John Mayer's racist comments in Playboy ignite Twitter ...

[HipChick]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=56999

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Wow. And he thinks black people love him, huh?

You should include a snippet of what he said. Im guessing most people think it was just a little slip--not a full on racist rant.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

2. Franti is touring w/ Mayer right now.

I've got tickets to the Boston show. My plan was to see Franti and Spearhead then leave.

This just confirms my plan.

[HarveyDarkey]

22. That would be my plan too

Love Michael, don't care about what's his name

[PuraVidaDreamin]

38. Well then,

have a heart

;-)

[HarveyDarkey]

40. Thank you very much

at least one isn't anonymous.

[omega minimo]

73. Love Franti

[Iris]

3. jeez. I wonder if the sentence, "I'm talking and I can't shut up" ran through his mind

during that interview.

What a total asshole

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. He sends out some great tweets

But these comments are BAD. Yuck.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. His mouth is a blunderland.

[Orrex]

8. I hate you

That's the joke I was looking for. :grr:


(:thumbsup:)

[omega minimo]

20. DUzy

:hi:

[cali]

23. an amazing blunderland.

that is such a great word.

:rofl:

[spanone]

6. don't drink & tweet

dumbass

[NickB79]

7. Sorry, I don't see it

My take on it:

"I can’t really have a hood pass. I've never walked into a restaurant, asked for a table and been told, 'We're full.'"

Pointing out how black people are still discriminated against doesn't sound racist. Yes, he used the N-word, but does that alone make him racist?

"What is being black? It’s making the most of your life, not taking a single moment for granted. Taking something that’s seen as a struggle and making it work for you, or you'll die inside. Not to say that my struggle is like the collective struggle of black America. But maybe my struggle is similar to one black dude's."

That also doesn't sound racist to me.

"I don't think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Benetton heart and a fuckin' David Duke cock. I'm going to start dating separately from my dick."

It's a fucking analogy, for Christ's sake. Saying he's going to start dating seperately from his dick implies he's going to start dating non-white women. Again, doesn't sound racist.

Flame away, but I just don't see it, and my Puerto Rican wife doesn't either. Sorry.

[tkmorris]

9. I'm kind of with you

My read on it was that what he was TRYING to communicate wasn't racist at all, but the combination of using politically incorrect terms and not being quite lucid enough made his intent somewhat muddled. He has opened himself up to be rather massively misunderstood. Bad move for a public figure of any kind.

FWIW I find his music to be somewhat insipid and I really don't much about him personally at all. Perhaps he IS a racist, it's just not what I took away from that piece.

[Captain Hilts]

17. I agree. He isn't racist based on this interview. nt

[Number23]

12. Why was it necessary to identify your wife's ethinicity?? This kind of thing

ALWAYS strikes me as so weird.

[MellowDem]

27. I can't speak for him...

but I'm guessing it's because she is a minority, and therefore it lends more weight to the argument that Mayer's comments weren't racist (according to some DUer's logic). Some here on DU believe the race of a person, when talking about race, is very important to know and gives them more or less credibility on its face.

[Number23]

33. I think you're right. And on one hand, I agree that a person's ethnicity does lend them more weight

to discuss this issue. I find it interesting the number of times that white people say something "is not racist" while Asians, blacks, Hispanics (people who have actually experienced institutionalized racism in this country) etc. overwhelmingly believe that something is. In that case, the race of the person is an important factor.

But how does your having "black friends" or a "Puerto Rican wife" give you more credibility to speak on race?? That's the kind of thinking, or as you aptly said DU logic, that sort of cracks me up.

[MellowDem]

42. Well, it was the wife's opinion...

not his. Personally, I disagree that a person's ethnicity automatically lends them more weight to discuss the issue. The best way to discuss an issue is with an unbiased approach. Your experiences can't be determined from your race alone, for one thing. And no matter your race, you bring biases to the table. Having experienced racism first-hand can make a person biased as well, not necessarily more able to discuss it rationally. Being aware of your biases is a good starting point, but to assume some people of a certain ethnicity have no biases because of their experiences makes no sense. With that logic, I could say that because Mayer is white, and I'm white, I am more qualified to understand what he says.

But, according to your logic, you would have to agree with the poster more than you would have, because his Puerto Rican wife agrees with him. And it also backs up the "black friends" logic. If blacks really are more qualified to speak about race, and you have black friends, then you will gain some of their perspective, and may even experience some of the things they do while you are with them. That would make you more qualified to speak about race than a white person with no black friends, according to that logic. I find that logic to be horrible, and a good reason why people can't discuss race.

[Number23]

47. Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point then.

'Cause I'm a firm believer that people who have personal experiences with racism are much more qualified to denote what is and is not racist than those who have never experienced it.

My husband is white Australian. My being married to him has given me an exceptional insight into what it is like to be white and to be Australian, but as you said, I still have what you call "biases" and what I call "life experiences" as an American woman of color. Access to his insight has enriched me in more ways than I could count, but they are qualified by my own experiences as well.

[MellowDem]

59. Lots and lots of people have experienced racism...

and if you got them all together in a room, I'm guessing there would be a lot of different opinions on what race or racism even are. And if you presented this particular case to them, you would get a lot of different opinions. In our society, it's pretty much impossible for anyone NOT to have experienced the social reality of race or not seen racism in some fashion or other. I think it is quite a stretch to assume only from ethnicity that a person's opinion is worth more. The idea is bigoted on its face.

I've experienced bigotry and know people who have experienced racism. My racist as all hell uncle experienced racism, and he never lets us forget it. I guess his opinion on this would be worth more than those who have experienced less? And he's white. So, I guess he would not "qualify" in the first place, despite personal experience? I don't want to put words in your mouth, since you didn't say that it's ethnicity as much as personal experience, but even personal experience can't be the end-all-be-all on whose opinion means more. I think that experience has to be backed by sound judgement and logic, or else my uncle's opinion would be worth a lot.

[Number23]

66. You seem to be taking this extremely personally and getting totally off track

so I'll end this conversation here.

But your uncle's experiencing racism would be completely different from the INSTITUTIONALIZED, SYSTEMIC racism that people of color experience daily in this country. There is a profound difference between experiencing a racist incident at the hands of a person or even a group of people at any particular junction in time and experiencing institutionalized racism that impacts every single aspect of one's life.

And for the record, your attitude is much more indicative of why race can never be discussed in this country. For some whites, the very idea that there are topics, subjects and issues in which they are not the first or last authority is something that they cannot possibly comprehend or accept. They become hostile and defensive at the very thought that their opinion may have less weight than others -- which you have assuredly done here. It is simply incomprehensible to some that the voices of non-whites in Western cultures such as the United States carry more weight on the subject of racism by sheer virtue of the white supremacist ideals on which many Western societies are founded upon. It's a shame but not at all surprising.

[MellowDem]

94. You seem to think you can read my mind...

I don't take it personally, I was just using personal experience to explain my opinion. I really am not getting defensive, all of my arguments have been based on the topic, not from me being offended. I'm not offended by what you say, I just disagree with it. If you want to make up stuff about how I feel, you can go ahead and end the conversation. I understand you are not trying to be malicious by essentially saying that an opinion is worth more or less because of the color of one's skin and therefore the (assumed) experiences. I understand the logic of personal experiences making one's opinion more informed, it's not some crazy idea. I just don't agree that personal experience alone makes for a better opinion.

If you could point out what about my attitude leads you to believe that I think whites should always be the first and last authority on all subjects, topics, and issues it would be greatly appreciated. Or what about my attitude was hostile or defensive? I have not resorted to any personal attack, I have focused only on the issue. Maybe you disagree with me, but that doesn't make me defensive or hostile. In this case, the potential racism being discussed was not institutionalized, systemic racism, but one of those individual racist incidents, which is why I used the analogy of my uncle.

