Stuff POC do: restrain ourselves

When I checked Stuff White People Do and saw a post originally titled, “Stuff White People Do: Laugh at Asian English”, I felt racism fatigue, and responded with a half-hearted and uninspired, “I am offended at your post,” followed with a description. I fully expected to be accused of looking for racism again by some commenter in a comment that closely followed mine, which has become almost a tradition at Stuff White People Do. (Sometimes this commenter is Macon D himself.)

Unsurprisingly, I was accused of “looking for something to pounce on Macon for” by a commenter named “haley” half an hour later. Surprisingly, however, the normally-defensive Macon D took my complaint seriously and tried to think of alternative ways of phrasing the title. In the end, Macon D actually took my suggestion seriously and changed the post’s title to “Stuff White People Do: Laugh at “Engrish”.”*

I’m not entirely sure what happened, but perhaps my uncharacteristic comment, which left me vulnerable to the accusation of oversensitivity, didn’t trigger a defensive reaction on the part of Macon D.

Normally, I almost never criticize racism with “I am offended” or “I take offense”, because when racism is framed as “something that offends people”, then accusations of racism are portrayed as “political correctness” catering to the hypersensitivities of minorities who supposedly always force the majority to accommodate them. Even when I almost never use the terms “offense”, “offended”, or “offensive”, people have told me that I was oversensitive about racism, that I need to grow up, that I cannot always break down and cry every time someone is not sensitive to my feelings.

The people who say these things appear to think that racism occurs rarely, and that when a non-white person complains about allegedly “trivial” instances of racism, it means that she is like a young child who hasn’t yet learned that not everyone in the world is obligated to be nice to her. In reality, however, I have experienced racial microaggressions since childhood, and I am well aware that the world is not a safe space for people of colour with respect to race. I point out racism not because I’m noticing it for the first time, but because I want to bring it to the attention of others who have grown up shielded from the daily realities that people of colour have to endure. I point out racism because I want to point out injustice, not because I am some selfish oversensitive child who wants the world to revolve around me and my feelings.

Instead of “I’m offended!”, I tend to say, “That’s racist!” However, this method has its own problems, because although you are not calling someone a racist, the accused perceives it that way, that you are personally attacking their character. Calling someone racist, they argue, is an ad hominem and therefore not a valid argument. They say that you are characterizing them as a bad person so that anything they say is characterized as illegitimate. They make it all about them instead of about the action being criticized. They claim that they are being silenced if I use the word “racist”, so that I even considered using the terms “racialist” or “racial discrimination” instead to make the criticism more acceptable. Sometimes I did this, until I realized that even if you use a less offensive word, they still became defensive because they could not accept the idea that racism isn’t over, or that they could be racist (adjective, which is a different concept than being a racist, noun). I also realized that I was bending over backwards as to not hurt their feelings, instead of the other way around, the latter being the illusion that they maintain through repetition.

The idea that finding racism requires searching is based on the idea that racism is rare, or that racism is rare in the United States (or rare in Canada), or that racism is rare among liberals, or that racism is rare among the left, or that racism is rare among anti-racists who happen to be white. These types of delusions are rooted in the need to elevate the group they identify with, and separate themselves from “those other white people” who are “the (real) racists” (noun phrase). Unfortunately, arguments like, “I’m not racist. I’m Canadian,” or “I’m not racist. I’ve read books by black authors,” or “I’m not racist. I’m an anti-racist activist,” are non sequiturs. Identifying with a specific group does not give anyone immunity from having racist thoughts, even if both white people and people of colour wishfully think that there are racism-free spaces.

When I point out an instance of racism, I am not shocked by a revelation that life isn’t fair, and I am not “searching for racism”. I see instances of racism all time and I assign them varying degrees of importance. I am a mortal being with a limited time to live my life, and I have to pick my battles. When I point out an instance of racism, I weigh in whether it is worth my time and the probability that the criticism is going to be accepted as valid by the community. I try to phrase my criticism in such a way that deflects accusations of oversensitivity, and focuses on the action (not the accuser or the accused). I factor in how much effect my criticism will have on systemic racism, which is why I think it’s more worthwhile to criticize Stuff White People Do, a popular progressive blog about race, than Storm Front, a right-wing website full of unreformable white nationalists. If I really wanted to look for racism, I’d look there.

When I critically comment on Stuff White People Do, I do so being aware of all the issues and implications mentioned above related to pointing out racism. When I point out racism, I do not do it freely without self-consciousness and self-censorship. Many white people seem to think that white people restrain themselves, and that people of colour are emotional children with undeveloped self-awareness who cry all the time about hurt feelings or yell all the time with unrestrained anger. However, this is a colonial stereotype that is projected on to what people of colour are really saying. If we choose our words one way, we are seen as victimizing ourselves, and when we choose our words another way, we are seen as savage attackers. Both perceptions assume that people of colour’s perception of racism comes from subjectivity instead of the heightened ability to perceive objective racial inequity. When white people are confronted with a view that differs from theirs and they find it upsetting, this emotion is often projected on to the person of colour. If talking about race and racism makes a person angry, then this person often assumes that people who talk about race and racism all time are angry all the time.

When I critically comment on Stuff White People Do, what I choose speak up about is already constrained by general racial-social factors. I also shouldn’t make more than one criticism per post, or else it will “confirm” some people’s accusations that I am just looking for racism on Macon D’s blog. When Macon D moderates comments, rejects some of my comments, and periodically threatens to not post my comments if he finds them inappropriate, this adds another constraint to what I speak up about and how I phrase my criticisms, along with literally filtering the kind of criticisms that appear on his site.

People of colour restrain ourselves too. Often we self restrain because if we don’t, white people will restrain us.


UPDATE 27/02/2009:

* resistance at Resist Racism points out that the term “Engrish” is still racist, and I concede:

The second title, however, employs a commonly used racist way for white people to mock the way they think Asian people speak. Yeah, I know “Engrish” was in scare quotes. But I still think it’s racist. Poke around the net for any boards talking about Asian issues, and you’ll find some asshole writing a comment in which he/she switches her L’s and R’s. Because it’s so fucking funny, you know? And so original. So that leads me to another thing White People Do: Say Racist Things’ Because They’re ‘Anti-Racist’“!

Read the rest of resistance’s criticism

About these ads

65 Responses to “Stuff POC do: restrain ourselves”

  1. jwbe Says:

    Can you remember how often he didn’t publish a comment of yours?
    For me, I lost count, recently I was trying to comment on one post on swpd, he didn’t publish it, again. I get tired of this. I will write about this, the content of my censored comment, later on swps.

  2. Restructure! Says:

    I don’t remember. At least 2. But often he’d warn me not to continue talking about something, or else he wouldn’t publish it, and then I wouldn’t.

    His moderation policy went up soon after Racialicious felt no need to justify their moderation anymore due to sexist comments about the bloggers’ vaginas. I wonder if Macon D felt that therefore he was justified to moderate arbitrarily, even if sexist remarks against female bloggers are not comparable to accusations of racism against a white blogger.

