showed up in limited circles by the 1970s,
is that it's different from the one most people learned and still find in at least one
dictionary (AHD--I didn't check others). Therefore informing people that the
sense of "racism" they learned is wrong and you're using the right one, or even
using "racism" without telling people that's the sense you mean, is more conducive
to resentment than communication.
Odd choice of words, given that one popular solution is to call the more
"traditional" interpretation of "racism" "racial resentment", to
distinguish it from "systemic racism" or such.
I didn't know that. And I think it's popular only among the minority (not a
racial minority) that uses "racism" the way you do.
Popular among those who want to explicitly distinguish the two things,
yes. I'm sure it was a subject here before.

As for "popular", yes, the most popular approach to cockroach breeding
isn't necessarily "popular" in the population at large.
Post by Jerry Friedman
(My suggestion is to use "race prejudice" or "racial prejudice". No,
fingers, not "radial".)
I'd see this as a bigger problem if the two interpretations were somehow
contradictory, but they're not. It's more about a shift of focus. Is it
a million individual decisions to discriminate that lead to the
experience of marginalized people, or is it ingrained habits that are
discriminatory, often without people noticing that that's what they're
doing. Like classifying Black English as "improper" or "uneducated"
(even in this group), or Black hairstyles as "inappropriate for school
or work" (or recently, Olympic swimming), to quote easy examples.
"when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other."
It made sense in my head, but I haven't worked out all the details here.

It seems to me that labeling the preferences and habits of a minority
group (the sound of their music, the smell of their food ...) as
inferior or offensive is one of the mechanisms by which power is
exerted. Maybe the main mechanism to control gender and sexual
minorities (but I haven't thought about this much, yet).

Of course, that is once explicitly racist etc. laws and regulations
aren't acceptable any more.
Post by Jerry Friedman
My
preference, which so far hasn't spread to anyone else, is to use
something like "racial oppression" when one group exerts its power
to disadvantage the other, and leave "racism" meaning "racial prejudice".
I'm hoping that people notice when I say "what you just said was racist"
that I didn't say "you're racist". Or I point it out again, and hope
that the differentiation sinks in.
I doubt that anyone has noticed. "What you just said was a lie" implies
"You're a liar." "What you just said was blackmail" implies "You're a
blackmailer." Etc.
"You stepped on my foot" implies "You're a foot-stepper"?

Emotional blackmail is something that I believe a lot of people employ
without being aware of it. I don't know how they would learn unless
pointed out. Of course it doesn't usually work in the moment.
Post by Jerry Friedman
As the host of The Stacks said in the interview I alluded to recently,
she's often disappointed when "you did something racist" is the end of
the conversation, when really, it should be the beginning. How was this
racist? Let me understand this. What can I do to avoid this in the
future?
In a world where people have lost their jobs for doing something
considered racist, I'm not surprised. Has she ever gotten the response
she hopes for without setting it up carefully first?
Rarely with white people, probably.

Btw, she said she wishes for the same approach wrt lying, too: So you
lied. How do we proceed from here?

She introduced that part of the conversation by saying something like
"So you did something racist. Big deal! You live in the US, with a 400
year tradition of racism."

That's an attitude most people are far from, unless they live and
breathe the subject (like her conversation partner, Andrew Ti, host of
the podcast "Yo, is this racist?".)
--
The country has its quota of fools and windbags; such people are
most prominent in politics, where their inherent weaknesses seem
less glaring and attract less ridicule than they would in other
walks of life. -- Robert Bothwell et.al.: Canada since 1945
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-06 18:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.

NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."

The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.

Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
Paul Wolff
2021-12-06 20:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.
NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."
The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.
Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
Newspeak, I presume: control the language and you control the agenda,
though not in those words. (I don't know Korzybski/Hayakawa, though I do
know Hayek - no relation, I dare say.)
--
Paul
Quinn C
2021-12-06 22:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.
The agenda to reduce discrimination is a political agenda in my sense
(political = what politicians do, like legislating and executiving), but
not in your sense, where "political" is just about gaining votes.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."
The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.
Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
This is veering into a direction I'm not interested in at the moment.

