Samantha Bee calls Ivanka a kциt

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In the 1975-76 school year, I had a professor.  I'll not mention his name (yet) as he is, nowadays, nationally renowned.  If I posted his bio and some of his YouTube stuff, many of the folks her would say things like "An American Hero!"  "Massive FF!" and the like.  He's a nationally renowned black academician with a number of published works on the status of blacks in America, and he was one of my political science professors.

I was a young college freshman, and he was a junior faculty member at the time (but he already had a published work).  I remember the day when we were talking about the status of racism in America and the long-term possibilities.  There I was in his classroom, in my dashiki, and pink bell bottom jeans, and sandals, with long hair and John Lennon-style glasses, with sideburns all the way down the side of my face and a half-baked mustache, and a floppy, pastel colored hat.  And I suggested, as part of the discussion, that, over time, racism would diminish because black folks and white folks would progressively intermarry, and the economic status of black folks would, over time, rise to where much of the racial distinctions present in 1975 would fade away over time. 

To my surprise, the good Professor, rather calmly, but decisively, responded by suggesting that this wouldn't be the case, and finishing his response by stating, unquestionably and firmly, that he would not want his daughter to marry a white man.  He was an outwardly unemotional person, so he concluded that comment and calmly transitioned into the next part of the discussion.  For me, it was a "What just happened?" moment of exceptional proportion?

After all, wasn't it only white folks that were racist?  Wasn't it only the Southern White Man and the Archie Bunker folks that took these attitudes?  Wasn't it only Republicans that felt this way?  How could someone who voted for McGovern think this way?  And the shock was made bigger because of the campus I was on; it was a campus that, back in 1975, had a significant minority of openly gay students, kissing, holding hands in public, etc.  Interracial relationships on campus were hardly remarkable in 1975.  What a dissonant sound at such a liberal place!  But he said it.  And no one challenged him on it.  This prof wasn't the kind of prof that would threaten to flunk you for non-conformity, so I wonder what the other left-liberal students in class thought; maybe they were having their own "What just happened?" moment as well.

Assuming that he's never repudiated this statement, is this guy an FF or an HP?  If he's an HP, what's his path back to being an FF?  Is he a former HP who became an FF over time?  If he did so, what was the pathway back for this guy?  Because many of you here would offer NO pathway back for a white person who said this at any time, even if they came around on the issue, so I'm asking what the standard is here?  This guy said what he said, and meant it in 1975, yet has continued to mold young minds to this day.  Why would he NOT be an HP if he has never come off that statement?

   

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

[snip]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond with an answer I know you will not like: it's a really unfortunate position to take, but it's not quite the same as a white person saying he doesn't want his daughter marrying a black person. I don't like any stance that is against interracial marriage (because it reinforces tribal elements and factionalism) but when a white person opposes interracial marriage, it's often motivated at least in part by a desire to maintain a social order. It's often about not polluting one's status in society as a white person. When I hear what your professor said, it seems to me like a trust issue (although I don't know this person so I could certainly be wrong). I have heard people of color (thankfully not very many) express similar feelings because there is an emotional rawness in dealing with white people and being on the wrong end of the social order in so many instances that they are weary of entering a long term relationship where they accept whiteness into an intimate part of their own lives. To me, that is far less insidious than trying to maintain a social order which can be oppressive; it's a form of emotional self defense. So, while I don't like such an opinion, I don't think it is on the same moral plane than if the roles were reversed (which is clearly the comparison you are trying to invite).

I know how the rest of this debate will go. You (or someone else) will likely point out the unfairness of this inherent asymmetry, where two identical statements by different people carry different moral charges. Totally goes against the idea of Rawls's veil of ignorance, yes? I understand that, and it's something that I struggle with myself when I think about these issues. At the end of the day, where the disagreement is going to lie is about how much of a role societal context plays in assigning moral judgement to these things. I (and people like me) believe that context matters a great deal here; your professor's statements are reflective of a different history and motivation than if they were made by a white person, and I think that means the feelings should be judged differently. I am sure that you (and others) will not feel that way, and that there isn't anything that I can really do that will convince you that including social context is important.

[Famous Mortimer]

Black people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike white people.

White people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike Black people. It's as simple as that, it's not about "maintaining social order".

How come you work yourself into mental knots trying to give the most positive interpretation of a Black person's views while simultaneously giving the most negative interpretation to a white person's views?

A Black person can straight up say "I hate white people" and leftists will justifying it by saying they don't really mean it, they just don't have the language to express their frustration with white supremacist society or some such crap.