As for institutionalized racism, there are a lot of people who suffer from it and don't even understand that that is part of their world. And there are others who benefit from it and understand it quite well. This being regardless of ethnicity. Lots of women experience sexism and may not even recognize it while some men do. I don't think we can or should assume someone's opinion is worth more only from experience. Personal experience certainly can lend more weight to an opinion where there is also a lot of knowledge on the subject.

Regardless, if someone says "I have experienced this so my opinion is worth more", no one really learns anything about their opinion or why it is right. Also, someone else with the same experience will inevitably show up and disagree with them. Michael Steele's and Alan Keyes' opinions on the Tea Party would have to be taken more seriously than any white person's according to that logic. The world is too complicated a place to make up rules about whose opinion is worth more based on ethnicity or even just personal experience alone.

[Number23]

102. I'm actually to the point where I don't undersand what you're saying anymore

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about in the hopes that you'll understand where I'm coming from (even though it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you can't or WON'T see).

My husband is a white Aussie as I mentioned. Years before we were married he lived and worked in the Northern Territory of Australia, a place full of Aboriginals which are by far the most discriminated against, the poorest and the most vulnerable members of Australian society.

My husband and his white friends were REPEATEDLY targeted by members of this community, including at one point when my husband was sitting at a traffic light, an Aboriginal woman got in his car and ordered him to take her home or she would claim that he assaulted her. (Why he didn't have his doors locked, I will never understand.)

Even though there is no question that he and his friends were victims of RACIST INCIDENTS, (there is really no question that they were targeted because of the color of their skin) there is no way that you could get my husband to ever admit that he has experienced "racism" which he understands that to be institutionalized and he knows that as a white man living in a Western country, he will FOREVER be higher in the pecking order than every person who targeted him. He also understands that even though he was mistreated in this one part of the Northern Territory, that there are a million other places he can go in Australia and be treated in the way that he is accustomed to being treated because he is still a member of the privileged majority in this country.

So my husband (and countless other whites) acknowledge and understand that simply being a person of color and/or being a member of an oppressed racial minority in a Western country DOES confer certain insights and understandings about race that a white person in this environment would have an extremely difficult time ever having. You apparently find this odious, I think it shows a acknowledgement of white privilege and an evolved way of understanding race relations from the perspective of being the one in power. And as for your insistence that personal experience shouldn't give a person's opinion more weight on a subject, because I really have no idea how anyone can intelligently reach that conclusion, I'm going to just leave that part alone.

[MellowDem]

107. My point is simple...

and it wasn't this:

" And as for your insistence that personal experience shouldn't give a person's opinion more weight on a subject, because I really have no idea how anyone can intelligently reach that conclusion, I'm going to just leave that part alone."

I only have insisted that personal experience alone shouldn't give a person's opinion more weight on a subject. Your white husband's opinion can't be automatically discounted just from knowing he is white, you would have to hear the reasoning as well. I understand that only through being a minority will one ever experience certain things, and that if you are white, you will likely never experience what others will. That being said, that in and of itself does not automatically mean a person's opinion is worth more or less. You are basically saying that minorities have a unique perspective that whites do not have, and I don't dispute that. And the opposite is generally true as well.

One will never be able to have a good discussion about any subject by assuming from experience alone that certain people's opinions are worth more or less from the get go.

[Number23]

108. ??????

You are basically saying that minorities have a unique perspective that whites do not have, and I don't dispute that

:wtf: That's all you've done!! You have constantly disputed what I, fishwax and Raineyb have said which is that when it comes to racism, non-whites in Western cultures DO and will have a unique perspective through personal experience and it's because of this that we are often more qualified to determine what is and is not racist. That's all I've ever said and you've been arguing with me from jump.

You have constantly attempted to turn what is a profound, personal, emotional and painful experience (racism) into something that can only be measured through "logic" while downplaying the significance of personal experience because you know that doing this is the only way to bring the opinions of a majority of whites into the conversation. It's dishonest and I'm done with it. Best of luck to you. Really am done with this conversation now.

[MellowDem]

110. I would think...

that you would want the opinion of a majority (if not all) whites to be part of conversations about race. If people aren't even in the conversation then they certainly aren't learning anything. My intention is not to belittle experiences with racism, rather it is to point out that using "personal experience" to essentially keep whites out of the conversation of race is a counterproductive idea.

[Raineyb]

122. Nobody said anything about keeping whites out of the conversation.

It is however, a suggestion that perhaps they are not in a position to tell someone who has experienced racism what is or is not racism. Somehow the idea that white people's opinions may not be the end all to be all when it comes to basic definitions involved in the discussions seems to be a notion that's offensive to you.

I could speculate as to why but frankly, your posts make it clear as day way.

[MellowDem]

128. A conversation with unequal footing...

will keep people out of the conversation, unsurprisingly. Whites do have an opinion about what is or is not racism, just like everyone else. If they never express these opinions, those minorities who have experienced racism will never hear them and be able to discuss them with whites, whether they agree or not, and nothing will be learned.

The only thing that is truly offensive to me is the idea that a "conversation" based on unequal footing would seem like a good idea, for any subject, anywhere, much less this one. Your insinuations do not offend me because I'm used to them. Mostly, they sadden me because though I disagree with you on this very particular subject, I know I agree with you in general and am really arguing about what would be the best way to get to the same goal. I'm not even sure you are serious, because you seem willing to engage in some discussion and then some personal attacks and back again.

[Raineyb]

130. That's your problem. Conversations on unequal footing happens all the time.

Why you think that when it comes to race it should be different is not a question I'm much interested in exploring.

[MellowDem]

131. And they aren't productive...

that's why it should be different.

[Raineyb]

137. Well you can't make them equal by dismissing people's experience. So you'll just have to deal. n/t

[fishwax]

50. actually, it was his

That aside, though, I think you really misunderstand/misrepresent Number23's point. Most of the things that you attribute to her "logic" (i.e., she should agree with someone else just because they're Puerto Rican or their wife is) don't really follow from what she said.

Frankly, the suggestion that someone who has actually experienced something (such as racism) will likely have insights that make their perspective particularly valuable (and worth listening to and learning from for those who don't share that experience) doesn’t strike me as a particularly controversial assertion. (And I don’t think it would be with most subjects.)

[MellowDem]

58. He said...

his Puerto Rican wife doesn't see the racism either, which means that is her opinion.

I think that everyone's perspective is equally valuable, but one really can't automatically give more weight to some perspectives than others simply because of ethnicity. I think that if anyone who has experienced racism then shares why they think this is racist, doesn't necessarily make their argument any more worthy. Lots of racists have experienced racism. Lots of very ignorant, bigoted people have experienced racism. There are a lot of people who have experienced racism and actually don't really even understand race or racism. So to say that because someone is a minority or has experienced racism that their opinion means more literally makes no sense.

If all you know about a person is their ethnicity and you assume from that that their opinion about race is automatically worth more or less, it is akin to assuming a black person's opinion about basketball is automatically worth more. It's a bigoted excercise of logic. Opinions about race and racism should be judged the same way as any other opinion should be, on the grounds of sound logic. That can include personal experience, but it doesn't mean that it will help an argument.

[fishwax]

64. He also prefaced his post with "My take on this:"

I didn't say his wife didn't share his opinion, I was just responding to your assertion that it was not his opinion.

"If all you know about a person is their ethnicity and you assume from that that their opinion about race is automatically worth more or less, it is akin to assuming a black person's opinion about basketball is automatically worth more."

No, that analogy doesn't make any sense. But if you're watching a basketball game with one person who played in the NBA and with another person who has never gotten closer to a basketball than watching it on TV, the observations of the first about the flow of the game, plays, etc. will likely carry more weight than the latter. Again, that doesn't mean that the one with experience will always be right, but he knows what he's talking about in a way that the second doesn't.

Someone who grew up Sarajevo during the siege probably knows things about dealing with urban guerrilla warfare that someone growing up in a small town in New Hampshire probably doesn't. Someone growing up on the Bay of Bengal probably knows a bit more about recognizing the warning signs of the rainy season than someone growing up in California's inland empire. And a person of color who grows up in America, having likely experienced it throughout their lives, knows a little something about racism that the average white fellow probably doesn't.