My question was, approximately, whether it's legitimate to claim special
interests based on identity, or if that alone is already destructive to
society.

As long as the latter point of view is - as is my experience - mainly
supported by people with very little experience of discrimination, I'll
view it with suspicion. I hear it as "the mainstream is good enough for
me, why not for you?"

Mind you, "special interests" doesn't have to mean "asking for special
treatment" (which it is often twisted into by opponents), but "asking
for measures towards getting the same treatment, because we don't get it
automatically". Think "marriage equality".
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Paul Wolff
2021-12-06 23:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Mind you, "special interests" doesn't have to mean "asking for special
treatment" (which it is often twisted into by opponents), but "asking
for measures towards getting the same treatment, because we don't get it
automatically". Think "marriage equality".
Or "cultural appropriation", the mirror opposite of "marriage equality".
--
Paul
Quinn C
2021-12-06 23:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Mind you, "special interests" doesn't have to mean "asking for special
treatment" (which it is often twisted into by opponents), but "asking
for measures towards getting the same treatment, because we don't get it
automatically". Think "marriage equality".
Or "cultural appropriation", the mirror opposite of "marriage equality".
Care to explain?

(Only if it's quick - I don't like expanding the discussion in all kinds
of directions.)
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-07 15:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.
The agenda to reduce discrimination is a political agenda in my sense
(political = what politicians do, like legislating and executiving), but
not in your sense, where "political" is just about gaining votes.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."
The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.
Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
This is veering into a direction I'm not interested in at the moment.
My question was, approximately, whether it's legitimate to claim special
interests based on identity, or if that alone is already destructive to
society.
Texas has announced its Congressional reapportionment map. Even
though 95% of the population growth that got it two more Representatives
(and cost New York yet another one) is among black and Latin people, the
lines have been drawn so that white people get two more Congresscritters.

What's left of the Voting Rights Act allows Justice to challenge the map
on the basis of racial discrimination only. Is it coincidence that the two
new Representatives will just happen to be republican?

"Political agenda"? "Identity politics"? "Gaining votes"? The distinction you
try to draw above is simplistic and unworkable. (How are political agendas
carried out, if not by gaining votes?
Post by Quinn C
As long as the latter point of view is - as is my experience - mainly
supported by people with very little experience of discrimination, I'll
view it with suspicion. I hear it as "the mainstream is good enough for
me, why not for you?"
Mind you, "special interests" doesn't have to mean "asking for special
treatment" (which it is often twisted into by opponents), but "asking
for measures towards getting the same treatment, because we don't get it
automatically". Think "marriage equality".
Think "reparations." No one is asking any more for (the equivalent of)
the promised "forty acres and a mule."
Adam Funk
2021-12-07 09:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.
NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."
What are they using now?

Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give a
crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have after
birth.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.
Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
--
Our function calls do not have parameters: they have
arguments, and they always win them.
---Klingon Programmer's Guide
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-07 15:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
More revisionism.
Whatever. That one word isn't an argument.
I'm just trying to use the more useful definition, and avoid the one
that mostly results in people pointing fingers at each other.
It's "more useful" for those with a political agenda.
NPR has stopped using "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as labels for the
sides in that debate because they (finally) realized that the implication
that those favoring abortion rights are "anti-life."
What are they using now?
"support/oppose the right to abortion," "supporters/opponents of."
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give a
crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have after
birth.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The Left is really lousy at slogans. "Defund the Police" has to be the
most idiotic one in years or decades and almost cost them the House.
Orwell and Korzybski (funneled through Hayakawa) had a point.
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-07 21:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give a
crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have after
birth.
Not so. A large population of very poor people who compete for minimum
wage jobs keeps costs down.
There were socialist propaganda posters in these part
(from more than a century ago) featuring a nasty RC priest
and a nasty capitalist in close cooperation.
Text: If you keep them dumb then I'll keep them poor.