A white person can make some tepid statement about how we probably don't have the money to give everyone in the world a free house and the same liberals will say "ah, he's just trying to hide the fact that he's a Nazi and he wants to kill POC!"

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Black people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike white people.

White people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike Black people. It's as simple as that, it's not about "maintaining social order".

How come you work yourself into mental knots trying to give the most positive interpretation of a Black person's views while simultaneously giving the most negative interpretation to a white person's views?

A Black person can straight up say "I hate white people" and leftists will justifying it by saying they don't really mean it, they just don't have the language to express their frustration with white supremacist society or some such crap.

A white person can make some tepid statement about how we probably don't have the money to give everyone in the world a free house and the same liberals will say "ah, he's just trying to hide the fact that he's a Nazi and he wants to kill POC!"

lmao like I'm going to respond to a Famous Mortimer post

[Famous Mortimer]

Black people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike white people.

White people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike Black people. It's as simple as that, it's not about "maintaining social order".

How come you work yourself into mental knots trying to give the most positive interpretation of a Black person's views while simultaneously giving the most negative interpretation to a white person's views?

A Black person can straight up say "I hate white people" and leftists will justifying it by saying they don't really mean it, they just don't have the language to express their frustration with white supremacist society or some such crap.

A white person can make some tepid statement about how we probably don't have the money to give everyone in the world a free house and the same liberals will say "ah, he's just trying to hide the fact that he's a Nazi and he wants to kill POC!"

lmao like I'm going to respond to a Famous Mortimer post

You would respond if you had anything significant to say, you just don't.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

[snip]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond with an answer I know you will not like: it's a really unfortunate position to take, but it's not quite the same as a white person saying he doesn't want his daughter marrying a black person. I don't like any stance that is against interracial marriage (because it reinforces tribal elements and factionalism) but when a white person opposes interracial marriage, it's often motivated at least in part by a desire to maintain a social order. It's often about not polluting one's status in society as a white person. When I hear what your professor said, it seems to me like a trust issue (although I don't know this person so I could certainly be wrong). I have heard people of color (thankfully not very many) express similar feelings because there is an emotional rawness in dealing with white people and being on the wrong end of the social order in so many instances that they are weary of entering a long term relationship where they accept whiteness into an intimate part of their own lives. To me, that is far less insidious than trying to maintain a social order which can be oppressive; it's a form of emotional self defense. So, while I don't like such an opinion, I don't think it is on the same moral plane than if the roles were reversed (which is clearly the comparison you are trying to invite).

I know how the rest of this debate will go. You (or someone else) will likely point out the unfairness of this inherent asymmetry, where two identical statements by different people carry different moral charges. Totally goes against the idea of Rawls's veil of ignorance, yes? I understand that, and it's something that I struggle with myself when I think about these issues. At the end of the day, where the disagreement is going to lie is about how much of a role societal context plays in assigning moral judgement to these things. I (and people like me) believe that context matters a great deal here; your professor's statements are reflective of a different history and motivation than if they were made by a white person, and I think that means the feelings should be judged differently. I am sure that you (and others) will not feel that way, and that there isn't anything that I can really do that will convince you that including social context is important.

Note that I've NOT said that the man is an HP.  It wasn't like I disliked the man when he was my professor, or that he was a bad prof or a guy who picked faves to give better grades to.  But that event was something that put a wall up between he and I, and made me wonder what other black folks (especially black folks with whom I was politically active at the time) really thought, both of white folks in general, and of me, personally.  

If the question is "FF or HP", I'm willing to consider that in context, but it is in the context of the body of a lifetime of work, and not of reasons like "emotional rawness in dealing with white people and being on the wrong end of the social order in so many instances that they are weary of entering a long term relationship where they accept whiteness into an intimate part of their own lives".  The man has written several books, and he is well respected in academia.  His societal point of view is a valid one.  The context of his life's work is something to consider.

But context ought to go both ways.  I'm willing to judge untoward comments in the context of a person's entire life, but to judge it in the context of "emotional rawness" is picking and choosing the validity of societal resentments people hold, and that ought to be a bridge to far for persons truly seeking fairness.  I can be understanding of, say, Trayvon Martin's family holding racial resentments (to a point), but would that same understanding be extended to a victim of white-on-black homicide by folks here?  What about the life of a white person whose racial attitudes may be stuck in 1975 (after progressing from 1950) but who has raised a family, has been part of their community in a major way, and whose works have benefitted the whole of his/her community, black, white, and Hispanic alike?