[MellowDem]

90. But even you use words like...

"likely" and "probably" when talking about a person of color, because the reality is that just from their ethnicity you can't know. It's an assumption. I think the analogy works well in that it is based off of someone's ethnicity. The assumption is that someone's color means they have certainly had a certain set of experiences, which isn't necessarily true. Racism is an ideology. Experiencing it doesn't necessarily increase one's understanding of it. Communism is also an ideology. Many people who have lived in Communist countries have a very warped sense of what Communisim is. And many people in Capitalist countries who have studied Communism probably understand the ideology better. They don't know what it's like to live under Communism per se from first hand experience, but their opinion on it isn't automatically worth less because of that. I know of a few prominent conservatives who are extreme free-marketers. They used to live in Communist nations and they often use this as a basis for forming their opinion on free-market capitalism and the evils of socialism. But their opinions are pretty shitty and lacking in logic to me, despite their first hand experience.

What about loud and proud racists? Does being racist make one more able to discuss racism? They have lots of experience and see the world through racial viewing lens. I just don't think it makes sense. You can't judge someone's opinion from ethnicity or even from their experiences alone. Everyone brings a different perspective, and that is valuable to have those perspectives, but it doesn't mean someone's opinion is worth more than another.

[fishwax]

98. of course I did -- that was pretty much my point

"likely" and "probably" when talking about a person of color, because the reality is that just from their ethnicity you can't know. It's an assumption. I think the analogy works well in that it is based off of someone's ethnicity. The assumption is that someone's color means they have certainly had a certain set of experiences, which isn't necessarily true.

Of course it’s an assumption, but it’s an assumption based on the history and continuing reality of racism in the United States. And of course I used words like “likely” and “probably” – because it’s likely and probable. :shrug:

Personally, I’m not going to make sweeping claims about all African Americans or all Hispanics or all Asian Americans. I use modifiers out of respect for the diversity of opinion and experience within those communities, and also to counter the assumptions of uniformity that are often made by voices from the dominant culture. Also (and this is a related point) I use these modifiers to counter the assumptions of absolutism with which you distorted Number23’s original point, such as suggesting that her assertion that minorities know more about racism necessarily means that all minorities should agree about any given issue. Finally, I generally try to avoid absolute statements in discussions like this, because I’m familiar with the tendency to point to some exception and pretend that this defeats the general rule, as you have done thus far.

Racism is an ideology. Experiencing it doesn't necessarily increase one's understanding of it.

Experiencing (or even participating in) systemic racism doesn’t necessarily require any knowledge or understanding of the ideology of racism. But experiencing a lifetime of systemic racism likely gives you an understanding of what racism looks like and feels like that those with a purely intellectual relationship to racism simply don’t have. Their opinion on whether or not a given situation is offensive or fits that pattern of racism is therefore an *informed* opinion in a way that the opinion of the typical white person simply can never be.

To disagree with the general assumption that minorities, who have experience dealing with racism, are more capable of identifying racism than the average white person, you would either have to believe that (a) all things being equal, experience carries no weight; or (b) people of color have some deficiency such that all things are not equal. The first is ridiculous—the second, obviously, profoundly offensive.

Of course it’s true that someone without *experience* can develop a deep understanding of the ideology (Tim Wise, for example). But when the intellectual relationship to racism as ideology is used to dismiss the experience of someone who has lived a relationship to racism as underlying social structure – well, that’s a problem.

As for your analogy to communism, the ideology of communism is a different animal from its institutionalization. The issue of “communism as ideology” is different from communism as practiced and experienced in the Soviet Regime, which is different from communism as practiced and experienced in Cambodia, and so on. Growing up under communism in Romania gives you a knowledge of communism as practiced and experienced in Romania. Studying Marx in college can’t really provide the same understanding. Of course, that doesn’t make the former’s opinion on politics or the free market in the United States inherently more valuable. Why would it?

What about loud and proud racists? Does being racist make one more able to discuss racism?

Why would it? :shrug:

Simply using a hammer doesn't give you any sense of what it is to be a nail.

[Number23]

103. Fantastic.

But experiencing a lifetime of systemic racism likely gives you an understanding of what racism looks like and feels like that those with a purely intellectual relationship to racism simply don’t have. Their opinion on whether or not a given situation is offensive or fits that pattern of racism is therefore an *informed* opinion in a way that the opinion of the typical white person simply can never be.

Music.

To disagree with the general assumption that minorities, who have experience dealing with racism, are more capable of identifying racism than the average white person, you would either have to believe that (a) all things being equal, experience carries no weight; or (b) people of color have some deficiency such that all things are not equal.

Poetry.

But when the intellectual relationship to racism as ideology is used to dismiss the experience of someone who has lived a relationship to racism as underlying social structure – well, that’s a problem.

A composition worthy of Shakespeare. Without question, one of the best posts I've seen here. I think I love you now.

[fishwax]

114. aw shucks, Number23

"A composition worthy of Shakespeare. Without question, one of the best posts I've seen here. I think I love you now."

You're too kind :blush::hi:

[MellowDem]

105. This is a false choice....

"To disagree with the general assumption that minorities, who have experience dealing with racism, are more capable of identifying racism than the average white person, you would either have to believe that (a) all things being equal, experience carries no weight; or (b) people of color have some deficiency such that all things are not equal. The first is ridiculous—the second, obviously, profoundly offensive. "

All things being equal, experience only carries as much weight as the argument it backs. And it is only one factor of many to consider in an opinion. It doesn't automatically confer that person with a special status all on its own. And how much experience do all minorities have? I'm guessing it varies. Using a general assumption (that will obviously be wrong in many cases) is a bad way to approach an opinion in an individual case. And automatically considering one opinion over another because of a person's ethnicity, without reasoning or anything else stated, is probably the worst way to approach any sort of discussion.

"Also (and this is a related point) I use these modifiers to counter the assumptions of absolutism with which you distorted Number23’s original point, such as suggesting that her assertion that minorities know more about racism necessarily means that all minorities should agree about any given issue."

I did not mean to attribute it to Number23, rather I was discussing the idea of the original post, with which she agreed with at least in part. My point was that if experience alone makes one's opinion "better", then how does one decide whose opinion is better among opinions that have equal experience behind them but opposite conclusions from them? You would have to look at the reasoning of their opinions then. I was pointing out that experience alone is not enough to decide whose opinion is better, there are a lot of other factors, hence why people, even with the same experience, will have differing opinions.

[fishwax]

111. lol -- actually, no it isn't a false choice

You're arguing that all things being equal, experience carries no weight. Unless, perhaps, the experience is used to support the argument that you would consider correct: "All things being equal, experience only carries as much weight as the argument it backs."

(This is pretty similar to a phenomenon that I talked about in my last post: "when the intellectual relationship to racism as ideology is used to dismiss the experience of someone who has lived a relationship to racism as underlying social structure – well, that’s a problem.")

And it is only one factor of many to consider in an opinion.

Did I miss the part where someone claimed that it was the only factor? :shrug:

It doesn't automatically confer that person with a special status all on its own. <...> And automatically considering one opinion over another because of a person's ethnicity, without reasoning or anything else stated, is probably the worst way to approach any sort of discussion.

Well, assuming that simply studying/observing a subject gives you an understanding of that subject that is equal or superior to that of those who have actually experienced it in their day-to-day lives for years is a pretty horrible way to approach a discussion.

That aside, living in America as a minority confers the "special status" of *knowing from experience what they're talking about when it comes to racism*. I don't think anyone has said that people who have experienced racism are *infallible* when it comes to their perception of or reaction to racism, and yet that's the argument that you insist on arguing against. Why is that?

I did not mean to attribute it to Number23, rather I was discussing the idea of the original post, with which she agreed with at least in part. My point was that if experience alone makes one's opinion "better", then how does one decide whose opinion is better among opinions that have equal experience behind them but opposite conclusions from them? You would have to look at the reasoning of their opinions then. I was pointing out that experience alone is not enough to decide whose opinion is better, there are a lot of other factors, hence why people, even with the same experience, will have differing opinions.