  3. jwbe Says:

    the bigotry in it is also that he said on racismreview something like “free speech must be protected (it was about laws prohibiting racist speech etc, something like that) ” but then he is the one who eagerly limits free speech.
    Racist or sexist posts/comments are also something different than critical comments which aren’t in agreement with “main-stream”.
    I find it cowardly and also dishonest to censor as an alleged “(white) anti-racist” PoC. But as I said already, his blog still is a perfect example of “white organizing”, unfortunately

  4. Restructure! Says:

    Do you have a link to that comment on racismreview?

  5. jwbe Says:

    http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/10/17/american-racism/#comment-5478

  6. nezua Says:

    great post. so funny, about those lenses, eh? well. “funny,” yeah.

    you might get a kick out of some of the glosario i put together a while ago. there are parallels to many things you are underlining here. of course, these things are hardly our inventions, but touched on all over. and its always good to read each person say it their way, which is why reading this feels good all over again. and its good to connect pieces and build the resources deeper. peace.

  7. Restructure! Says:

    Thanks for the glosario, nezua! Now I use terms and then link to the glosario so that I don’t have to explain.

    So, in short (and in an ironic twist), an “OVERSENSITIVE” is a brown person with a point that makes white people feel unpleasant sensations.

    Yesss.

  8. nezua Says:

    :) awesome! thank you.

    and that’s why i made it. in 2006, when i busted on the scene with UMX’s first iteration, i kept seeing ALL these dynamics play out over and over and over and over. and we’d have to keep explaining. but it lacked punch because varied explanations that overlap but have to be spilled a million times feel like dandelion seed in the wind. but creating a glossary with links was a way of unifying, as i commented above, and having a solid wall of wisdom (most of which i was gifted with by so many blogmigos out here, i’m just the wordy guy) that we can all lean on. and a link sure is easy and less frustrating than taking a deep breath again and….hey, yanno? why should fools be able to spit a tiny ignorant line as if it contains logic, without expending any energy in their effort and then we have to work for so long to counter it with reason? so, i’m glad to have helped level this effort exchange out a little bit. :) link away, with my thanks.

    peace.

  9. Renee Says:

    I think that a white person speaking about race should be critically aware that there are going to nuances that they are going to miss and how they discipline the response could simply reify the racism that they claim to be fighting.

    I really do believe that blacks continually have to negotiate what we say and do for the comforts of whites. When we do not express ourselves in a way that makes them comfortable then the issues arise as though their right to be offensive should take priority over our ability to exist in a hostile free space.

  10. macon d Says:

    Hi Restructure,

    It’s interesting to hear your point of view on all of this. It obviously sucks that POC are expected to restrain themselves around white people, and there’s obviously a lot for white people, including me, to learn about that. But I think you’re mischaracterizing how I “restrain” comments on my blog, including your comments (and by the way, speaking of restraint: contrary to one of your sentences above, and to a long-running claim that you’ve had against my writings–and as I’ve said many times now–I do not believe that stating, as I and many others have, that “white Americans have a long history of particular inducements towards bodily restraint” means or necessarily implies that other people don’t also feel other inducements toward restraint, including those imposed on them by white people).

    I don’t consider myself “defensive,” and I’ve noticed that I sometimes get labeled that when I merely disagree with someone on my blog. However, when I see your name on a submitted comment, I do get a bit more alert, because I’ve learned to expect something critical. As you yourself recently said there, “99%” of what you’ve written over the course of about ten months of continual commentary on my blog is “critical,” and you “don’t give cookies.” Which is fine, I do not expect or want cookies, and I do appreciate constructive criticism. I also want commenters to stay more or less on the post’s topic (and some of your rejected comments were not on topic), and to agree to disagree when asked to do so. And contrary to what you imply in this post about yourself, you are like everyone else in this respect; that is, while you have valid criticism to offer, you’re not always right. And I’m not either–the instance you wrote about in this post is not the first time that I’ve changed posts in response to critical comments, from you and from others.

    So once again, as part of what the Racialicious moderator has identified as your “personal beef” with Macon, your “crusade” against him, you find it worthwhile to share your assumptions about what goes on inside his head, as he writes on the Internet and interact with others there. But again, as with so many other times in the past when you’ve claimed to know what motivates me, you’re wrong. I didn’t agree with your comment about “Asian English” because of the way you stated it; I agreed with it because I agreed with it. And it’s not the first time that I’ve responded favorably to criticism from you, and from other people. As you know, I’ve edited other posts over the ten months or so that you’ve been commenting there in response to your criticism, and to that of others. But I’ve also disagreed with you and others, and I’ve also rejected some of your comments and those of others because I deemed them anything but constructive contributions. I’ll also continue to reserve the right to do so. That doesn’t mean I disrespect you and others; it means I respect my community of readers as a whole. And rejected comments are definitely about what you and others say, and not about who you and others say they are (and also not about how they say what they say).

    PS–what’s up with this post’s image?

  11. “At least you are trying” « Stuff White People Say Says:

    [...] it as a success, because he discourages some members to post any longer on his blog or like Restructure wrote, he influences the way, she comments. But he is probably unable to see his own white supremacy in [...]

  12. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    (and by the way, speaking of restraint: contrary to one of your sentences above, and to a long-running claim that you’ve had against my writings–and as I’ve said many times now–I do not believe that stating, as I and many others have, that “white Americans have a long history of particular inducements towards bodily restraint” means or necessarily implies that other people don’t also feel other inducements toward restraint, including those imposed on them by white people).

    As I’ve said before, if the ‘white’ part is relevant, it does strongly suggest that those who are not white are less likely to restrain themselves, in this case. If you put it into the context of racial stereotypes, your “restrain themselves” post, your “sit quietly in movie theaters” post (part II does not “decontextualize” it in the relevant way or make it any better), your “dance stiffly” and related dancing posts only reinforce these entrenched stereotypes about differences between whites and POC. (I would have criticized your stuff white people do: leave bigger tips, but you provided a study instead of drawing from your personal impressions, which is what you tended to do later on.)

    I don’t consider myself “defensive,” and I’ve noticed that I sometimes get labeled that when I merely disagree with someone on my blog. However, when I see your name on a submitted comment, I do get a bit more alert, because I’ve learned to expect something critical. As you yourself recently said there, “99%” of what you’ve written over the course of about ten months of continual commentary on my blog is “critical,” and you “don’t give cookies.” Which is fine, I do not expect or want cookies, and I do appreciate constructive criticism. I also want commenters to stay more or less on the post’s topic (and some of your rejected comments were not on topic), and to agree to disagree when asked to do so. And contrary to what you imply in this post about yourself, you are like everyone else in this respect; that is, while you have valid criticism to offer, you’re not always right. And I’m not either–the instance you wrote about in this post is not the first time that I’ve changed posts in response to critical comments, from you and from others.