I live in a community where there is still generational resentment by black folks toward white folks for the bad feelings that came about during the integration of the schools.  (In the county I work in, there are Federal Court Orders still governing this issue.)  Lots of folks are still alive from those days.  I can understand the "emotional rawness" of black folks on this issue, because I have seen some insensitivity from white folks that still exists, but at what point are folks required to put all of this aside and adhere to principle?

The principle I adhere to is the principle of evaluating a person by the whole of his life.  There are very few things that I view as something that would invalidate a person's entire life, no matter what they did.  Murder and rape, yes.  Deliberate sadistic acts, yes.  My suggestion is that the "context" one is judged be the "context" of the whole of one's life, and not the context where one source of "emotional rawness" is deemed more valid than another.

[Reaganfan]

Women like Samantha Bee make people like me do every single thing we can possibly do to NOT advance the "cause" of leftist women.

Think of it like when a child misbehaves and you ground them. Sometimes these people need to be grounded.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Women like Samantha Bee make people like me do every single thing we can possibly do to NOT advance the "cause" of leftist women.

Think of it like when a child misbehaves and you ground them. Sometimes these people need to be grounded.

...what?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Black people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike white people.

White people who oppose interracial marriage oppose interracial marriage because they dislike Black people. It's as simple as that, it's not about "maintaining social order".

How come you work yourself into mental knots trying to give the most positive interpretation of a Black person's views while simultaneously giving the most negative interpretation to a white person's views?

A Black person can straight up say "I hate white people" and leftists will justifying it by saying they don't really mean it, they just don't have the language to express their frustration with white supremacist society or some such crap.

A white person can make some tepid statement about how we probably don't have the money to give everyone in the world a free house and the same liberals will say "ah, he's just trying to hide the fact that he's a Nazi and he wants to kill POC!"

lmao like I'm going to respond to a Famous Mortimer post

You would respond if you had anything significant to say, you just don't.

I mean, I literally predicted your entire response in this paragraph of my post:

I know how the rest of this debate will go. You (or someone else) will likely point out the unfairness of this inherent asymmetry, where two identical statements by different people carry different moral charges. Totally goes against the idea of Rawls's veil of ignorance, yes? I understand that, and it's something that I struggle with myself when I think about these issues. At the end of the day, where the disagreement is going to lie is about how much of a role societal context plays in assigning moral judgement to these things. I (and people like me) believe that context matters a great deal here; your professor's statements are reflective of a different history and motivation than if they were made by a white person, and I think that means the feelings should be judged differently. I am sure that you (and others) will not feel that way, and that there isn't anything that I can really do that will convince you that including social context is important.

You literally try to draw a symmetry between the two positions and use a drastic over simplification where you compare the literal content of what someone says ("I don't like white/black people") without considering the motives, historic context, or consequences of those feelings. The whole point of my post was that those two positions, when considering where they are coming from, are not the same, and all you did was pull up some ridiculous straw-men examples. Sorry if I don't think that furthers the debate or deserves an actual response.

[snip]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond with an answer I know you will not like: it's a really unfortunate position to take, but it's not quite the same as a white person saying he doesn't want his daughter marrying a black person. I don't like any stance that is against interracial marriage (because it reinforces tribal elements and factionalism) but when a white person opposes interracial marriage, it's often motivated at least in part by a desire to maintain a social order. It's often about not polluting one's status in society as a white person. When I hear what your professor said, it seems to me like a trust issue (although I don't know this person so I could certainly be wrong). I have heard people of color (thankfully not very many) express similar feelings because there is an emotional rawness in dealing with white people and being on the wrong end of the social order in so many instances that they are weary of entering a long term relationship where they accept whiteness into an intimate part of their own lives. To me, that is far less insidious than trying to maintain a social order which can be oppressive; it's a form of emotional self defense. So, while I don't like such an opinion, I don't think it is on the same moral plane than if the roles were reversed (which is clearly the comparison you are trying to invite).

I know how the rest of this debate will go. You (or someone else) will likely point out the unfairness of this inherent asymmetry, where two identical statements by different people carry different moral charges. Totally goes against the idea of Rawls's veil of ignorance, yes? I understand that, and it's something that I struggle with myself when I think about these issues. At the end of the day, where the disagreement is going to lie is about how much of a role societal context plays in assigning moral judgement to these things. I (and people like me) believe that context matters a great deal here; your professor's statements are reflective of a different history and motivation than if they were made by a white person, and I think that means the feelings should be judged differently. I am sure that you (and others) will not feel that way, and that there isn't anything that I can really do that will convince you that including social context is important.