No doubt there was something like it in English,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2021-12-07 23:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give a
crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have after
birth.
Not so. A large population of very poor people who compete for minimum
wage jobs keeps costs down.
Pro-slavery, then.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
CDB
2021-12-08 13:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give
a crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have
after birth.
Not so. A large population of very poor people who compete for
minimum wage jobs keeps costs down.
Pro-slavery, then.
And pro-illegal immigration, and pro-globalisation.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-08 20:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give
a crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have
after birth.
Not so.  A large population of very poor people who compete for
minimum wage jobs keeps costs down.
Pro-slavery, then.
And pro-illegal immigration, and pro-globalisation.
One must be loudly anti illegal immigration - whilst employing an
illegal immigrant to do your cleaning.
--
Sam Plusnet
Adam Funk
2021-12-08 13:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Most of the anti-abortion politicians in the US should be called
"pro-birth" because their economic policies show they don't give a
crap what kind of lousy miserable lives common people have after
birth.
Not so. A large population of very poor people who compete for minimum
wage jobs keeps costs down.
Good point: they *do* give a crap, but not in a good way.
--
I thought my life would seem more interesting with a musical
score and a laugh track. ---Calvin
Adam Funk
2021-12-07 09:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
Obviously, they can, by this definition, if they're in power.
"Revisionist" is a strong word. I'm coming from the analysis that racism
is most importantly a system of oppression, and individual feelings
aren't all that important.
That makes even more sense when looking at that other system of
oppression, gender. It should be clear that individual misogyny isn't
the main driver of women's disempowerment.
Individual feelings not being that important is also why one shouldn't
focus on the question whether a person "is" or "is not" racist. Better
to ask, by your actions, do you contribute to the perpetuation of the
system or to its dismantlement?
The system of oppression is powered by the feelings of the
individuals; if we could somehow educate everyone from birth to be at
least non-racist (ideally anti-racist) the oppression would stop.
--
We got music in our solar system
We're space truckin' round the stars
Madhu
2021-12-07 14:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
That's the revisionist definition that insists blacks can't be racist.
that brings the problem (really a skippy topic) "can jews be
anti-semitic"

I believe I have evidence that they can but because of semiotics they
cannot be exposed or the concept even be articulated.
Paul Wolff
2021-12-06 13:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.
You don't support the forming of any kind of interest group? Of course
unions vs. employers is clearly "us vs. them", is that "racism" as well?
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
But whether it should be called "racism" or not wasn't the important
part of my objection.
We come at it with different priorities. I'm particularly sensitive (if
I let myself go) about the race industry, while you promote what I will
for once call gender issues, which seem to grab an awful lot of
publicity in some of the mass media. Sex always sells, I think.
Post by Quinn C
LGBTQ people experience being disadvantaged or excluded. If you have no
ill feelings against them and don't want to disadvantage or exclude
for that, I expect you to actively help stopping those things from
happening, even when they aren't your doing.
If you don't, that doesn't make you a bad person, but you shouldn't make
claims like "being an ally" or "not being racist", which seem to paint
you in a good light compared to others. Now I don't think you,
personally, do, anyway, so it's not clear to me why you found it
necessary to object to my comments on allyship.
I sometimes succumb to an urge to consider the merits of someone's
opinion objectively or dispassionately - or even both ways. That doesn't
mean I do or don't feel sympathy: sometimes I just want to ask, "Does
this really seem reasonable and proportionate, either logically or
ethically?"

Recently in another thread: perhaps I questioned something that
convinced Lewis to see me as a die-hard brexiteer, or Jan to suggest I
was in favour of concentration camps, when I only intended my question
to examine the logic or good sense of some specific point I considered
weak.

Never mind. It's still a stimulating group around here, even if half the
inhabitants are completely wrong-headed...
--
Paul
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-06 14:11:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Paul Wolff <***@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
[-]
Post by Paul Wolff
I sometimes succumb to an urge to consider the merits of someone's
opinion objectively or dispassionately - or even both ways. That doesn't
mean I do or don't feel sympathy: sometimes I just want to ask, "Does
this really seem reasonable and proportionate, either logically or
ethically?"
Recently in another thread: perhaps I questioned something that
convinced Lewis to see me as a die-hard brexiteer, or Jan to suggest I
was in favour of concentration camps, when I only intended my question
to examine the logic or good sense of some specific point I considered
weak.
If did you see such a suggestion
you were neither objective nor dispassionate about it.
It was a Socratic question aimed at making you see
the practical impossibility and the nasty consequences
of trying to put your suggestion into practice,