    Where in the post did I imply that I’m always right?

    Yes, this is not the first time you’ve changed your post after being criticized, but you rarely do so, out of the 99% critical comments I’ve posted. I remember you changed the ‘emasculate MLK’ and retracted ‘get used to blackness’. What else?

    So once again, as part of what the Racialicious moderator has identified as your “personal beef” with Macon, your “crusade” against him,

    I certainly don’t agree with Latoya’s assessment. I emailed her, writing:

    You wrote, “this comment has nothing to do with what Macon posted.”

    At the end of his post, Macon D asks everyone if they have ever “encountered other instances of this phenomenon”. Other people list instances of encountering this phenomenon. I list an instance as well, which happens to be about the author of the original post. Why is it unrelated to what Macon posted?

    She wrote back saying that it was unrelated because I wasn’t “engaging with what he posted and the sentiment of ironic racism” and that I was “using his request as a jumping off point to launch into your issues with him”, and also that I’ve done this on every other post they’ve cross posted to Racialicious. The last part–which is also in her publically-viewable mod comment–can be easily verified as false, as I did no such thing on They think have the right to go wherever they like and Stuff white people do: whisper the word black. Instead of doing it “every time”, I have only done it once (1) of out three cross posts, the first being the one with the warning. (Did I forget a post?) I didn’t bother emailing her back because it wasn’t directly relevant to whether my comment was on topic, but I have to object here to obvious falsities about my actions on Racialicious. What I have done is complain about you (Macon D) on some other Racialicious threads about white people.

    you find it worthwhile to share your assumptions about what goes on inside his head, as he writes on the Internet and interact with others there. But again, as with so many other times in the past when you’ve claimed to know what motivates me, you’re wrong. I didn’t agree with your comment about “Asian English” because of the way you stated it; I agreed with it because I agreed with it.

    It wasn’t an assumption. It was prefixed with “I’m not entirely sure what happened, but perhaps”, which is a statement admitting confusion and also a hypothesis. This is not at all comparable to your “The non-white person often represses a preferred method of contact,” statement about what goes on inside the heads of non-white people.

    And it’s not the first time that I’ve responded favorably to criticism from you, and from other people. As you know, I’ve edited other posts over the ten months or so that you’ve been commenting there in response to your criticism, and to that of others.

    I remember of the posts I’ve criticized, “emasculate MLK” and “get used to blackness” were changed, but what else? Oh yeah, now I remember the one where you said that Obama isn’t really black because he is mixed, but you retracted that. What else? Was it only three over ten months or so?

    But I’ve also disagreed with you and others, and I’ve also rejected some of your comments and those of others because I deemed them anything but constructive contributions.

    But you think something is not constructive if it brings up a post of yours in the past and tries to connect the common problem between the two posts. So you prevent meta-analysis and the ability to criticize patterns of errors in your blogs, which is why you keep building off of “restrain themselves” and other posts I’ve voiced disagreement with, and you act surprised when I disagree with your derivative posts, as if I’m “looking for racism.”

    I’ll also continue to reserve the right to do so.

    It’s within your rights in terms of the law, of course, but I think it’s pretty ridiculous if you’re supposed to be combating your white privilege.

    That doesn’t mean I disrespect you and others; it means I respect my community of readers as a whole. And rejected comments are definitely about what you and others say, and not about who you and others say they are (and also not about how they say what they say).

    I didn’t say that you rejected my comments because of who I was.

    PS–what’s up with this post’s image?

    The image is of a Chinese priest. In my mind, in the context of this post, it represents how people of colour are constrained by white constraints.

  13. jwbe Says:

    Macon, thank you for linking to Racialicious.
    Restructure wrote a very true comment there and it addresses what I was talking about in “At least you are trying”

    “This is a serious pet peeve of mine. The idea of intent being more important than effect extends even beyond issues of race, and I’ve encountered instances of this outside the context of racism. I think it’s based on a Christian idea of morality in which goodness comes from your “heart” and can be disconnected from your actions. For example, if you have sinned, you can be forgiven if you spiritually accept Christ as your saviour. (Resist racism has a recent post on The non-apology ‘apology’, which is about Miley Cyrus and the false notion that Christians cannot be racists.)

    Either way, I don’t care about ranking people by moral value. I believe that if you are adult, you are responsible for how your actions affect others, and you are responsible for your own incompetence. Avoiding the feeling of guilt is not more important than how your actions have negatively affected others.”

  14. Latoya Says:

    Oy, oy, oy. Don’t come dragging us in this!

    I watch my whole blog all day every day, as well as many others. Restructure, it isn’t exactly a secret that you and Macon frequently disagree on postings and I recall on the initial thread where you disagreed, you posted so many comments with so many links that my system read you as spam and started blocking your comments.

    On the next post, the one that I smacked a mod note on, I got an email and a frequent contrib sending me emails pointing out to me that things we getting out of hand. If you hate someone’s guts, fine, but stay on topic. It’s no different than the warnings I dropped to both Rob Schmidt and Jessica Yee about their ongoing head butts. Just don’t do it.

    I didn’t bother emailing her back because it wasn’t directly relevant to whether my comment was on topic,

    I appreciate that and your later, on topic comment.

    Point being – in my space, I shut down a lot of endless squabbles and arguments that aren’t conducive to the subject at large. There isn’t a purpose for them. In addition, the commenters hate that. They even hate when we talk about things written on other blogs. With an interest of keeping you both as contributors, it’s best to keep both of you in a favorable light.

    That being said, *this* isn’t my space. It’s Restructure’s. And so Macon, let me just say that I liked Restructure’s analysis of this situation to the point where I am debating cross posting. And please don’t bring up my rules in someone else’s space – all these places operate differently.

  15. Restructure! Says:

    Okay, but I don’t hate Macon D. I just think that too many of his posts are messed up, and I think he has some huge blinders that prevent him from understanding things (some of these blinders come from his whiteness, while others come from his idiosyncrasies).

    Yeah, I have a general net-negative opinion about him, but I don’t “hate” him, or anyone. I think he has good intentions, but I think he’s incompetent with respect to race a lot of the time, and I hold him responsible for his incompetence. I probably hold him to a higher standard than other white people, because he is an anti-racist who lectures others about white privilege, and because he has a non-trivial influence on many white people.

    edit: I’m also snarkier than the average commenter when I disagree with something, which is why people think I’m coming at them guns a blazin’ and targetting them specifically.

  16. macon d Says:

    Fair enough, Latoya, and thanks for weighing in (or maybe, wading in). I don’t recall bringing up your rules in this space, but I did appreciate your shutting down Restructure’s relentless and seemingly “personal beef” with me at one point, and found it a relevant reference here.

    Restructure, I think you’ve got “huge” blinders of your own, and I sometimes tire of the tedious task of trying to get you to see them.