Note that I've NOT said that the man is an HP.  It wasn't like I disliked the man when he was my professor, or that he was a bad prof or a guy who picked faves to give better grades to.  But that event was something that put a wall up between he and I, and made me wonder what other black folks (especially black folks with whom I was politically active at the time) really thought, both of white folks in general, and of me, personally.  

If the question is "FF or HP", I'm willing to consider that in context, but it is in the context of the body of a lifetime of work, and not of reasons like "emotional rawness in dealing with white people and being on the wrong end of the social order in so many instances that they are weary of entering a long term relationship where they accept whiteness into an intimate part of their own lives".  The man has written several books, and he is well respected in academia.  His societal point of view is a valid one.  The context of his life's work is something to consider.

But context ought to go both ways.  I'm willing to judge untoward comments in the context of a person's entire life, but to judge it in the context of "emotional rawness" is picking and choosing the validity of societal resentments people hold, and that ought to be a bridge to far for persons truly seeking fairness.  I can be understanding of, say, Trayvon Martin's family holding racial resentments (to a point), but would that same understanding be extended to a victim of white-on-black homicide by folks here?  What about the life of a white person whose racial attitudes may be stuck in 1975 (after progressing from 1950) but who has raised a family, has been part of their community in a major way, and whose works have benefitted the whole of his/her community, black, white, and Hispanic alike?

I live in a community where there is still generational resentment by black folks toward white folks for the bad feelings that came about during the integration of the schools.  (In the county I work in, there are Federal Court Orders still governing this issue.)  Lots of folks are still alive from those days.  I can understand the "emotional rawness" of black folks on this issue, because I have seen some insensitivity from white folks that still exists, but at what point are folks required to put all of this aside and adhere to principle?

The principle I adhere to is the principle of evaluating a person by the whole of his life.  There are very few things that I view as something that would invalidate a person's entire life, no matter what they did.  Murder and rape, yes.  Deliberate sadistic acts, yes.  My suggestion is that the "context" one is judged be the "context" of the whole of one's life, and not the context where one source of "emotional rawness" is deemed more valid than another.

I agree with a lot of this. I was also trying to go out of my way to avoid casting judgement on the man himself rather than the view he expressed (as an aside, I think our politics would be a lot healthier if we all did this, e.g., saying "you said a racist thing" rather than saying "you are a racist"). I also agree about the inviolability of people's lives (in fact I would go farther than you and say that no act makes a person inviolable, which is why I am against capital punishment). I totally understand your feelings and they are things I have felt myself when faced with POC who are vocally hostile to white people. It's an unfortunate mindset but one that I think is entirely understandable when considering what we (specifically, they) live through, which was the point of my post.

My only real additional comment on your post is re: what level of resentment people should be able to hold on to rather than take a more charitable position... that's a toughy. I don't view it as my place to tell people with incredibly different life experiences what their feelings should and shouldn't be on these issues. Ideally we'd live in a society where these things could melt away like butter but that's a little naive and oversimplistic. My only opinion on the matter is that now is not a realistic time to expect people to drop their misgivings and resentments because they are still faced with racial animus and issues that are very much contemporary and harmful to them. Maybe in a post-racial society (if that is even possible) we can ask people to drop those grievances but we are still very far from that, even if we can pinpoint individual white people who are not themselves racist.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what? Only about 63% of Black people approved of interrracial marriage in 1975, and I’m sure the numbers were higher if you rephrased the question to, ‘who you approve of your child marrying someone of another race?’ That’s really no more remarkable than finding someone who personally opposes same sex marriage today.

It’s very unfortunate, of course. I’m assuming this professor was in his forties or fifties. Either way, even people who have done excellent work can still support downright bigoted or racist positions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HP; overcoming his prejudice; don’t know, you could go ask him

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you seen the number of puff pieces written about former Nazi’s or members of the alt-right? The reaction is overwhelmingly positive to their decision to leave the movement. You don’t seem to understand that most folks really don’t want to change, given how difficult change is to achieve. Roseanne, for example, blamed her behavior on prescription sleep aid. Or consider that lawyer from a few weeks ago. When he apologized, he wrote, ‘this is not who I am,’ in reference to his racist tirade towards a group of Latino workers at JFK.