Right. This is what I meant when I commented that you distorted the logic of Number23's argument. Nothing about Number23's original statement suggested that two people with similar experience couldn't come to two different conclusions. What she said was: "a person's ethnicity does lend them more weight to discuss the issue." It does not follow from that statement that "a person's ethnicity determines whether they are right or wrong about the issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines how they will feel about an issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines whether or not we automatically accept whatever they say about the issue as fact." All of those are distortions.

[MellowDem]

116. Yes, it is a false choice...

and a rather obvious attempt to pigeonhole the discussion between two negative conclusions. I never have said that personal experiences should be "dismissed". They shouldn't be the only factor is all to determine how much weight an argument has.

"Did I miss the part where someone claimed that it was the only factor"

No, just some claims that it was enough on its own to give more or less weight to an opinion.

"Well, assuming that simply studying/observing a subject gives you an understanding of that subject that is equal or superior to that of those who have actually experienced it in their day-to-day lives for years is a pretty horrible way to approach a discussion."

Not really, there are so many different examples that could be used of how someone who studies and observes a subject gives them ample more understanding of it than people who have experienced in their day to day lives but never analyzed it or had access to resources to get more information beyond their own experiences on the subject. I've already said some.

"That aside, living in America as a minority confers the "special status" of *knowing from experience what they're talking about when it comes to racism*. I don't think anyone has said that people who have experienced racism are *infallible* when it comes to their perception of or reaction to racism, and yet that's the argument that you insist on arguing against. Why is that?"

Because that is what they would have to be, "infallible", in order to follow the logic that it's okay to assume from a person's ethnicity that they know what they are talking about when it comes to racism, or anything for that matter, better than others because of their ethnicity. It's a form of stereotyping as well.

"What she said was: "a person's ethnicity does lend them more weight to discuss the issue." It does not follow from that statement that "a person's ethnicity determines whether they are right or wrong about the issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines how they will feel about an issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines whether or not we automatically accept whatever they say about the issue as fact." All of those are distortions."

Where did I make those distortions you listed? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing against "the more weight" issue. I think I have used "better opinion" to describe it as well, though maybe not the best way to put it, I couldn't really think of anything else.

[fishwax]

117. no, not really

It's simple logic. if A = B and B= C then A = C.
A = B -- Minorities' opinions about racism are informed by experience in a way that the opinions of members of of the dominant culture are not.
B = C -- All things being equal, an opinion informed by experience carries more weight than an opinion that is not informed by experience.
A = C -- Therefore, as Number23 said way back when, a person's ethnicity does lend more weight to their discussion of the issue.

It seems to me that you've not really argued the first premise, so the conclusion must be true unless you deny the second premise, meaning that you either reject the notion that experience makes an opinion valuable (absurd) or reject the assumption that all else is equal (offensive).

"Well, assuming that simply studying/observing a subject gives you an understanding of that subject that is equal or superior to that of those who have actually experienced it in their day-to-day lives for years is a pretty horrible way to approach a discussion."

Not really, there are so many different examples that could be used of how someone who studies and observes a subject gives them ample more understanding of it than people who have experienced in their day to day lives but never analyzed it or had access to resources to get more information beyond their own experiences on the subject. I've already said some.

First, your comment doesn't really address what I was pointing out: that dismissing the experience of other people because their opinions don't match your own is not a good way to engage in discussion; the fact that some people have learned about a subject without directly experiencing that subject doesn't in any way negate what I said.

Second, so what? Nobody has claimed that experience is the *only* way to know about something.

And finally, as an aside, for someone who can't learn from their own experience but really wants to understand a subject better would do well to actually listen to (in other words, to give credence or weight to) the opinions of those who have. If someone claimed to have a deep understanding of an issue, but I found that they were in constant disagreement with people who had *experience*, I would probably come to doubt their assessment of their own understanding.

"That aside, living in America as a minority confers the "special status" of *knowing from experience what they're talking about when it comes to racism*. I don't think anyone has said that people who have experienced racism are *infallible* when it comes to their perception of or reaction to racism, and yet that's the argument that you insist on arguing against. Why is that?"

Because that is what they would have to be, "infallible", in order to follow the logic that it's okay to assume from a person's ethnicity that they know what they are talking about when it comes to racism, or anything for that matter, better than others because of their ethnicity. It's a form of stereotyping as well.

No. That doesn't follow the logic at all, anymore than saying that "studying about a subject makes your opinion about that subject more valuable" means the same as "studying about a subject makes your opinion about that subject infallible." This is a straw man.

"What she said was: "a person's ethnicity does lend them more weight to discuss the issue." It does not follow from that statement that "a person's ethnicity determines whether they are right or wrong about the issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines how they will feel about an issue" or "a person's ethnicity determines whether or not we automatically accept whatever they say about the issue as fact." All of those are distortions."

Where did I make those distortions you listed? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing against "the more weight" issue. I think I have used "better opinion" to describe it as well, though maybe not the best way to put it, I couldn't really think of anything else.

You've been theoretically arguing against the "more weight" issue by repeatedly tilting at a more absolutist straw man. (See the example in the excerpt above this one.) Number23 said quite clearly way back when she first articulated her position that a person's ethnicity is "an important factor." She didn't say that it's the only factor.

[MellowDem]

118. Yes, really

"It's simple logic. if A = B and B= C then A = C.
A = B -- Minorities' opinions about racism are informed by experience in a way that the opinions of members of of the dominant culture are not.
B = C -- All things being equal, an opinion informed by experience carries more weight than an opinion that is not informed by experience.
A = C -- Therefore, as Number23 said way back when, a person's ethnicity does lend more weight to their discussion of the issue. "

You would have to assume that an individual minority has those experiences, for one, which is the first flaw. Second, all opinions are informed by experience, it just depends on what type of experience, which generally leads to different perspectives. Experiencing racism is only one of many experiences one can have with regards to the issue of race. A different perspective is not a "better" perspective. Third, you have to assume that a dominant culture's own experience is somehow invaluable or not part of the equation of race, and therefore their perspective is somehow worth "less".

"And finally, as an aside, for someone who can't learn from their own experience but really wants to understand a subject better would do well to actually listen to (in other words, to give credence or weight to) the opinions of those who have. If someone claimed to have a deep understanding of an issue, but I found that they were in constant disagreement with people who had *experience*, I would probably come to doubt their assessment of their own understanding."

Perhaps you don't see it, but you are arguing about perspective. I can learn from my own experiences, I won't have the same experiences, but it informs a different perspective. Perspectives are not "greater" or "lesser", they just are. If anyone claimed they had a deeper understanding than others because of their own experiences, and nothing else, I would come to doubt their assessment of their own understanding as well. Others have experiences and different perspectives.

"No. That doesn't follow the logic at all, anymore than saying that "studying about a subject makes your opinion about that subject more valuable" means the same as "studying about a subject makes your opinion about that subject infallible." This is a straw man."

It does when it is deemed to be an absolute, which it has been. You have acknowledged it is a general assumption to say that minorities know more about racism because they have experienced it. But the original idea was that only from knowing a person's ethnicity, you can already start judging an opinion. Judging an opinion from assumptions is not good logic to me.

"You've been theoretically arguing against the "more weight" issue by repeatedly tilting at a more absolutist straw man. (See the example in the excerpt above this one.) Number23 said quite clearly way back when she first articulated her position that a person's ethnicity is "an important factor." She didn't say that it's the only factor."

Here's her quote from the beginning:

"'Cause I'm a firm believer that people who have personal experiences with racism are much more qualified to denote what is and is not racist than those who have never experienced it."

That seems pretty absolutist to me. You would think that loud and proud racists would be the most qualified if that's the case.