    I’m also snarkier than the average commenter when I disagree with something, which is why people think I’m coming at them guns a blazin’ and targetting them specifically.

    Um, is there anyone’s name up on the left in your “Browse Ideas” section other than mine? And aren’t most of your many posts about my writings, both here and at SWPS, nothing but “targetting”? That’s a whole different thing from mere snarkiness.

  17. Kathy Says:

    “I sometimes tire of the tedious task of trying to get you to see them.”
    Macon D, that is the kind of statement that makes me want to fall down and laugh on the floor, when jwbe talks about you as a “teacher”, and then this, well, all I can say is, Restructure! I love your snark.

  18. aspasialibertine Says:

    “The idea that finding racism requires searching is based on the idea that racism is rare, or that racism is rare in the United States (or rare in Canada), or that racism is rare among liberals, or that racism is rare among the left, or that racism is rare among anti-racists who happen to be white.”

    OMG, thank you for bringing that up! I thought I was the only liberal POC who’s noticed this. Some of the worst racism I’ve experienced has been from liberals and it’s worse than any other form because of the denial. Good job.

  19. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Um, is there anyone’s name up on the left in your “Browse Ideas” section other than mine? And aren’t most of your many posts about my writings, both here and at SWPS, nothing but “targetting”? That’s a whole different thing from mere snarkiness.

    Think, Macon. Would I spend time writing a detailed criticism of your post spanning several paragraphs if there was a good chance it would be deleted?

    Let’s look at the timeline to get the big picture about what is happening here:

    July 8, 2008Racialicious enforces a new, heavy-handed moderation policy.
    July 15, 2008Macon D begins moderating out criticism, the first comment moderated being perceived as a personal attack, because I (Restructure) called Macon D “racially ignorant”. jw threatens to publish a counter-blog to fight Macon D’s censorship.
    July 17, 2008Stuff White People Say is created by me, inspired by jw’s idea.
    October 6, 2008I start naming Macon D and criticizing him on my Restructure! blog, because SWPS with quotations only wasn’t getting through to Macon D.

    This whole counter-blog thing spiralled from your own action of censoring your critics.

  20. Links - 2009-02-23 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture Says:

    [...] turns an eye to “What PoC Do: Restrain Ourselves“: The people who say these things appear to think that racism occurs rarely, and that when a [...]

  21. macon d Says:

    Restructure, you don’t know what the first comment I ‘moderated’ was, and you don’t know what other comments I’ve declined to publish.

    And please get real–I don’t “censor my critics.” I’ve disallowed a few comments by you and your occasionally obnoxious cohorts, jw and Nquest, for reasons I stated above. No one has been banned, and you and jw have commented many times on my blog since then, almost always critically, as have others. But one reason among several that I enabled comment moderation is because you and your cohorts sometimes acted as thread-hijackers, taking over conversations and, according to many other readers in both comments and emails, driving other commenters away.

    Think, Restructure. And then characterize my actions, since you insist on doing so, more accurately.

  22. jwbe Says:

    Macon, you are the one who can ADMIT, in public, that you are still white in your thinking, that you still suffer from the racism you have learned.
    Do you actually believe that you are in the position to judge what’s “obnoxious” or not? YOU may find it obnoxious, the racism in you rejects any criticism which could perhaps actually make you thinking. This is the problem. This is also the problem I have with your writing.

  23. jwbe Says:

    and you didn’t answer the questions I asked you on swps.

  24. macon d Says:

    jw(be), you should restrain yourself!
    ;-)

    You’re right, I CAN admit in public that I’m white in my thinking, and that I still have and enact racist tendencies due to my white upbringing. In fact, many of my blog entries are public considerations of those facts about me.

    Yes, I do believe that I’m in a position to judge what is and isn’t obnoxious on my own blog (as is any other blogger), especially when others there are telling me the same thing that I’m thinking.

    I don’t reject criticism that makes me think–I welcome that. This here post of Restructure’s is based on one such example, where I published and then responded to her criticism of a phrase on my blog; as I said above, there are other such examples on my blog too. And as I also said above, I instead have other reasons for rejecting submitted comments at my blog.

  25. professor what if Says:

    Restructure,
    I really liked your points about “Asian English” and why that idea perpetuates racist stereotypes/thinking…
    Also, I loved this:
    “I point out racism not because I’m noticing it for the first time, but because I want to bring it to the attention of others who have grown up shielded from the daily realities that people of colour have to endure. I point out racism because I want to point out injustice, not because I am some selfish oversensitive child who wants the world to revolve around me and my feelings.”
    I so loather the way pointing out racism makes the people doing so the target of attack — as if they are too sensitive, or angry, or whatever. This week we discussed racism and white privilege in my intro to Women’s Studies classes which is almost always both encouraging and defeating… So, thanks for being an encouraging voice in this battle.

  26. abagond Says:

    Restructure!: I absolutely love this post and your blog in general! You put into words the stuff that has been going through my head. I also like how you are old-fashioned and use things like reason and truth instead of feelings and seemings.

    Macon D and his readers need to know when they are being racist. That, after all, is the point of his blog. You are a braver and more determined soul than I am.

  27. jwbe Says:

    @Macon:
    http://stuffwhitepeoplesay.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/at-least-you-are-trying/#comment-1068

    You’re right, I CAN admit in public that I’m white in my thinking, and that I still have and enact racist tendencies due to my white upbringing. In fact, many of my blog entries are public considerations of those facts about me.

    but you are unable to see how your racism prevents you from growing

  28. jwbe Says:

    Yes, I do believe that I’m in a position to judge what is and isn’t obnoxious on my own blog (as is any other blogger), especially when others there are telling me the same thing that I’m thinking.

    and you conveniently ignore those other voices who don’t agree with you

  29. HardLearn Says:

    Hey Macon, from what I’ve seen, Nquest, Restructure, and Jw mostly post about underlying problems in a lot of people’s(starting with you) approach to anti-racism. Things that lay at the foundation of how you see things. For you to just label them as off-topic and obnoxious to avoid any real consideration is kind of weak. All these issues brought up are connected. I’m sure you’ll one day see that.
    Take care

  30. macon d Says:

    Thanks for the tip, HardLearn. Since you’ve seen and approve of the work of N, R, and J, please give me an example of an underlying problem in my approach to anti-racism that they’ve clarified for you. More than one would be great too, since you see them identifying “things” at the foundation of how I see things.

  31. macon d Says:

    And just to clarify, in regards to N, R, and J, I don’t “just label them as off-topic and obnoxious to avoid any real consideration.” For one thing, I don’t respond to individuals; I respond to individual comments. Also, I’ve had long online conversations with R and N in particular, and they have changed my perspective on some issues. But I’ve also rejected a few particular comments from each of them, and from others, for reasons cited above.

  32. jwbe Says:

    >give me an example of an underlying problem in my approach to anti-racism

    your approach is from a white centered, eurocentric male perspective and as long as you can’t leave this comfort zone, your writings will remain problematic as well as your reactions to criticism and with this, I already said this I think, you are a very typical white male.