Becoming a ‘good person’ (whatever that means to you) takes work, especially if you’ve made a mistake. These aren’t situations where people misspoke; they are instances of racism and prejudice. It takes effort to fix character flaws, and since racism is a system of ongoing institutional oppression, it makes it really hard for racists to understand the context of their actions. The path to redemption is long and thankless, but it’s one we all must tread some day. Just because it is hard does not mean we shouldn’t accept responsibility for our actions.

[Xing]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

[Virginiá]

I guarantee that if Trump was ever caught on tape using the word, you’d call for his impeachment. But it’s good to see liberal hypocrisy is alive and well.

Well if you've read my posts on here, you'd know I am cautious about impeachment even if Trump was found guilty of a host of crimes. I'm very pragmatic on this. I'm not so interested in tearing this country apart, nor am I the least bit interested in an impeachment show that is doomed to fail in the Senate. If Trump really did collude, really did try to obstruct the investigation to hide that, and really did commit a host of other crimes, I'd rather a divided/Democratic Congress just handicap his administration and wait to see if we can oust him in 2020.

If Trump said it, I'd just be more evidence of how vile of a man he is. But it's baked into the cake for me - I already know he is that kind of man. He has already proven it beyond a reasonable doubt to me, including his statements and scandals before November 2016. So you're wrong about me, at least in the literal sense of what you just said.

I'd also note that you called me out on hypocrisy without me even saying anything hypocritical. You just assumed I would. That's bs, twenty.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

[Person Man]

Women like Samantha Bee make people like me do every single thing we can possibly do to NOT advance the "cause" of leftist women.

Think of it like when a child misbehaves and you ground them. Sometimes these people need to be grounded.

...what?

Good luck with that. Your sex life is either really good or really bad/nil.

[Person Man]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

What "culture"?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

What "culture"?

Oh yeah silly me, I forgot, we're a bunch of uncultured rubes

[Devout Centrist]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

Huh?

[SteveRogers]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

[Xing]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

I'm destroying your culture? How?

[Calthrina950]

My personal belief is that these kinds of statements should not be tolerated, no matter who says them, or what side of the political spectrum they fall on. Samantha Bee's comment about Ivanka Trump seems to be demeaning to me, even though it came within the context of a comedic monologue. At the same time, however, I would venture to say that what Roseanne said about Valerie Jarrett is of a much serious nature, given the history of racial stereotypes and images in this country. Of these, I am very well aware of, given my own race. African-Americans have dealt with these kinds of degrading insults for a long time, and have suffered real harm because of them. Ivanka Trump, on the other hand, is, to put it bluntly, a rich white girl, so Bee's slur against her has less impact.

[Person Man]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

I'm destroying your culture? How?

This is like fat people blaming other people fom them being fat.

[DINGO Joe]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

I'm destroying your culture? How?

You are a rather poor banjo player

[WritOfCertiorari]

This thread is an absolute mess...

[GlobeSoc]

I've never watched Samantha Bee, and calling Ivanka a c*** is definitely uncalled for in my opinion, but I thought conservatives hated  "rampant political correctness" on the left...

Rules are out the window now. Do you expect us to take it up the ass while you bastardize and destroy our culture?

The American culture isn't in significant danger right now, except perhaps from FOX news eroding democratic norms to keep their ratings up.

However, the biggest threat to the American way of life is on the corporate side, from being ground into the dirt by uncaring CEOs just wanting another buck.

[junior chįmp]

Calling someone the C-word and saying a black woman looks like an ape are not comparable.

Reading conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere after this incident, pulling arbitrary incidents and asking why that is OK vs what Roseanne said, is starting to make me wonder if they understand why there was a backlash to Roseanne's tweet(s) in the first place. Take for instance people saying Bill Maher should be fired for comparing Trump to an ape. Do they not get why calling black people apes is offensive vs calling almost anyone else an ape? Black people = apes is a very old racial insult.  There is nothing inherently offensive on that level with calling say, a white person an ape. It's just a regular insult in that context. If someone called me an ape, I'd take it that they are calling me stupid. If you call a black person an ape, it's a hurtful racial attack that ties into a lot of pain and suffering that group of people has endured for centuries. It's a whole different situation.

Likewise, calling a woman a c**nt is offensive - I know a lot of women take extra offensive at that word for that matter, but it doesn't really go beyond the bounds of standard insults.

I guarantee that if Trump was ever caught on tape using the word, you’d call for his impeachment. But it’s good to see liberal hypocrisy is alive and well.

https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/353322885688987650