[fishwax]

127. "more" =/= "exclusively"

You would have to assume that an individual minority has those experiences, for one, which is the first flaw. Second, all opinions are informed by experience, it just depends on what type of experience, which generally leads to different perspectives. Experiencing racism is only one of many experiences one can have with regards to the issue of race. A different perspective is not a "better" perspective. Third, you have to assume that a dominant culture's own experience is somehow invaluable or not part of the equation of race, and therefore their perspective is somehow worth "less".

It's not a flaw to assume that those in the minority have experienced racism--it's just an understanding of history and of continuing institutionalized racism, as well as a function of paying attention to what people of color say about their experience in these United States. That doesn't mean that everyone's experience is the same. But when a person of color is discussing whether or not a specific comment, object, or event is offensive, it's not a flawed assumption to recognize that they've likely experienced racism. And yes, a different type of experience/perspective *is* better, depending on the situation at hand. For instance, if the topic is identifying the symptoms of structural instability in a home, then experience building and inspecting a home is "better" than experience cooking seafood. If the issue is identifying racism, then experience dealing with racism is particularly relevant, and "experience" makes for a more informed opinion than "not experience." Pretty simple, really.

Perhaps you don't see it, but you are arguing about perspective. I can learn from my own experiences, I won't have the same experiences, but it informs a different perspective. Perspectives are not "greater" or "lesser", they just are. If anyone claimed they had a deeper understanding than others because of their own experiences, and nothing else, I would come to doubt their assessment of their own understanding as well. Others have experiences and different perspectives.

Of course I'm arguing about perspective. Of course you can learn from your own experiences. But different experiences provide different types of knowledge, and different experiences/perspectives/knowledge are of different relevance depending on the question. And if the situation is "is x an example of racism," then "experience dealing with racism" provides a benefit that "no experience dealing with racism" does not.

It does when it is deemed to be an absolute, which it has been.

Again: "more qualified" does not equal "exclusively qualified." "Important factor" does not equal "only factor." And "lend them more weight" does not mean "make them infallible." Not in any way. Pretending otherwise is silly.

Number23 said "In that case, the race of the person is an important factor." You responded, essentially, by saying *That's not true! There are other factors!*

[MellowDem]

134. "Are"

"It's not a flaw to assume that those in the minority have experienced racism--it's just an understanding of history and of continuing institutionalized racism, as well as a function of paying attention to what people of color say about their experience in these United States. That doesn't mean that everyone's experience is the same. But when a person of color is discussing whether or not a specific comment, object, or event is offensive, it's not a flawed assumption to recognize that they've likely experienced racism. And yes, a different type of experience/perspective *is* better, depending on the situation at hand. For instance, if the topic is identifying the symptoms of structural instability in a home, then experience building and inspecting a home is "better" than experience cooking seafood. If the issue is identifying racism, then experience dealing with racism is particularly relevant, and "experience" makes for a more informed opinion than "not experience." Pretty simple, really."

I don't think the analogy works, because everyone in the US has experienced the reality of race and racism. It's just a different perspective of the same general experience. So a more proper analogy may be that one person has experience in home building, but particularly in kitchen installations, and another has experience in home building, but particularly in plumbing. I can't say that one is necessarily better than another. To me, following your logic, open racists really would be the most qualified in determining what is and isn't racism. They live it, breathe it, speak it, believe in it. Racists would be the professionals of identifying the symptoms of structural instability in a home.

"Of course I'm arguing about perspective. Of course you can learn from your own experiences. But different experiences provide different types of knowledge, and different experiences/perspectives/knowledge are of different relevance depending on the question. And if the situation is "is x an example of racism," then "experience dealing with racism" provides a benefit that "no experience dealing with racism" does not."

But everyone has experiences dealing with race and racism, so I guess that doesn't really work. It's just different perspectives. They are all equally important in understanding the experience as a whole. Can you honestly tell me that no one has been touched by race or racism? I don't see how downplaying some perspectives and playing up others helps create better understanding.

"Again: "more qualified" does not equal "exclusively qualified." "Important factor" does not equal "only factor." And "lend them more weight" does not mean "make them infallible." Not in any way. Pretending otherwise is silly.
Number23 said "In that case, the race of the person is an important factor." You responded, essentially, by saying *That's not true! There are other factors!*"

The "absoluteness" I am referring to is not in what you are saying. It's right here:

"Cause I'm a firm believer that people who have personal experiences with racism are much more qualified to denote what is and is not racist than those who have never experienced it."

That's what I was arguing about. And I never said that she meant "exclusively qualified" or "only factor", but I was arguing that that would mean that that one factor by itself would "lend weight" to the argument without even considering other factors, by that logic. So if a black person and white person were discussing whether this OP was or wasn't an instance of racism, one would automatically think that the black person's opinion held more weight from knowing that alone, and nothing else. Because the white person couldn't have experienced racism (at least not in the same way, though of course living in this society leads everyone to have had to deal with race and racism from some perspective or other).

What I'm intersted in how you would do it between two different minorities? What if a Hispanic and a black person were arguing about whether some comment was racist towards Asians. Who would you automatically give the weight of the argument to, just knowing that? Or, would you not infer anything only from that information alone and wait to hear their arguments from their different perspectives? (The "you" isn't referring to you literally of course). I just find it a curious excercise of logic that doesn't hold up. And not very helpful when discussing issues of race or racism.

*On edit: How do you quote like that? Sorry it is hard to probably read this well.

[fishwax]

135. no, it's not the case that everyone has experienced the reality of race and racism

And even more absurd to suggest that everyone has an equal amount of experience with race and racism and that the only difference is in the type of experience. That's laughable. The fact is that white people don't really have to think about race or their relationship to race and racism if they don't want to, and I don't think it's the case that white people have all experienced racism. Some may have experienced personal acts of racism, but that's different from systemic racism. Getting your feelings hurt is not the same as having your rights and/or your humanity denied. And watching a situation in which someone is a victim of racist behavior is not "just a different perspective of the same general experience" as actually being a victim of racist behavior.

So the idea that "It's just a different perspective of the same general experience" is silly beyond belief. Frankly, the suggestions that African Americans and white Americans have had the same American experience, and that they just have a different perspective of that same general experience reveals a profound cluelessness that would likely be offensive if it weren't so difficult to take seriously.

And no, once again, racists don't have experience recognizing, reacting to, and dealing with racism. Swinging a hammer doesn't give you any sense of what it's like to be a nail. Punching someone in the face doesn't give you experience with being punched in the face.

That's what I was arguing about. And I never said that she meant "exclusively qualified" or "only factor", but I was arguing that that would mean that that one factor by itself would "lend weight" to the argument without even considering other factors, by that logic. So if a black person and white person were discussing whether this OP was or wasn't an instance of racism, one would automatically think that the black person's opinion held more weight from knowing that alone, and nothing else. Because the white person couldn't have experienced racism (at least not in the same way, though of course living in this society leads everyone to have had to deal with race and racism from some perspective or other).

Yes, of course that one factor would lend weight to that person's opinion. That doesn't preclude the possibility that there are other factors that could do likewise for differing opinions. And saying that a person's experience lends weight to their opinion doesn't mean that you turn off your brain to all other factors of their argument or that their ethnicity is the only factor you use in evaluating what they are saying.

"What I'm intersted in how you would do it between two different minorities? What if a Hispanic and a black person were arguing about whether some comment was racist towards Asians. Who would you automatically give the weight of the argument to, just knowing that? Or, would you not infer anything only from that information alone and wait to hear their arguments from their different perspectives? (The "you" isn't referring to you literally of course). I just find it a curious excercise of logic that doesn't hold up. And not very helpful when discussing issues of race or racism."

This, too, is kind of silly, MellowDem. The fact that two people have a certain expertise about a given subject doesn't mean that they will necessarily agree about everything related to that subject. But disagreement between experts doesn't negate the reality or the value of expertise. :shrug:

[MellowDem]

139. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

"And even more absurd to suggest that everyone has an equal amount of experience with race and racism and that the only difference is in the type of experience. That's laughable. The fact is that white people don't really have to think about race or their relationship to race and racism if they don't want to, and I don't think it's the case that white people have all experienced racism. Some may have experienced personal acts of racism, but that's different from systemic racism. Getting your feelings hurt is not the same as having your rights and/or your humanity denied. And watching a situation in which someone is a victim of racist behavior is not "just a different perspective of the same general experience" as actually being a victim of racist behavior.