Jan
Quinn C
2021-12-06 14:15:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
while you promote what I will
for once call gender issues, which seem to grab an awful lot of
publicity in some of the mass media. Sex always sells, I think.
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
--
... speaking the right words might not make you a good person,
but the wrong ones have real and destructive consequences.
-- Philip Sayers, The Walrus, Jan. 2020
Quinn C
2021-12-07 15:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
while you promote what I will
for once call gender issues, which seem to grab an awful lot of
publicity in some of the mass media. Sex always sells, I think.
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Quinn C
2021-12-07 18:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
while you promote what I will
for once call gender issues, which seem to grab an awful lot of
publicity in some of the mass media. Sex always sells, I think.
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
I guess that's right. It's less blatant now, but up to the 90s, being
"transsexual" was considered lurid, because it was understood to be
about sex. One reason that led to this term falling out of favor.
--
Kira: Any luck?
Garak: Plenty, major. Unfortunately, all of it bad.
Adam Funk
2021-12-08 13:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
while you promote what I will
for once call gender issues, which seem to grab an awful lot of
publicity in some of the mass media. Sex always sells, I think.
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
I guess that's right. It's less blatant now, but up to the 90s, being
"transsexual" was considered lurid, because it was understood to be
about sex. One reason that led to this term falling out of favor.
But the "trans" is more in favor.
--
I have a great programming joke but it's only
funny on my machine.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-07 19:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.

(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.

1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.

2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.

3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.

4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.

Draft partial entry September 2007

Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
--
Sam Plusnet
Paul Wolff
2021-12-07 23:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
2002, 2007) has this for the figurative meaning:
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.

I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
recommend for more modern English. Its 'lurid' (adjective):
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
--
Paul
Tony Cooper
2021-12-07 23:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
There are a number of lurid details coming out of the Ghislaine
Maxwell trial.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Paul Wolff
2021-12-08 18:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lurid
lurid
1 Unpleasantly bright in colour, especially so as to create a harsh
or unnatural effect.
1.1 Presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms.
Origin
Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘pale and dismal in colour’): from
Latin luridus; related to luror ‘wan or yellow colour’.
That's good: it's pretty obvious that the NODE and Lexico share
resources. Since my dead-trees NODE weighs in at almost half a stone,
I'll turn to the online source more often.
--
Paul
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-08 20:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lurid
lurid
1 Unpleasantly bright in colour, especially so as to create a harsh
or unnatural effect.
1.1 Presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms.
Origin
Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘pale and dismal in colour’): from
Latin luridus; related to luror ‘wan or yellow colour’.
Was there any explanation on how it managed to shift from:

'pale and dismal'
to
'Unpleasantly bright in colour'?
--
Sam Plusnet
CDB
2021-12-09 15:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly
conflate gender and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem
entirely at odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue.
Said e.g. of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of
the aspect of things when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation
of ‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown
colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University
Press 2002, 2007) has this for the figurative meaning: Ominous;
sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19. M. Angelou The lurid
tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald paints a picture of
poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998)
which deals far better with current words and current meanings. I
really do recommend for more modern English. Its 'lurid'
(adjective): very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an
unpleasantly harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings |
a pair of lurid shorts/. (of a description) presented in vividly
shocking or sensational terms, especially giving explicit details
of crimes or sexual matters: /the more lurid details of the
massacre were too frightening for the children/. Origins...from
Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or yellow colour'.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lurid
lurid 1 Unpleasantly bright in colour, especially so as to create a
harsh or unnatural effect. 1.1 Presented in vividly shocking or
sensational terms. Origin Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘pale and
dismal in colour’): from Latin luridus; related to luror ‘wan or
yellow colour’.
'pale and dismal' to 'Unpleasantly bright in colour'?
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.

'Having a dark, bluish appearance.