  33. abagond Says:

    Macon D:

    With a blog like hers I understand the need for moderation because you are bound to get racist nutcases. But Restructure is not one of them. You should let all of her comments through unmoderated – most particularly the ones that upset you. You are not as blind to your racism as most white people, but you still are partly blind and that holds your blog back – which, after all, is about how white people are racist without knowing it!

  34. abagond Says:

    Sorry, I meant “with a blog like yours”.

  35. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Restructure, you don’t know what the first comment I ‘moderated’ was, and you don’t know what other comments I’ve declined to publish.

    All right, here is the updated timeline from publically available information:

    July 8, 2008Racialicious enforces a new, heavy-handed moderation policy.
    July 11, 2008Macon D turns on moderation/starts moderating comments for the first time. “As for comments moderation, I’m experimenting with it–never done it before, thought I’d try it.”
    July 15, 2008Macon D begins moderating out criticism by Restructure/Nquest/jw, the first comment moderated being perceived as a personal attack, because I (Restructure) called Macon D “racially ignorant”. jw threatens to publish a counter-blog to fight Macon D’s censorship.
    July 17, 2008Stuff White People Say is created by me, inspired by jw’s idea.
    October 6, 2008I start naming Macon D and criticizing him on my Restructure! blog, because SWPS with quotations only wasn’t getting through to Macon D.

    And please get real–I don’t “censor my critics.” I’ve disallowed a few comments by you and your occasionally obnoxious cohorts, jw and Nquest, for reasons I stated above. No one has been banned, and you and jw have commented many times on my blog since then, almost always critically, as have others. But one reason among several that I enabled comment moderation is because you and your cohorts sometimes acted as thread-hijackers, taking over conversations and, according to many other readers in both comments and emails, driving other commenters away.

    Think, Restructure. And then characterize my actions, since you insist on doing so, more accurately.

    When you decide what is and isn’t a valid discussion topic, that’s censorship. Why do you insist that you should control the conversation?

  36. theboxman Says:

    Macon D: “according to many other readers in both comments and emails, driving other commenters away”

    Would these be primarily readers who identify as white? If so, then it strikes me as odd that the comfort level of white readers is privileged over the critical interventions of POC in a purportedly anti-racist blog.

  37. macon d Says:

    No, theboxman, they haven’t been primarily white, and those conducting the critical intervening of the occasionally obnoxious, obstructive, and/or ad hominem sort that partially prompted my move to comment moderation are not all POC either.

    Restructure, as you know, a lot of blogs have comment moderation. Are you accusing all of them of “censorship”? If so, what other bloggers are you complaining to about their comment moderation policy?

    Also, believe it or not, the Racialicious decision to start moderating comments had nothing to do with my own decision to do that–I didn’t notice when theirs went into effect, and I don’t see why you list our decisions together like that. I was getting all sorts of uselessly obnoxious comments, as well as racist ones, from many commenters (and still do), so I decided to put a halt to them before they appeared on my blog.

    Why do I insist on controlling the conversation? Because I want it to be a constructive conversation, and one that encourages as many readers as possible to take part. And that does not mean that I’m protecting white readers. When a group of bitter, bilious commenters came and took over threads with insistent and sometimes tedious points to make over and over again that they just would not agree to disagree on, other readers complained, and some felt attacked. The atmosphere sometimes turned poisonous, so one reason I turned on comment moderation was so I could clear the air when that happened, and to try to prevent it from happening. I did not turn on comment moderation to avoid criticism–as I wrote above, I’ve allowed and responded to a lot of criticism, and I’ve changed some posts as a result (the post that this here post is initially about being one of them). As Abagond notes above, I SHOULD be open to criticism, and I am, especially from POC, since I’m white, and since I fully acknowledge that I’m still unlearning my white habits and tendencies.

  38. Kathy Says:

    Macon D, it seems to me that a lot of what you write at your blog contributes to the concept of white supremacy, rather than discovering your whiteness or white “tendencies”, such as in recent posts where you write that it is a common white tendency to act with bodily restraint, that white people prefer deadpan comedy, that white people dance stiffly, or don’t dance enough. Instead of deconstructing the ideas from white superiority that you are trying to unlearn, you seem to be defending and promoting these ideas as white culture, instead of using your critical thinking abilities to deconstruct the ways in which our society has been indoctrinated and has contributed to double standards that give unfair, unearned, advantage to white people, while at the same time, give unjust disadvantage to PoC.
    I think it is good that you write about whiteness and race, but as you say, as a white man, you are still trying to unlearn, so it seems hypocritical for you to not only reject or moderate comments, but also, it seems racist to me that you tell commenters such as Restructure to learn to read, or that Restructure knows nothing about white tendencies.

  39. jwbe Says:

    why I consider it as important that there is no censorship on any anti-racist blog [besides blatant racism perhaps]: I don’t believe that those on “the front” will actually change. Those who get defensive stop listening, therefore I don’t believe that people like Macon will actually change.
    It is about the silent readers, those who never comment, who are most likely to be influenced, by posts + critical comments. The censorship is a hindrance for those people who actually want to learn or want to gain a more nuanced understanding.
    I think I wouldn’t be able to understand American racism the way I think I do now and also to write on a blog about American racism without Nquest and his writings on other message boards.

  40. jwbe Says:

    ‘why I consider it as important that there is no censorship on any anti-racist blog’ should be ‘any [white] anti-racist blog’

  41. jwbe Says:

    >Because I want it to be a constructive conversation, and one that encourages as many readers as possible to take part.

    and exactly this you won’t get with censorship. You will only encourage a certain group to participate, on a long run your filter will work, it actually does already, with me, I am no longer very interested to comment on your blog because of your censorship. Celebrate it, your white way is successful.

  42. jwbe Says:

    sorry with the many comments Restructure, I don’t want to spam your blog.

    @Macon, this is also the reason why so many white organizations fall apart or don’t work, because there is a white male on the top who wants to dictate the way and doesn’t actually believe in equality.

  43. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Restructure, as you know, a lot of blogs have comment moderation. Are you accusing all of them of “censorship”? If so, what other bloggers are you complaining to about their comment moderation policy?

    Most blogs with comment moderation also have a comment policy. Also, most blogs are moderating out racism, sexism, etc., not moderating out valid criticism.

    Another blog that I think is clearly censoring criticism is by Chinese Canuck, although the comments I’ve posted on that blog are much more vicious than comments I’ve posted on your blog. You can’t see the more vicious ones because they’ve been censored. I don’t take this person seriously, so even my comments to her are what I would describe myself as ad hominem. She’s a POC-hating, conservative non-white person, and a non-white person who shares her views and enjoys her blog is uglyblackjohn, who is a non-white commenter on SWPD who thinks your blog is awesome. He’s the guy who says that he has no problems talking about race to non-black people.