So the idea that "It's just a different perspective of the same general experience" is silly beyond belief. Frankly, the suggestions that African Americans and white Americans have had the same American experience, and that they just have a different perspective of that same general experience reveals a profound cluelessness that would likely be offensive if it weren't so difficult to take seriously.

And no, once again, racists don't have experience recognizing, reacting to, and dealing with racism. Swinging a hammer doesn't give you any sense of what it's like to be a nail. Punching someone in the face doesn't give you experience with being punched in the face."

All I am saying is that by simply living in a racialized society, everyone has experience and perspective of some sort when it comes to race. If you are white and see minorities on a daily basis, you likely do have to think about race, and that's a lot of whites. And even if you grew up on a farm in a small community that's always been all white, you still see race and racism in the media. Everyone is aware of it and has their own experiences and perspectives of it. Just because a white person's isn't always going to be as first-hand in having to deal with racism doesn't mean that it's not a valuable perspective. After all, everyone is part of the solution. If you leave out a white person's perspective who grew up on a farm, they may never gain a greater understanding of race, or the racial dynamics of a city environment, or about suburbia and white flight. And minorities may never understand the obstacles that face many rural whites in understanding race like they do because of circumstances or enivronment, or be able to counter any misconceptions they may have, or change their own perceptions of rural whites, etc. etc. There is a lot to be potentially learned.

And you could say the same about victim's of racism not having experienced what it's like to be the hammer. Or being the puncher. Believe it or not, that's a perspective as well, and one that has to be dealt with unfortunately. And who better to know why racists act like they do than former racists themselves? Their fears and reasoning, their lack of information and misunderstanding and hate. But is it a perspective that should be raised above all others? I think that would be silly and counterproductive.

"This, too, is kind of silly, MellowDem. The fact that two people have a certain expertise about a given subject doesn't mean that they will necessarily agree about everything related to that subject. But disagreement between experts doesn't negate the reality or the value of expertise"

Well, it is silly because it's just an example I suppose to point out that that logic isn't very helpful. If white's perspectives can automatically be discounted because of their different experiences and less experience of dealing with being on the receiving end of racism in general, shouldn't other races as well? Asians have it relatively well in this country, and generally may not have to experience race or racism nearly as much as blacks, so should their opinions be on a level that's above whites but below all others? And maybe Hispanics in-between Asians and blacks? It would make sense to me, from general assumptions about race, that this might be a good order to put them in. And what if a person is half-black and half-white? Perhaps all this shows is that it is a rather futile excercise to judge an individual's arguments from race alone and you're better off trying to hear the different opinions and perspectives first. You might be very surprised by what you hear.

It has been my experience that when it comes to discussions about race, assuming anything beforehand because of the race of the participants is a bad and unhelpful idea. I understand that you are saying all factors should be considered, but why do you insist on saying that it's ok to assume from race alone a person's perspectives, experiences, and weight of opinion before they have even spoke? If people feel that they are being judged before they even speak on a subject it makes them uncomfortable. Not all blacks may feel like they are "experts" on race and may feel uncomfortable with the idea that whites think that and they must live up to that assumption. And not all whites grew up racially isolated and may feel like they have an understanding of race and racism and a perspective that could be valuable that they want to share.

[Raineyb]

101. Your "logic" is as per usual completely faulty.

Why is it that whenever we talk about race and people talk about using an "unbiased" approach as though the experience of having experience racism makes one unqualified to 1. recognize it when they see it and 2. understand what needs to happen to keep it from reoccurring. The only people who talk of "unbiased" look at race are white people who are basically looking to tell black people to STFU about race because it makes them uncomfortable. By your "logic" white people are more qualified to discuss race because they don't have any emotions behind it, not having actually experienced it. Meanwhile you ignore the rather blatant bias of the "unbiased" in that they don't really want to discuss race in the first place and use this Spockesque look for logic as a means to quash any discussion of it in the first place.

I won't even go into the whole "my Puerto Rican wife agrees with me so I must have some cred" as though Puerto Ricans and other Latinos don't have their own damn issues with race.

[MellowDem]

109. Not at all...

I think that whites have biases as well. Everyone does. I don't think that experiencing racism automatically makes a person unqualified any more than it makes them qualified. Whites are not necessarily more qualified to discuss race at all. Everyone has some sort of experience and emotion associated with it. You mention feeling uncomfortable, and I imagine many whites do. No one is "unbiased", it is just a good way to try to approach an opinion.

To me, if someone says that minorities automatically have opinions that matter more on race because of general assumptions, that is a great way to shut down discussion. Why should the whites, whose opinion is automatically worth less regardless of their reasoning or personal experiences, even want to participate in such a discussion? If their opinion is already worth less, I would think they would be uncomfortable entering into such a conversation. Many would feel they should sit on the sidelines and see what minorities say and take them on their word, or maybe they'll just ignore such discussions.

[fishwax]

112. bwahaha -- one reason that whites might want to participate in such a discussion is to *learn*

Why should the whites, whose opinion is automatically worth less regardless of their reasoning or personal experiences, even want to participate in such a discussion?

If you're interested in actually learning what racism in America looks like and feels like in practice, such a discussion might be useful, yes?

:think: :shrug:

[MellowDem]

115. I fully agree..

but if they enter the discussion on unequal terms, that might discourage them. It's not really a discussion then as much as a one way street.

[Raineyb]

119. How else would they enter the discussion. You cannot enter a discussion based on experience on

equal terms without having had the experience. That should not preclude someone from entering the discussion. It only precludes those who can't stand to have to actually learn something from those black and brown people who for all the talk of equality a good number of white people don't think could possibly know more on any subject than they do.

[MellowDem]

124. Everyone has experience and perspective...

so to expect whites to enter a discussion on unequal footing because they have a different perspective makes no sense. If you truly believe that productive race discussions can take place on unequal footing, I can tell you that it hasn't worked these past 50 or so years very well. Mutual understanding and sharing perspectives have, not to mention much greater interaction than before. It causes many whites to feel as angry as you are, that there are brown and black people who don't possibly think a white person's opinion is worth anything. And it defenitely causes many to avoid racial discussions like the plauge. Not because they are racists per se, as you imply. Believe it or not, minorities can learn from whites and vice versa. But the only way that will happen is to have equal footing. "Unequal" and "racial discussions" don't seem to go together very well.

[Raineyb]

125. It seems to be plenty fine when you think it's black people on the short end of that equality

stick.

Look, if you don't have an experience you don't have it. It's not a slam on you it's just not something you had to deal with but to pretend that something you read in a book makes what you think you know equal to the actual experience is ridiculous. But the unequal knowledge doesn't mean that a person's input isn't wanted or welcomed but it does mean that it would behoove them not to try to tell someone what they experienced isn't what the person says they experienced. This happens all the time in discussions of race. You have white people telling black people something they experienced wasn't racism as though they were there. And then you wonder why people get pissed? You cannot go into a conversation about racism with a black person as a white person and tell them that what they say they experienced isn't what they said it was. You just can't. If that's a problem for you then it says a hell of a lot more about you and your attitude than it does about the person who dares expect you to respect them enough not to tell them what they experienced.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?

[MellowDem]

132. I was talking about third party experiences...

like this story in the OP. Personally, I don't think that a white person should "tell" a black person that their personal experiences weren't based on racism. I think that would come across as insensitive and rude, to say the least. But I would hope that if that white person did not agree that it was an instance of racism, that they would feel that they could speak up in a respectful manner and express their opinion and why they thought that, which I believe is quite possible, so that they can hear the perspective of the person who experienced racism and vice versa. They may not end up agreeing, but it would definitely be a learning experience at the least. What would be worst is for the white person to disagree in their head and never learn anything that might change their perspective and ultimately their opinion or even the other person's perspective that experienced it. That probably happens far more often than not.