1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Paul's, OCLC 642248925, page 166:
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
[1874], John Ruskin, Proserpina: Studies of Wayside Flowers, while the
Air was yet Pure among the Alps and in the Scotland and England which my
Father Knew; Ariadne Florentina: Six Lectures on Wood and Metal
Engraving given before the University of Oxford, in Michaelmas Term,
1872, with Appendix; The Opening of the Crystal Palace: Considered in
some of its Relations to the Prospects of Art, New York, N.Y.: John W.
Lovell, OCLC 190826485:
In [J. M. W.] Turner's distinctive work, colour is scarcely acknowledged
unless under influences of sunshine. The sunshine is his treasure; his
lividest gloom contains it; his greyest twilight regrets it, and remembers.
1895, Marie Corelli, The Sorrows of Satan, or, The Strange Experience of
one Geoffrey Tempest, Millionaire: A Romance, London: Methuen
Publishing, OCLC 500849762, page 395:
When all the surroundings were thus rendered as brilliant as possible,
so that the corpse looked more livid and ghastly by comparison, I seated
myself once more, and prepared to read the last message of the dead.
1929, M. Barnard Eldershaw, “Chapter VII”, in A House Is Built, section vi:
The house seemed unfamiliar in the dark stormy light; the red and purple
glass of the front door made livid bruises on the linoleum; the green
chenille curtain was like a veil of seaweed.
Pale, pallid.
(informal) So angry that one turns pale; very angry; furious.
Synonyms
(dark, bluish appearance): See also Thesaurus:bluish and Thesaurus:purplish

Pale, pallid.

1678, J[ohn] S[hirley], A Short Compendium of Chirurgery: Containing its
Grounds & Principles. More Particularly Treating of Imposthumes, Wounds,
Ulcers, Fractures & Dislocatons. Also a Discourse of the Generation and
Birth of Man, very Necessary to be Understood by all Midwives and
Child-bearing Women. With the Several Methods of Curing the French Pox:
The Cure of Baldness, Inflammation of the Eyes, and Toothach[sic]: And
an Account of Blood-letting, Cup-setting, and Blooding with Leeches,
London: Printed by W. G. and are to be sold by Charles Blount, at the
Black Raven in the Strand, near Worcester-House, OCLC 17215760, page 89:
Ulcers having had their beginning during a Diſeaſe, or before it,
growing livid, pale or dry, plainly indicate the proximity of Death,
their livid or pale colour being not only the ſign of Cholerick, or
Atrabiliary humours cauſing them, but alſo manifeſting an extinction of
the natural heat.
1829, “Hymenomycetes, Genera and Species”, in J[ohn] C[laudius] Loudon,
editor, An Encyclopædia of Plants; Comprising the Description, Specific
Character, Culture, History, Application in the Arts, and every other
Desirable Particular Respecting all the Plants Indigenous, Cultivated
in, or Introduced to Britain [...], London: Printed for Longman, Rees,
Orme, Brown, and Green, Paternoster-Row, OCLC 8593748, page 999:
15939 Cap somew[hat] umbon[ate] smooth livid pale, Lamel[læ] annexed
flesh-colored, Stipes sold smooth somew[hat] bulbous. [Describing a
species of fungus.]
2014, Francesco Verso, Livid, Surry Hills, N.S.W.: Xoum Publishing, →ISBN:
I'm livid; a deathly pale light floods my face and I emanate a different
smell. Charlie doesn't stop to analyse these subtle changes.'

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/livid
Madhu
2021-12-13 12:28:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.
'Having a dark, bluish appearance.
1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-12-13 17:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.
'Having a dark, bluish appearance.
1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
It's not an f, though it's sometimes confused with one. It's a long s
and differs from an f in having a crossbar that doesn't go all the way
across. It's a lot older than the 18th century.
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-13 18:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.
'Having a dark, bluish appearance.
1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
Until the beginning of the 19th century, there were two allographs
of the letter s. The curly shape, which ended up being the only one
in most of Europe, was used at the end of a word (or syllable), the
tall shape elsewhere. As Athel says, it's not identical to f but can be
confused by the unwary.