    Also, believe it or not, the Racialicious decision to start moderating comments had nothing to do with my own decision to do that–I didn’t notice when theirs went into effect, and I don’t see why you list our decisions together like that.

    Okay, at least I know now. I always wondered if that was what motivated you.

    Why do I insist on controlling the conversation? Because I want it to be a constructive conversation, and one that encourages as many readers as possible to take part.

    So popularity has a higher priority than anti-racism?

    And that does not mean that I’m protecting white readers. When a group of bitter, bilious commenters came and took over threads with insistent and sometimes tedious points to make over and over again that they just would not agree to disagree on, other readers complained, and some felt attacked.

    Why do you value some readers over others, and why/how did those readers feel attacked?

    The atmosphere sometimes turned poisonous, so one reason I turned on comment moderation was so I could clear the air when that happened, and to try to prevent it from happening.

    But if I think that many of your blog posts are poisonous, why can I not resist it, even if I am trying to make the same points over and over again because you still don’t agree or understand?

    I did not turn on comment moderation to avoid criticism–as I wrote above, I’ve allowed and responded to a lot of criticism, and I’ve changed some posts as a result (the post that this here post is initially about being one of them).

    You changed the title, but the blog content still says “Asian English”. Why do you think that as long as you change a little, your job is done? You’ve changed a tiny minority of your posts, which probably can be counted on one hand.

    As Abagond notes above, I SHOULD be open to criticism, and I am, especially from POC, since I’m white, and since I fully acknowledge that I’m still unlearning my white habits and tendencies.

    You cannot just declare that you are open and that you are open especially from POC. That’s not convincing, because you have shown that you are not.

  44. macon d Says:

    R: Also, most blogs are moderating out racism, sexism, etc., not moderating out valid criticism.

    As I’ve said several times now in this thread, I don’t moderate out valid criticism either. Of course, “validity” is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?

    Where did uglyblackjohn say that he thinks my blog is awesome?

    So popularity has a higher priority than anti-racism?

    No, that’s not what I wrote.

    But if I think that many of your blog posts are poisonous, why can I not resist it, even if I am trying to make the same points over and over again because you still don’t agree or understand?

    Because that can become a form of threadhijacking. You’re not the only reader/commenter there, nor the most important one. You’re welcome of course to resist in other ways, say, by making your own anti-SWPD blog posts and blogs (opportunities which you’ve fully grasped already).

    Why do you value some readers over others, and why/how did those readers feel attacked?

    I don’t value some readers over others. No one’s been banned. I moderate out particular comments, not particular commenters. I’ve deleted a few particularly obnoxious comments from the “other” readers referenced in your sentence, and lots of other crap that I doubt you’d like to hear about.

    Some readers felt attacked in ways that they wrote to me about over email; to discuss that would breach the confidentiality of email.

    You changed the title, but the blog content still says “Asian English”. Why do you think that as long as you change a little, your job is done?

    As I explained in the comments to that post, I also added qualifying words around that phrase the three times it appears in the post, words that I think counter the negative effect you pointed out in the first place. You then wrote that you disagree that they counter that effect. And so, we disagree.

    You’ve changed a tiny minority of your posts, which probably can be counted on one hand.

    Apparently you’re not watching my blog as closely as you think you are.

    You cannot just declare that you are open and that you are open especially from POC. That’s not convincing, because you have shown that you are not.

    By choosing not to publish a few especially obnoxious comments by you and Nquest, or by halting you two from threadhijacking? I beg to differ.

    You know something, Restructure? I actually appreciate your 99%-of-the-time criticism at my blog, because I’ve learned from it, and because it’s resulted in some improved posts. Just because I don’t ALWAYS agree with you doesn’t negate that. And it also doesn’t mean that I’m not open to criticism from POC in general (nor from white people).

  45. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    As I’ve said several times now in this thread, I don’t moderate out valid criticism either. Of course, “validity” is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?

    Not really, unless you’re trying to justify your subjectivity.

    Where did uglyblackjohn say that he thinks my blog is awesome?

    I don’t recall he did, but I just think that he’s a fan.

    No, that’s not what I wrote.

    You think that the goal of encouraging as many readers as possible to take part justifies controlling the conversation.

    Because that can become a form of threadhijacking. You’re not the only reader/commenter there, nor the most important one. You’re welcome of course to resist in other ways, say, by making your own anti-SWPD blog posts and blogs (opportunities which you’ve fully grasped already).

    I don’t need your permission to resist in other ways and to resist on my own blogs.

    I don’t value some readers over others. No one’s been banned. I moderate out particular comments, not particular commenters. I’ve deleted a few particularly obnoxious comments from the “other” readers referenced in your sentence, and lots of other crap that I doubt you’d like to hear about.

    My point is that your are valuing the people who email you over everyone else.

    Apparently you’re not watching my blog as closely as you think you are.

    I’m not watching your blog closely at all. You just think that I am, because I constantly point out racism.

  46. macon d Says:

    Because that can become a form of threadhijacking. You’re not the only reader/commenter there, nor the most important one. You’re welcome of course to resist in other ways, say, by making your own anti-SWPD blog posts and blogs (opportunities which you’ve fully grasped already).

    I don’t need your permission to resist in other ways and to resist on my own blogs

    Of course you don’t–which is why I wrote “You’re welcome of course to resist in other ways.” And I wrote that because you had written, “But if I think that many of your blog posts are poisonous, why can I not resist it, even if I am trying to make the same points over and over again because you still don’t agree or understand?” You can resist it.

    Apparently you’re not watching my blog as closely as you think you are.

    I’m not watching your blog closely at all. You just think that I am, because I constantly point out racism.

    I don’t know if you’re watching it closely or not, but you implied that you are when you wrote that I’ve “changed a tiny minority of your posts, which probably can be counted on one hand.” How could you know that if you don’t watch the blog closely at all?

    Regarding your claim that you constantly point out racism, I acknowledge that you constantly try to do that, and that you sometimes find it, for which, as I said above, I’m grateful. I’ll add, though, that what you claim is racism sometimes isn’t, because your claim is based on a misreading of an SWPD post. Some of your claims of racism on my part are also false because you’ve plucked out individual sentences from my posts or comments from their explanatory contexts, and then held them up as examples of my racism, when any reasonable reader of those plucked-out sentences in their original context would understand them very differently. You’ve done this here, on my blog, in posts at SWPS, and in comments on other blogs. So, you don’t “constantly point out racism,” but you do constantly try, and you do sometimes succeed.

  47. Restructure! Says:

    UPDATE 27/02/2009:

    resistance at Resist Racism points out that the term “Engrish” is still racist, and I concede:

    The second title, however, employs a commonly used racist way for white people to mock the way they think Asian people speak. Yeah, I know “Engrish” was in scare quotes. But I still think it’s racist. Poke around the net for any boards talking about Asian issues, and you’ll find some asshole writing a comment in which he/she switches her L’s and R’s. Because it’s so fucking funny, you know? And so original. So that leads me to another thing White People Do: Say Racist Things’ Because They’re ‘Anti-Racist’“!

