3 ms·

So you're saying it's purpose in the comment was to accuse the officer of 'racism.' That's silly. What purpose is served by accusing the officer of racism in

by cb18 10y ago

So you're saying it's purpose in the comment was to accuse the officer of 'racism.' That's silly. What purpose is served by accusing the officer of racism in the comment? Is it some kind of weird virtue signalling, like "she's racist! but not me, I'm a good guy!" Furthermore, if we agree that the subtext is the officer is being accused of racism, there is in fact no basis for that accusation. Noticing a facet of reality and verbalizing it, is emphatically not racism. It might be 'racism' of the sort that everybody is desperately searching for in every nook and cranny to hang their ideologies on, but it's not actually racism. (what I find confounding, is that from reading your comment, the officer hasn't just been accused, but in your mind seems to be fully guilty and worthy of condemnation, based on the evidence that she simply spoke what she had observed. so strange...)

GavinMcG 10y ago
> It might be 'racism' of the sort that everybody is desperately searching for in every nook and cranny to hang their ideologies on It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this! I wasn't there, so I don't know if it was racism. But the author's inclusion communicated to me that the police officer was racist. The author could have made that more clear by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]" but following the principle of charity makes me think the author found it relevant, and I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist. If the officer had just said "black gangs" or "Mexican gangs" or something like that, then maybe the author read too much into it. But the author was the one that was there, and who heard everything else the officer said, and clearly thought that the racial bit was worth communicating. So why automatically dismiss that?
- cb18 10y ago
  If the officer had just said "black gangs" or "Mexican gangs" or something like that, then maybe the author read too much into it. I thought it was something exactly along those lines, not necessarily one of those two groups, but something along those lines given that 'mexican' and 'black' are common descriptions for ethnic groups in the US. by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]" What do you think 'ethnic group' means? An ethnicity is not an epithet, there's really no connection between the two at all, other than an epithet is a mean name people might call people. And all people happen to be of one ethnicity or another. communicated to me that the police officer was racist. Given the weight that some people give to such a charge in today's society, you're really doing no one any one favors by being so brash and cavalier in handing it out, given the paucity of evidence. Even OP should be very cautious with such a label given such a brief interaction. I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist No we don't, I think you may be confused about what an ethnic group is, or the meaning of the term. There is nothing racist about using the proper name for a group of people. It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this! I really should get better at self-editing, I notice how people will commonly grab onto to one little minor supporting snippet of a post while ignoring the real substance of what's been written.

by cb18 10y ago

GavinMcG 10y ago

> It might be 'racism' of the sort that everybody is desperately searching for in every nook and cranny to hang their ideologies on It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this! I wasn't there, so I don't know if it was racism. But the author's inclusion communicated to me that the police officer was racist. The author could have made that more clear by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]" but following the principle of charity makes me think the author found it relevant, and I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist. If the officer had just said "black gangs" or "Mexican gangs" or something like that, then maybe the author read too much into it. But the author was the one that was there, and who heard everything else the officer said, and clearly thought that the racial bit was worth communicating. So why automatically dismiss that?

cb18 10y ago
If the officer had just said "black gangs" or "Mexican gangs" or something like that, then maybe the author read too much into it. I thought it was something exactly along those lines, not necessarily one of those two groups, but something along those lines given that 'mexican' and 'black' are common descriptions for ethnic groups in the US. by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]" What do you think 'ethnic group' means? An ethnicity is not an epithet, there's really no connection between the two at all, other than an epithet is a mean name people might call people. And all people happen to be of one ethnicity or another. communicated to me that the police officer was racist. Given the weight that some people give to such a charge in today's society, you're really doing no one any one favors by being so brash and cavalier in handing it out, given the paucity of evidence. Even OP should be very cautious with such a label given such a brief interaction. I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist No we don't, I think you may be confused about what an ethnic group is, or the meaning of the term. There is nothing racist about using the proper name for a group of people. It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this! I really should get better at self-editing, I notice how people will commonly grab onto to one little minor supporting snippet of a post while ignoring the real substance of what's been written.