The long s survives in German, and an -ss sequence joins them in
a ligature that to the outsider might look like a B (or a small beta).
Quinn C
2021-12-14 01:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.
'Having a dark, bluish appearance.
1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
Until the beginning of the 19th century, there were two allographs
of the letter s.
Similar to Greek. Are the two phenomena connected? It doesn't seem
likely, because knowledge of Greek wasn't widespread at the time when
the minuscules were created, as far as I know.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The curly shape, which ended up being the only one
in most of Europe, was used at the end of a word (or syllable), the
tall shape elsewhere. As Athel says, it's not identical to f but can be
confused by the unwary.
The long s survives in German,
Not to this day. It survived about as long as Fraktur was used for most
printed material, i.e. mid 20th century.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
and an -ss sequence joins them in
a ligature that to the outsider might look like a B (or a small beta).
--
George: You don't know these people. They find emotions disgusting.
They just want to have a good time and make jokes.
Mae: Oh, so they're British?
-- Feel Good
Adam Funk
2021-12-14 09:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
It seems to be a thing. "Livid" shows the same pattern.
'Having a dark, bluish appearance.
1733, [Antoine?] Deidier, “Chap. II. The General Affections of the Human
Body. [marginal note: Experiments with the Bile of Persons who Died of
the Plague at Marseilles in 1721. By Dr. Deidier. n. 370, p. 20. Jan.
&c. 1722.]”, in Mr. Reid and John Gray, editors, The Philosophical
Transactions (from the year 1720 to the year 1732) Abridged, and
Disposed under General Heads, volume VI, part III (Containing the
Anatomical and Medical Papers), London: Printed for William Innys and
Richard Manby, Printers to the Royal Society, at the West End of St.
Jean Raynaud, cook, aged about twenty years, of a melancholy
temperament, had his whole body covered with a purple livid colour, and
a bubo under his left axilla; […] His lungs were covered with little
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
Until the beginning of the 19th century, there were two allographs
of the letter s.
Similar to Greek. Are the two phenomena connected? It doesn't seem
likely, because knowledge of Greek wasn't widespread at the time when
the minuscules were created, as far as I know.
It's quite a coïncidence, though, that the Greek final sigma & the
(post-Roman) Roman final "s" are very similar.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The curly shape, which ended up being the only one
in most of Europe, was used at the end of a word (or syllable), the
tall shape elsewhere. As Athel says, it's not identical to f but can be
confused by the unwary.
The long s survives in German,
Not to this day. It survived about as long as Fraktur was used for most
printed material, i.e. mid 20th century.
I was going to bring up newspaper titles but I can't find one in
Fraktur that has an "s" in the middle of a word --- are there any?
("Eßlinger Zeitung" doesn't count.)
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
and an -ss sequence joins them in
a ligature that to the outsider might look like a B (or a small beta).
--
I have a natural revulsion to any operating system that shows so
little planning as to have to named all of its commands after
digestive noises (awk, grep, fsck, nroff).
_The UNIX-HATERS Handbook_
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-14 15:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
livid ſpots, ſoft and pliant, without any hardneſs in their ſubſtance.
The liver was larger and harder than ordinary, and was alſo full of
livid purple ſpots; […]
Anyone know the story behind the orthography of s as f in the 18th
century?
Until the beginning of the 19th century, there were two allographs
of the letter s.
Similar to Greek. Are the two phenomena connected? It doesn't seem
likely, because knowledge of Greek wasn't widespread at the time when
the minuscules were created, as far as I know.
Unlikely. The two pairs of shapes bear no resemblance, and already
in ancient Greece there were two inscriptional forms of Sigma, the
angular one mathematicians use, and the "lunate" Sigma, which looks
like our C, and they didn't alternate as final/nonfinal.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The curly shape, which ended up being the only one
in most of Europe, was used at the end of a word (or syllable), the
tall shape elsewhere. As Athel says, it's not identical to f but can be
confused by the unwary.
(See examples in the "livid" quote above -- hopefully they survive
everyone's encoding.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The long s survives in German,
Not to this day. It survived about as long as Fraktur was used for most
printed material, i.e. mid 20th century.
Of course to this day. A "capital ess-tset" was added to the "official"
German alphabet IN 2017!!!
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
and an -ss sequence joins them in
a ligature that to the outsider might look like a B (or a small beta).
Quinn C
2021-12-14 17:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The long s survives in German,
Not to this day. It survived about as long as Fraktur was used for most
printed material, i.e. mid 20th century.
Of course to this day. A "capital ess-tset" was added to the "official"
German alphabet IN 2017!!!
I don't accept that argument. Tyrannosaurs do not "survive to this day
in the form of birds". ß arose from a ligature, but it has become a
separate letter.