    Read the rest of resistance’s criticism

  48. jwbe Says:

    This from your link: “Laugh and feel superior towards people who are learning another language.” would have been a good title to his post I think.

  49. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    I don’t know if you’re watching it closely or not, but you implied that you are when you wrote that I’ve “changed a tiny minority of your posts, which probably can be counted on one hand.” How could you know that if you don’t watch the blog closely at all?

    Of the posts I’ve criticized, you rejected most criticisms and didn’t change the posts. Perhaps you’ve changed posts a few months later secretly, and didn’t announce it in the comment thread. I wouldn’t know that you’ve changed it, although I found out accidentally that you did do this for “get used to blackness”.

  50. Nquest Says:

    I’ll be “obnoxious” and point out just how Macon continues to be dishonest…. (not obnoxious enough?)… err… how Macon insist on LYING when he says:

    And please get real–I don’t “censor my critics.” I’ve disallowed a few comments by you and your occasionally obnoxious cohorts, jw and Nquest, for reasons I stated above.

    My point about Macon’s dishonesty is readily proven by the very brownie points he’s trying to score with his comments about changing his posts. Be it “get used to blackness” or the “shake hands our way” threads, NEVER at no time was Macon anything BUT *defensive* and, indeed, entrenched in defending his anti-racist honor or what-have-you (vs. accepting criticism with a “well, I don’t see it that way”/”didn’t intend it that way” type of attitude) DURING THE CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS that occurred at the time those threads were active.

    And until Macon can explain his behavior explaining why Restructure’s comment about him being “intellectually dishonest” which, again (we’ve been over this several times), appeared before my explicit comments piggy-backing off of and agreeing with Restructure statement… Well, the idea that (1) he’s doesn’t consider himself “defensive” (when he’s admitted he has been with me because… ???) and (2) hasn’t “censored his critics” is beyond laughable.

    But maybe Restructure hit on something instructive here when she noted how Macon saw fit to “censor” comments which referred to older threads with the obvious and, often, expressed intent to show a common thread of error or the dreaded inconsistencies (that hobgoblin thing) in Macon’s pieces. Clearly Macon finds it “obnoxious”, subjective as it is, for those kind of points to be made. It was just too damn “obnoxious” for Macon to have to contend with repeated errors on race others feel he makes (and, at least in some appreciable percentage, demonstrate that he makes) on his blog about race.

    I mean… surely Macon was NEVER “defensive” about the whole Black handshaking thing (though those comments appeared on SWPS). And surely Macon was NEVER, EVER “defensive” on the “get used to blackness” thread.

    No. Never that.

    Certainly a “no reference to old threads” rule like the one Macon made on the fly and first applied, as far as I know, to me for ostensibly no other reason than to censor/limit criticisms I tended to make… Certainly a rule like that which came as an apparent reaction to the debate in the very long and, apparently, still unchanged (and constantly “defended”) “express amazement” thread…. Certainly a rule like that reflects just how Macon has clearly NEVER done anything to “censor his critics” or done anything that would give any reasonable person the idea that he has.

    Of course, that would all be subject to Macon’s own subjective and self-truth-denying point of view on these encounters we’ve had.

  51. Nquest Says:

    And, really… Macon saying he doesn’t consider himself/his reactions (to our criticisms) “defensive” is high comedy:

    In November, responding to another one of Macon’s fictional depictions of himself/his reactions to our criticism, I said:

    Don’t you dare try to act like you’ve been receptive to the comments I’ve made when your reaction to my comments have been nothing less than defensive… amongst other things.

    Commenting from the vacuum in his mind where all space and time relating to anything except the very selective, self-congratulatory views of himself ceases to exists, Macon’s exact words were:

    “Nq, I’ve altered posts as well as written new ones differently because of discussions I’ve had with the two of you. I’m especially defensive with you, though, because you act like an asshole…”

    Oh the backhanded thanks we “obnoxious” ones get. lol

    Note: The bolded quotes come from a previous thread on this blog.

    http://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/white-people-think-that-people-of-colour-have-more-culture/#comment-625

  52. Nquest Says:

    Correction: take the words “ceases to” out of my previous post.

  53. Nquest Says:

    Additional note:

    In all my years of online blogging/commenting, I’ve only come across one person who even close to being as oblivious about things he says as Macon is. I mean…

    HERE he says:

    I don’t consider myself “defensive,” and I’ve noticed that I sometimes get labeled that…

    When BEFORE… he clearly accepted the “label” and acknowledge the truth of his defensiveness:

    I’m especially defensive with you [Nquest]…”

    Macon, you do know that, by definition, you admitted then (when it suited you) that you’re not only defensive (no quotes on the word in Nov.) when it comes to me — only “especially” defensive — but you’re *defensive* at other times with other people as well. Why you’re trying to pretend now that you don’t consider yourself defensive when you’re on record acknowledging that you have been defensive only you can explain…. preferably without added fictions.

  54. Mike Says:

    Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!

    _________________________________
    Making Money $150 An Hour

  55. Nquest Says:

    I concur with Mike: Restructure’s topics are thorough and are very insightful as she attempts to fully explain her point of view. I also admire the way she’s able to communicate and explain things so clearly and so matter-of-fact-ly.

  56. Nquest Says:

    Hey Restructure,

    I read over some of the comments on Macon’s thread:
    http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/02/laugh-at-deadpan-comedians.html?showComment=1234987140000#c2100878041534942064

    One thing struck me in your exchange with No1kState and, apparently, it was the very thing that inspired your thread here:

    “White people usually aren’t aware that people of colour are restraining themselves, because there is a stereotype that people of colour are unrestrained, spontaneous, and already crying racism at every opportunity.”

    Out of all the times we’ve been called “trolls” and all the times someone has explicitly stated that we’re (you’re) “looking for racism”… I don’t believe Macon has ever addressed that “common white tendency” to create that caricature of POC who don’t share No1kState’s “I give them credit for trying” type of attitude. Which is funny… that seemed like the attitude you said you had with Macon until he revealed/stated that he’s been doing anti-racist work for some 12 years or more.

    I’d also like to know what POC get credit for… I mean, all a White person has to do is “try”… lol

    I don’t know why otherwise racially alert people like No1kState don’t see how problematic that kind of attitude is. I do, however, see the possible validity of the criticism No1kState more or less made in terms of giving people (Macon) a fair, complete reading… I can see how people who may drop in on random threads Macon posts and not see a pattern that may exists in other posts on related topics or, given the attitude, not see the existence of some problems (if they even see them at all) as much of a problem… again, Macon is “trying.”

    I can see how they would be against you (us) picking on “every little thing” and even be right, on occasion, that you (we’re) making a big issue out of something… I think the kind of exchanges we’ve had with Macon would make us prone to doing that, especially those that have occurred or spilled over to your blog or SWPS… I think our whole experience include all our exchanges influence the way we see a lot of what Macon says.