[Raineyb]

138. Third party experience? Like when a newspaper puts out a blatantly

racist cartoon and people declare it's not racist as though the use of a monkey as a stand in for black people in this country never happened and worse lecture people about "overuse" of the accusation of being racist?

Lot of white people telling black people they didn't know what they were talking about then too. So your point about 3rd parties doesn't really cut it.

[goclark]

46. I'm African American and I find his

"fascination" with our culture to be a concern.

[immoderate]

61. American music is African American music...

I think that musicians realize that they are standing on the the shoulders of black forebears, some of them are, and should be self conscious about it.

--imm

[texastoast]

129. Was it a subject in the conversation?

I have trouble about the PC line and facts.

For instance, can I identify the "ethnicity" of my hair products? When someone asks me where I get what I use on my hair, I can't tell them, "Oh, by the Pantene products." I say, "In the ethnic section," because that is where they are, and not just in Texas.

[NM_hemilover]

15. I just liked the words Playboy, ignite and twitter...giggity giggity

[Whisp]

36. agreed

in fuller context of his words no way he is a racist for using the N word. jesus christ some people are simple minded here and just willing to jump on any fucking bandwagon that rolls by.

[zonkers]

93. I totally agree with you.

[NashVegas]

97. People Shouldn't Try to Look Into an Artist's Mind If They Can't Stand Brutal Honesty

[TroglodyteScholar]

113. I agree. He may be frank and tactless, but racist he isn't. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

10. I must be reading it the wrong way.

He seems to be saying that he is accepted in the black community (I have a hood pass) but as a white guy he can never really claim to be part of that community because he doesn't face discrimination (being turned away at the restaurant) and obviously isn't a black man, as it would never be acceptable for him to call his "hood pass" a "n***** pass". Of course there is an ongoing debate in this country even in the African American community about the use of the N word by African Americans themselves, but many people agree that use of the word by black people is not the same has if a white guy like him were to use it. I believe that was where he was going there. I don't see him calling someone a "nigger". I have to be honest I barely know who this guy is, but other than the foolishness about his privates, which was i assume intended to be self deprecating humor, I didn't see that as a racist rant. But being a middle aged white guy myself, my take on the whole thing doesn't have much importance.

[Number23]

11. I'm black and I never heard of him

He sounds like an idiot.

Although a part of me agrees with what he said about black people taking our daily struggles and finding a way to make them work or else we'd die inside.

[4lbs]

16. He's a popular singer whose biggest claim to fame the past several years has been as actress

Jennifer Aniston's post-Brad Pitt boyfriend.

They are no longer together. Mayer is now dating Jessica Simpson after she was dumped by Tony Romo (QB of the Dallas Cowboys).

[Shell Beau]

35. No actually the gossip is that he is messing with Taylor Swift.

Gotta love Hollyweird.

[Whisp]

39. I think he's a very talented musician

so put me on ignore or ostracize me for saying that.

[xchrom]

13. Didn't read what he said as racist. Nt

[Schema Thing]

14. His comments are complementary of Black people

quote:

MAYER: What is being black? It’s making the most of your life, not taking a single moment for granted. Taking something that’s seen as a struggle and making it work for you, or you'll die inside. Not to say that my struggle is like the collective struggle of black America. But maybe my struggle is similar to one black dude's.



And if he's not sexually attracted to Black women, well, his loss; but as he said, it's his dick, not his heart.


I'd say he's a douchebag (at least when he's drunk), but not a racist douchebag.

[goclark]

81. I believe that a "racist" remark is in the ear of the listener

Your ear may hear it differently than mine.

I still believe his remarks and his drinking need a check up.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goclark]

86. I'll stick with my beliefs

Quoting You~~~
"Millions of black people aren't bothered in the least by the word "nigger" in certain context."

I happen to be African American and "the context" that you referred to is certainly not reality for my people. We may call each other that because WE are FAMILY.

I would invite you to walk down the street in an African American neighborhood and start calling people that name and see how far you get. Enjoy your ride to the hospital on that one!

I've taught classes on Race Relations and have received Awards in the Field.

[Blue Owl]

18. I'd be happy

if I never heard a John Mayer song the rest of my life.


:puke: :puke: :puke:

[asdjrocky]

19. I'm a white guy that lives in the hood.

I have my pass. Most of my friends are black or Latino. Most of them call me White Rock. It's been my name almost all my life whenever I'm here.

I'm not reading this stuff as racist. I'm reading a guy that says he has always been attracted to white woman. That's not unusual, I've been attracted to all colors but it is not the same for all people. My friend Andre? He's never been with a black woman, and he's black.

We're all attracted to different types. Hell, I went through a blond with big breasts phase that nearly killed me.

To each his/her own.

All that being said, don't think much of his music and I think he's basically a good looking doughhead.

[cali]

26. I don't think he's terribly good looking and I like his music

the guy can definitely play the guitar.

[asdjrocky]

31. You know Cali,

I've been told I'm better looking and I play the guitar better too.

Just throwing it out there. :hi:

[tnlefty]

45. This post demands pics...

just sayin'...:evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

21. "My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Beneton heart and a fuckin David Duke cock"

PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?

MAYER: I don't think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Benetton heart and a fuckin' David Duke cock. I'm going to start dating separately from my dick.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=56999

[cali]

24. I cannot stop laughing over that. I just can't.

[MadBadger]

25. I think his comments were fucking ignorant and stupid...but not racist.

[customerserviceguy]

28. Maybe he should just go back

to writing songs about women's bodies being amusement parks, or whatever it was he did...

[TexasObserver]

29. He really went off the rails.

PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?

MAYER: I don't think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Benetton heart and a fuckin' David Duke cock. I'm going to start dating separately from my dick.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=56999#ixzz0fBIXlYrW


He can forget that "black people love me" shit.

[MellowDem]

30. Racist? No...

Although maybe you would have to be there, a lot of his comments seemed tounge-in-cheek or were aimed to be humorous. Like calling his dick a white supremacist because he's never been with a black woman. If anything, he praises blacks as a whole, which of course can come across as ignorant, because whenever you praise a group as a whole, you have to generalize a lot, which can lead to some ignorant things being said.

If anything, it shows that referring to "whites" or "blacks" and then saying general statements, no matter how positive they seem on face, will always be offensive to some and will of course always be seen as somewhat ignorant and wrong, since race is just a made up social idea that has no real meaning beyond racists.

[gratuitous]

32. Wait, somebody read Playboy for an article?

This should be pinned to the top of LBN.

[JeffR]

62. DUzy

:spray:

[retread]

34. Who? n/t

[Shell Beau]

37. He is obviously comfortable using the n-word, and I don't get that.

Maybe he feels accepted enough by his black friends to use it??? I don't know. It is never right to use the word, but I don't think he was being racist. Or he wasn't intending to be. Just dumb for using that word. But, what do I know. Sometimes you never know what is in someone's heart.

[blondeatlast]

41. Drunk and given a free pass to run off at the mouth. He's just another asshole--

and I've never heard of him before.

[cali]

44. well if you're curious...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvu1AOnUIw&feature=channel

[name not needed]

43. This is why you don't discuss racial issues when drunk.

[marmar]

48. I don't think he was trying to be racist, but "ni**er pass" is racist.....

I think he thinks he's more "down" than he actually is, and could probably stand an African American Studies class or two. ..... Clearly he needs to lay off the sauce.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. He's As Tedious A Person As He Is A Performer

I admit i never got why he became anything. I find him tedious and boring, and now he's a jerk too.

I guess i had him pegged right, all along.
GAC

[opiate69]

53. +1

[CBR]

51. Nothing is ever considered racist on DU unless a conservative says it. nt

[fishwax]

52. sometimes, oddly, not even then n/t

[Renew Deal]

55. BULLSHIT!

It's also always racist if a cop does it. :shrug:

[Toasterlad]

56. Wrong Spot

[The Wielding Truth]

54. He was talking as if it were just one drunk guy to another. Nothing harmful here.

He is comfortable with black friends and fans, maybe too comfortable when he talks as if he were actually free to comment about his lack of physical fulfillment for those fans who the interviewer says are throwing themselves at him.

He was loose and too open to "drunk man" talk.It was sloppy, but not evil. It's been taken into places it should not have been taken.Like a fart presented on netwark tv.

[Toasterlad]

57. I Don't Get to Decide If Other People Should Be Offended By John Mayer.

I, personally, was not offended. I think, if you take what he said in context, that he didn't mean any ill will. But the matter is certainly open to interpretation.

Whatever the truth, I'll bet he wishes he could have that interview back.

[rufus dog]

60. My take on Mayer

Actually a great guitar player

Racist? Not confirmed

Douchebag? Confirmed

[Blue_Tires]

63. not so much racist as boorish, crude and insensitive...

with some differently chosen words, he could have gotten his point across just the same...(but god forbid he say anything mundane and uninteresting to the reading public)

this is what happens when someone needs a lot of liquid courage to give what he thinks is a cliched "edgy, provocative, no-holds-barred" interview to fortify his 'street cred'...

[AndrewP]

99. +1

[texastoast]

120. +2 n/t

[cbdo2007]

65. Here's a youtube of Mayer playing with Clapton on "Crossroads"

Excellent guitar work from both...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh4n1bZi4d8

[rufus dog]

68. the dude has great talent

and your clip is very illuminating. Clapton makes it look easy, not a whole lot of show, he is just great, Mayer plays it up. Now I am a big Dave Matthews fan who, truth be told is half the guitar player of Mayer. But if you ask me to spend $50 on a Mayer concert or $250 on a DMB concert it is no contest. I don't want to run through the halls of my High School...
That being said I understand why people like Mayer, he has talent, if he could just get past that Jessica Simspon, flavor of the week bullshit, he could become a legend.

[cbdo2007]

70. Actually....the LIVE John Mayer is completely different from the radio/MTV

John Mayer.

I started listening to him when he first came out because, of course, my girlfriend at the time (now wife) was listening to him a lot. Decent songwriter, schmaltzy voice, worst guitar/singing face EVER.

So we went to see him in concert....dude was F'ing Amazing! Seriously, you'd almost think it was Stevie Ray Vaughn (sp?) up there. Really, he was that good. Blues solos and riffing and lightening changes....ok, maybe I'm embellishing a tiny bit, but he is seriously an excellent guitar player. Excellent! He could really be one of the great guitar players of our generation if he would quit writing these shitty, pop, bubblegum songs but hey, it gets him women and makes him lots of money. Maybe he needs a good heroin habit? Who knows. :)

I've seen John Mayer now 3 times in concert and each time he didn't dissappoint. I'm a guitar guy too, love the Jimi and old Clapton and that stuff. Oh well...he is kind of an asshole though, but what great musician isn't? ha ha

Oh yeah, he did this stuff a few years ago called the John Mayer Trio which was just him and drummer and bass player and he toured like that and put out an album. It was way more bluesy than his commercial stuff. You might enjoy...

[CrownPrinceBandar]

91. Its great to hear both of them play on that video............

You can hear their different influences, ans well as their time periods in their soloing. Clapton was very traditional blues ala Howlin' Wolf and Buddy Guy. Very much old blues. Whereas Mayer's tone and style sounds more like modern/Texas blues in the stylings predominantly of Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmy Vaughan and Billy Gibbons.

That said, Mayer needs to lay off the sauce when he's being interviewed.

[cbdo2007]

96. Good ear - I watched another Youtube video last night of Mayer

called "200 Guitars" I think where it talks about some of his collection and his current guitar technician was the same one who was Stevie Ray Vaughan's guitar tech. He basically was saying that Mayer is today's SRV and the influence of SRV is blatant.

[donheld]

67. I still love Johnny

[whatchamacallit]

69. The shit he said creeped me out.

He's prettier than me, but I beat his ass down on the guitar.

[Lindsey]

71. I've never understood what people see in this guy. Not only

is his music not what I'm into, he has a horrible reputation. I think he's a total bastard and I don't care about the context pertaining to him using the N word. It's unacceptable. It's sad that Jennifer Aniston wasted so much time on this jerk. His ego is beyond belief. What a creep.

[earth mom]

80. I totally agree. He's a scummy guy who talks and behaves like an immature teenager.

:puke:

[texastoast]

123. Sorry, but I think that John

knew that Jennifer would take back Brad over him in a heartbeat. I can't slight him for realizing that.

That said, when I saw John in concert, it was very evident that he had a big ego. In this culture, a big ego and a big dick get you a long (forgive) way with some folks.

[texastoast]

121. Sombich

You must be really, really good.

:loveya:

[Lilyeye]

72. I love his music, but his a total jackass.

His comments about Jennifer and Jessica were also tacky and stupid.

[omega minimo]

74. A "David Duke cock" and a Dukes of Hazzard brain

[BlueIris]

75. DUzy!

Nice.

[omega minimo]

76. Prolly jumps in the car without opening the door and wonders why his head hurts.

:banghead:

[cali]

77. he's not remotely stupid. he is someone who doesn't seem to edit himself

at all.

[BlueIris]

78. And then wonders why African Americans don't rush up with cold compresses to help. nt

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guitar man]

82. what a dumbass

As a musician who has worked with a lot of black performers over the years I can attest to the familiarity that occurs within the group, inside jokes, running gags etc. that we have used as a way to get past our racist upbringings etc. Things that we would say to each other in the practice room or other private spaces and what we would say and how we would act in public were two different things entirely.


I have a feeling John has probably experienced the same thing and in a possibly drunken moment let it spill out in a very public way in this interview. Dumbass....:eyes:

[cali]

85. best post of the thread. drinking scotch while being interviewed is a stupid thing

to do.

[guitar man]

87. Exactly

The things that Ray, Curley and I said to each other were uproariously funny to us and our hangers on and insiders because we all got the joke and understood the context. It was bonding. But we always knew when to curb it because outsiders just wouldn't get it. We were brothers, still are....damn, now I have to call those guys and see how they are doing :)

[derby378]

84. Mayer should lay off the scotch

Seriously.

[Romulox]

88. This guy's a mediocre musician with a BRILLIANT publicist.

I don't believe for a second that these remarks weren't premeditated, btw.

[tilsammans]

89. Good guitar player. Shitty singer.

ASSHOLE of a person, drunk or not.

:puke:

[bigtree]

92. racist comments? probably.

Offensive? Not to me. I just don't get the sense of animosity or superiority from Mayer that I usually associate with racists and racist comments. Insensitive? Yes. But, my skin just isn't that thin*. Call it experience or call it coping. I live in a world of co-workers who actually manage to balance statements similar to these with genuine affection for each other. That's my world. I can understand, though if some folks are just full-up of these types of expressions and discourse and just condemn it.

[Tailormyst]

95. I have no idea who that guy is, but wow is he a pig.

[SidDithers]

100. John Mayer on Chappelle's Show...

White people can't dance

http://vimeo.com/8213736

Sid

[zaj]

104. Racial Racist

He's a white man pointing out that he can't use the world "nigger" no matter how many black friends he has. His problem was he thought he could use the term "nigger" instead of "n-word" as he was explaining it. Not remotely racist in anything he said.

[misanthrope]

106. Whatever...

...This guy's just grabbing p.r. off of this. He has to have something to pump up the mediocre, suburban ear pudding he churns out. Seriously, the world is full of Hendrix wannabe/SRV clones who can play everything this guy does. I've seen enough of them myself and the Southern rock/boot scootin' blues circuit is eaten up with them.

[Sultana]

126. Racist bitch

*throws him under the bus*

[marshall]

133. He probably thought readers of a sexist mag like Playboy would have no problem with a little racism

Hate is hate.

[Luciferous]

136. The guy is a douchebag, but I don't think he's really a racist.