Besides, but that's a separate matter, I consider the capital ß a joke
and refuse to use it.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Rich Ulrich
2021-12-09 18:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lurid
lurid
1 Unpleasantly bright in colour, especially so as to create a harsh
or unnatural effect.
1.1 Presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms.
Origin
Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘pale and dismal in colour’): from
Latin luridus; related to luror ‘wan or yellow colour’.
'pale and dismal'
to
'Unpleasantly bright in colour'?
CDB cites (extensively) the definitions for 'livid', an adjective
which made the same transition from pale to purple.

I have thought about 'livid' before, and I tentatively concluded
that the change came from confusing what happens to faces.
A description as pale-with-anger was read as being apoplectic,
red with high blood pressure.

A face gone ashen, or a face gone purple. Serious anger
or distress.

However, personally, I don't think of faces being 'lurid' in
color; today I wonder if the change for 'lurid' was linked
to the change for 'livid' by someone's thesaurus.


A definition from CDB's post --
Pale, pallid.
(informal) So angry that one turns pale; very angry; furious.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-12-09 20:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:12:51 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
That was worth a mention. But: my SOED (Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary Sixth Edition (version 3.0.2.1) © Oxford University Press
Ominous; sensational, horrifying; showy, gaudy. M19.
M. Angelou The lurid tales we read. E. Saintsbury Macdonald
paints a picture of poverty…equalled only by Dickens in its
lurid detail.
I've also rediscovered my New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) which
deals far better with current words and current meanings. I really do
very vivid in colour, especially so as to create an unpleasantly
harsh or unnatural effect: /lurid food colourings | a pair of
lurid shorts/.
(of a description) presented in vividly shocking or sensational
terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual
matters: /the more lurid details of the massacre were too
frightening for the children/.
Origins...from Latin /luridus/: related to /luror/ 'wan or
yellow colour'.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lurid
lurid
1 Unpleasantly bright in colour, especially so as to create a harsh
or unnatural effect.
1.1 Presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms.
Origin
Mid 17th century (in the sense ‘pale and dismal in colour’): from
Latin luridus; related to luror ‘wan or yellow colour’.
'pale and dismal'
to
'Unpleasantly bright in colour'?
No.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lewis
2021-12-08 12:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Right, and large parts of the public still profoundly conflate gender
and sex.
Doing so sells newspapers & TV shows.
The conflating also sells?
Yes, because it helps them make things seem lurid.
Now you've done it. "Lurid" seems an odd word.
(My old copy of) The OED has definitions which (to me) seem entirely at
odds.
Remember, the OED lists 1) all definitions 2) in order of appearance.
Post by Sam Plusnet
1 Pale and dismal in colour; wan and sallow; ghastly of hue. Said e.g.
of the sickly pallor of the skin in disease, or of the aspect of things
when the sky is overcast.
2 Shining with a red glow or glare amid darkness.
3 fig. (from either of the preceding senses), with connotation of
‘terrible’, ‘ominous’, ‘ghastly’, ‘sensational.
4 In scientific use: Of a dingy brown or yellowish-brown colour.
Draft partial entry September 2007
Unpleasantly bright in colour; gaudy, loud.
This is the primary use, which also has a sense of being garish and
shocking or sensationalistic, which is about the only sense I hear it
used in, albeit rarely.
--
'There's Mr Dibbler.' 'What's he selling this time?' 'I don't think
he's trying to sell anything, Mr Poons.' 'It's that bad? Then
we're probably in lots of trouble.' --Reaper Man
Adam Funk
2021-12-07 09:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
Isn't it impossible to have a full range of human discussion about each
other and the full scope of our various backgrounds without saying
something that someone else will get their knickers in a twist about,
and cry "Racist!"?
I just try to avoid the R-word.
It's true that the use of the R-word is severely poisoned, and
clearheaded discussion involving it is difficult. But that's not reason
to turn a blind eye to the subject.
Maybe it helps looking at a similar statement coming from the LGBTQ
community: You don't get to claim that you're an ally. It's up to us to
decide who is.
Oh, no. Not this one. It's a clear example of "us" and "them", and (if
transferred back to racism) is "racism" in its purest form.
You don't support the forming of any kind of interest group? Of course
unions vs. employers is clearly "us vs. them", is that "racism" as well?
What is racism, if it isn't "us" vs "them" founded on the identity of
"them"?
It's called "racism" when the identities are based on appearance or
culture *and* when one group exerts its power to disadvantage the other.
But whether it should be called "racism" or not wasn't the important
part of my objection.
LGBTQ people experience being disadvantaged or excluded. If you have no
ill feelings against them and don't want to disadvantage or exclude
for that, I expect you to actively help stopping those things from
happening, even when they aren't your doing.
I'd say that's analogous to the difference between "non-racist" (or
"not racist") and "anti-racist".
Post by Quinn C
If you don't, that doesn't make you a bad person, but you shouldn't make
claims like "being an ally" or "not being racist", which seem to paint
you in a good light compared to others. Now I don't think you,
personally, do, anyway, so it's not clear to me why you found it
necessary to object to my comments on allyship.
--
yes, I know the secrets of the circuitry mind
it's a flaming wonder telepath
spains...@gmail.com
2021-12-05 18:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have a dark-skinned daughter-in-law and dark-skinned
grandchildren, so the suggestion that I am racist would
be offensive if it wasn't so laughable.
Giving these grounds for claiming not to be racist is an indication that
you haven't thought about racism carefully. I've met disturbingly racist
people who were married to a person of a different race. Sometimes
racism is the reason for choosing such a partner.
Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already. I'm doing my best to
avoid acting in a manner that perpetuates racism, but I fail sometimes.
"Even claiming not to be racist is suspect already", is a wonderful quote.
How about claiming not to believe in fairies? Proof you do believe in fairies?

Athel has repeatedly suggested that I am racist, so I just have to keep quiet?
I live in a Sri Lankan (Tamil) part of London and brush along very well with
everyone.

They are a tight-knight community. Occasionally they are threatened by inner-London
gangs demanding protection money, and it is extraordinary how quickly they can
mobilise the entire population on to the street - and how many scaffold poles simple
fruit-and-veg shops can make available.

No offence to the poles.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-05 20:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
They are a tight-knight community.
Are they misers or sots?
Your post needs to be unraveled.
Sots? A typo for "Scots" or "socks"?
Okay the Jocks are sots (eh Janet).
Your reply needs to be plaid back.
Sot = a drunk, often seen as "a drunken sot".
Tight = inebriated (possibly only in American slang)
Known in the UK at least as far back as the 1960s - cf Flanders &
Swann's "Greensleeves":

Well the Master of the King's Revels sort of calmed him down a bit, you
know as you do, stood him a butt of sack and so on. He said, "Well, we
really must try to think of something because it's going to be rather a
special occasion; we're nationalising the monasteries".

He said, "If they offer you one, don't take it because if Bloody Mary
gets in they'll be de-nationalising them!" He said, "As a matter of fact
I have an idea for you; I know I'm only a civil servant, but you're most
welcome to it... why don't you; may I call you Dost not thou? May I?
Thank you - why dost not thou rewrite 'Ralph Royster Doyster'?
It is crying out to be done as a musical!(Anything to stop it being done
straight)".

Well, Kyd thought this was an absolutely wonderful idea. He rolled about
on the floor, like old Swann when he's seen a joke, mind you by this
time of course, after all this sack, he was Titus Andronicus! He
staggered home...
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Moylan
2021-12-06 00:47:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
They are a tight-knight community.
There's nothing tighter than a tight knight.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
spains...@gmail.com
2021-12-06 10:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ***@gmail.com
They are a tight-knight community.
There's nothing tighter than a tight knight.
Hence the expression "Good knight sleep tight".
Loading...