    Beyond that, one argument No1kState made is just plain lame… The idea that since she doesn’t take offense to what Macon says somehow makes whatever he said as something that’s not offensive to POC is ridiculous. She would promptly reject such lame ass arguments if a Black person tried to excuse something she finds problematic with White folk, particularly someone Black who positions themselves as a apologist for Whites who “try” to hold racial dialogues but are afraid of being called “racist.”

    http://prometheus6.org/node/23655#comments

    The irony gets thick.

  57. jwbe Says:

    A system of some sort of classification makes it possible that those who are victims of this system are blamed or ignored or are considered “individual acts” by main-stream. Those victims of institutional discrimination are mostly PoC, but also homosexuals, homeless people, disabled people, poor people, and others. People who don’t have the collective power or society’s support to demand justice because the system invented stereotypes about these groups and therefore disconnect them from the rest of society.
    I watched a disturbing video about torture in American prisons, like the “lawless rooms” I was mentioning in my post on swps. People dying because of being tortured (and I don’t talk about Abu Ghraib, but prisons in America), and nobody talks about this. No American white anti-racist I know ever wrote about this.
    I don’t want to be understood the wrong way, but the approach that white supremacy is just white vs. PoC is a dangerous one I think.
    This system works with teaching people that authorities are right and that thinking on your own is wrong. Those people can easily be manipulated against any desired enemy. When institutions need scape-goats, they will find them and the masses will react.
    The goal of this system is to make a few people rich and to give them so much power that nobody seems to be able to stop them. There is white/black, white/different PoC with certain stereotypes that help that PoC don’t unite among themselves, whites are classified to prevent whites from uniting etc.
    On top of all this are white males. The entire world has had to endure their greed, aggression and hunger for power.

    There is a term, I don’t know the English word, when you do something and already this what you do is the reward, therefore you won’t stop doing it. This is what Macon does. In the safe world of internet the arrogant racist white male creates with his blog his own world of power. He can’t be so strong in his mind, when he feels the need to censor, regardless which excuses he wants to lie directly in our face. He is further encouraged to continue his power with the respect he gets from some for at least “trying”. That already his attempt is dishonest – hypocrisy as a way of life – that he censors those people most who can look through, that he censors those who could or do question his power, is only just another face of white supremacy, where some or many people follow the wrong “leaders” because they have more or less perfected the art of lying and playing games to pretend to be something what they aren’t.

  58. alwaysright101 Says:

    its so awesome to see how there are plenty of others who see macon d’s and his trollish-racist followers as hypocrites.

    over there you get attacked for not agreeing with a post and then macon won’t even allow you to defend your position when you are being verbally attacked by his rude racist trollish followers such as one user who goes by the name of deaf indian.

    that blog is extremely flawed. and now i can see why, the blogger himself is a racist, but worse, he is one of those “liberal racist” types you know the ones that call themselves anti-racist while doing racist acts.

    i mean what i witnessed over there was so bad, it made me think that the racist remarks ann coulter tends to spout off wasn’t even as bad as that, but then again, we all expect her to say something hateful and racist…but you don’t expect a person who is supposed to be anti-racist to be worse than someone who is a known racist.

  59. Restructure! Says:

    Can you provide the link? I try not to interact with that blog anymore for my own sanity, but I’m interested about whether this happened recently.

  60. alwaysright101 Says:

    i deleted my comments (i was using my blogger account there), i saw it useless to keep them when the idiot was going to let his racist followers attack me and not let me defend myself. its just horrible there…i mean they consider you a racist if you do not show sympathy with the post and disagree with it. they dont listen to your reason, and then they went over to my blog, and said i was racist against blacks because i said that light skinned blacks do suffer racism. and then i was accused of being a racist self hater for saying i consider myself both black and biracial, they got angry when i switched back and forth between the two terms (these people are trying to tell me how to be biracial, they don’t even know the difference between self identification and self hatred, or racism and being coldhearted). i hate everything about that blog.

    i dont blame you for not interacting with that blog anymore. i keep telling myself i will not go to other blogs for my own sanity, but i give into temptation too much, but i the case of macon’s “blog” i will not even go there. besides i dont like the idea of some racist white guy trying to pretend he isn’t racist and try to speak for other races on stuff he has no true understanding about.

  61. alwaysright101 Says:

    it happened yesterday. i had commented that i do feel sorry for someone and their issues when they try to minimize mine and act as if theirs is worse and that somehow gives them the right to be disrespectful towards me. and i got attacked for it.

  62. WHY I found them so racist « Wildflower Says:

    [...] Restructure points out in her wonderful post, “Stuff POC do: restrain ourselves”, calling acts instead of people “racist” does not help, nor does avoiding the word [...]

  63. White and not ashamed of it Says:

    Well, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who sees Macon and his blog for what it really is. He allowed me to post my first comment, but after his “supporters” attacked and labeled me, he censored my reply even though it was not mean-spirit as theirs. It basicly showed how closed-minded they were being by reacting the way they did. I’m done with his blog and way of thinking. He sayes he wants to help others grow and share idea’s but that’s only if they agree with what he sayes. If you do, you can say and do anything and be as rude as you want.

  64. jwbe Says:

    I have the impression that MD and others are only representatives of a larger problem of violating free speech in the US. Serious, I find this alarming how ‘I do not like your opinion’ turns into ‘I will ban you’.
    What does this say about real life? A lot.
    It explains alot of the dishonesty and this exaggerated “oh I love you” and this quick “be my friend” etc.
    Talk like you think somebody else want it and you will be successful, use your own brain and voice and you will be silenced.

  65. No1KState Says:

    @ Nquest –

    This is waaayyy old, but Nquest, (and I haven’t read through all the comments yet) you really could’ve made your feelings clear to me personally. I think highly enough of you to still have open the invitation to guest blog a post at my blog. Not that it’s some high honor or anything. Not like I have tons and tons of readers (I really don’t.) But it is my blog, you know?

    But it seems you completely misunderstood my point. And expressed your dismay at another blog when I’m pretty sure you could’ve said something directly to me.

    So to be clear – I take time to teach people who are teachable. There are times when, yes, I take time to outline an argument even for someone who isn’t. I have my own reasons for doing so. But I’ve NEVER suggested it was okay for white people to ignore a person of color just because they’re being harsh in their assessment.

    I’ve never criticized Nquest for the tack he takes. I’ve explicitly stated my resentment of people who try to use my “calmness” to chastise Nquest’s “anger.”

    I don’t think I get to determine how other people feel. That said, I think it’s wrong to misconstrue a point and get angry that your misconstruction is racist.

    That said, the issue between Restructure and myself that particular day on that particular thread was unique to being between Restructure and myself. Granted, I was particularly harsh and impatient with Restructure and for that, I apologize.


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: