Here’s the Great Stupid attack I woke up to:
- That idiocy above, with our useless and silly Secretary of Education saying the underpasses built too low for vehicles like trucks and buses to get through were obviously designed to keep buses carrying black students to the beach from getting through.
- The ADL declaring that the term “100%” is racist:
- From the Washington Free Beacon: “The United States’ top intelligence agency wants to ban its spies from using “biased language,” including the terms “radical Islamists” and “jihadist,” saying these words “are hurtful to Muslim-Americans and detrimentally impact our efforts as they bolster extremist rhetoric,” according to a language guide published internally. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which is responsible for handling the country’s spy apparatus, seeks to ban a range of common terms because it says they offend Muslims and foment racism against employees. In addition to terms describing Islamic terrorists, ODNI instructs employees to avoid phrases such as “blacklisted,” “cakewalk,” “brown bag,” “grandfathered,” and “sanity check.”
Ethics Alarms 
I believe you meant to write that Secretary Buttigieg is of the Transportation Department, not Education.
Re: Bullet Point #3: I wonder if they are also cautioned against using the term White Christian Nationalist?
Of course not. Christian nationalist is the motte and Bailey term du jour to simultaneously smear conservatives and weasel out of the smear when confronted rationally.
If 100% is 100% racist, then all percentages are racist. Parts-per-thousand it is, then. We can’t use fractions because I think they have already been labelled racist. No citation is necessary because citations would be an indication of whiteness.
Why pick on percentages? I thought all math was now racist; let’s just abolish it. Some school systems seem to have already effectively done that, though perhaps not completely intentionally.
Questions for Pete:
So apparently, black students couldn’t get off the bus and walk under the underpass? The bus driver couldn’t take an alternate route to the same destination that had no (or taller) underpasses? Bussing companies that transported blacks were required to purchase busses of a taller height to keep them from certain areas? Automotive companies went to the added expense of designing, engineering, prototyping, and buildings busses of different heights for the express purpose of discriminating against black students wanting to go to the beach? The road/railroad builders went to the added excavation expense of creating road/rail beds that were lower in certain areas such that when the requisite underpasses were created, they would be too low for certain busses carrying black students?
Does this sound right?… I didn’t think so.
It isn’t lost on me – and it seems mighty appropriate – that the first four letters of the Transportation Secretary’s last name are “Butt”.
Buses vs busses? Sorry…”buses” is the acceptable form, but at least this reply wasn’t for hardware from Scripps.
I fixed that.
Thanks! My spelling thing was in regards to my initial response, which uses “ss” everywhere. I didn’t realize that you might have used the alternate form as well and read right past it, so if it came across as me picking on you for spelling, that was not my intent at all.
I make enough errors in writing such that I have little room to point fingers.
Bridge clearances are the same for everyone but white passengers get to use buses that can change size, like the ones in Harry Potter.
I was boggled humans would use architecture to block areas from public transit, but it seems they would, although the details are contested. Here are two conflicting articles, so anyone who can inspect the area in question feel free to identify false statements in either.
<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-moses-and-his-racist-parkway-explained>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-moses-and-his-racist-parkway-explained</a>
versus
<a href=https://robertmosesthetruth.com/robert-moses-his-parkways-and-why-they-are-not-racist/>https://robertmosesthetruth.com/robert-moses-his-parkways-and-why-they-are-not-racist/</a>
As for “100%”, given the context I’m pretty sure the idea isn’t that “100%” is inherently racist, but rather “if you hear a racist use this phrase to say something racist, here is what they are probably saying.”
I’d think if one were trying to impugn a common and useful term like 100%, one would be obligated to be clear rather than absurdly expansive.
The context is a glossary of racist slang. If it was a somewhat obscure phrase that also had a non-racist definition, I’d expect them to note that so nobody started assuming everyone who used the phrase was racist. I’m fairly certain whoever wrote the entry was confident that nobody would think “100%” was racist on its own, especially when the glossary says it’s shorthand for a phrase that uses the conventional definition of “100%”. This is just so if you hear a white supremacist talking about whether someone is “100%”, you’ll know what they mean.
Would it have been more thorough to spell out that “100%” is a completely neutral phrase 99% of the time? Yes. In this case, I’m 100% sure they felt it would be a waste of time, like a computer glossary taking the time to note that in addition to the device that lets you control a pointer on the screen, the word “mouse” can refer to a type of rodent. People already know that and they won’t be confused when they see the word used that way elsewhere.
But it isn’t the “100%” that is racist, but what it’s used to moderate! By that logic, any positive or negative adjective is “racist.” I guess “0%” is also racist because it would be used to suggest the same thing: “0%” black, no? Similarly, “superiority,” “supremacy,” “dominance” “only,” “perfectly” are all racist because they can be paired with “white” to suggest that racial “homogeneity” is desirable. Wait, doesn’t that mean “desirable” is racist?
I know you look to find rationality where there may not be any in an abundance of fairness, but honestly, EC, this is isn’t worth the effort.
I think there’s a mistaken assumption here. Nobody is saying that it’s racist to use the phrase “100%”. I know people have been pulling stupid stunts with other words, but this case is different.
Let’s look at another example. Let’s say that racists begin using the word “landfill” to describe racist-only parties where racists are invited to come and be racist together. That doesn’t mean the word “landfill” is inherently racist, and it won’t become so unless everyone else wimps out and stops using it for its original meaning. We can still talk about actual landfills just fine.
What it does mean is that the ADL will add it to their dictionary so if someone overhears someone else say, “There’s a landfill at my place on Saturday. Want to come?” they’ll be able to know what is being communicated.
If there’s any apprehension about the use of the word “landfill” in regular contexts because of racists coopting the term for their own purposes, that’s not the ADL’s fault. If people are adding unwanted meanings and associations to words that we prefer to use without baggage attached, then we need to get creative about stopping them from doing that.
We can make them regret stealing other people’s words by hoisting them by their own petard to spread confusion (“Yes, of course I meant an actual landfill! Where did you think we were going?”), or through ridicule (I hear there was a Superman story arc that dealt a massive blow to the dignity of the Ku Klux Klan, such as it was to begin with), or through deconstructing racism itself so that it stops existing.
My problem isn’t that people explain how racists use a word to communicate. My problem is when people start relinquishing the non-racist ways to use the word. Let the racists have their dog-whistles. I’ll deconstruct their whole paradigm while taking their words completely at face value. Better yet, let people be judged by their actions, and we won’t have to worry about accidentally using a pariah’s shibboleth. I’m not going to let someone else change the meaning of what I say.
Coincidentally, I looked up “pariah” on Wiktionary because I was curious about the etymology, and from there found out that “ellipsis” means not just “…” but “The omission of a word or phrase that can be inferred from the context,” which exactly describes this whole “100%” business. We could make sure “100%” doesn’t graduate from an ellipsis to a slang term by requesting people to spell out what they mean if we think they’re being racist, or by deliberately using “100%” to refer to people who are definitely not 100% white, e.g. “100% (trustworthy)” or “100% (committed).” That ought to scare off anyone looking to make racism the default.
I need more evidence than “100% is a term used by white supremacists.” If I ask someone, how do you feel? and the answer comes back “100%!” am I supposed to take that as evidence the guy is a white supremacist? If a white supremacist is asked the question, does that same answer mean he feels “100%” white. or that he just feels fine?
The whole effort to find coded, objectionable messages in everyday expressions is manipulation. Te ADL also objects to “blacklist,’ which has no racial connotations at all.
You’re absolutely right. Just because someone(s) claim that a term, symbol, etc. is being used by others in a certain way doesn’t make it true. Often such claims are urban legends, hoaxes, misunderstandings, exaggerations, or just plain lies intended to further an agenda (Southern Poverty Law Center, anyone?).
Remember the “OK” finger gesture game kefluffle?
That was exactly what I was thinking about…
Remember Emmanuel Cafferty?
In that case, it sounds like this is an issue of how much we trust the source telling us this. That’s fair. It’s possible that it’s actually just a few people using “100%” as an ellipsis and there’s no general trend of it at this time, and that it’s not significant enough to warrant an entry in the glossary. If so, I’d certainly like to keep it that way, and adding it to the glossary might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I hate those.)
As for “blacklist”, I consider black a neutral color and I would prefer that people not use it to mean negative things. I would also prefer that ethnic and ideological groups not identifying themselves by colors. I would prefer that colors remain free for people to use them however they look good. However, I acknowledge that colors are very handy for symbolism when it comes to information, emotions, and group identification (which is why they’re used for countries and sports teams). As long as we acknowledge that each color and combination of colors can mean many things, and we don’t take it too seriously when we run into ambiguous signals that could be interpreted in multiple ways, then we’ll be fine.
OK
How is it that these people did not even feel one quantum of embarassment in making these outlandish statements?
Ideological bubbles. They don’t encounter the people who will tell them the statements are outlandish, and if they do encounter them, they generally write them off as unrespectable. It’s a self-sustaining bubble.
They feel strong assurance and support from those that share their delusion.
I would argue that they are the equivalent of ChatGPTs.
They are not actually trying to make “sense”, but rather arranging words that most probably will be acceptable to a target audience.
Mayor Pete’s deal with low bridges is a few years old; he used it pushing the infrastructure bill.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/buttigieg-racist-highways-biden-infrastructure-bill-b1954051.html
It has reemerged as he’s being mockingly asked now if the Baltimore bridge is racist.
Have you ever noticed that, unlike certain vice presidents, he sounds very polished as a speaker, but often says essentially nothing, and conveys little to no information.
Pistol Pete and Gavin are cut from the same public speaking mold. Talk a lot that sounds really great until you think about it and say, “what?”
jvb
re: last item: From that information, it does make sense that ODNI might want to limit the use of the term “sanity check”.
I’m pretty sure that Pete is the Transportation Secretary, and you’d figure he’d have some issues with a bridge to concern himself with.
But he made the point, and so we can look at it head on…. America’s history of racism is… Weird. It would not entirely surprise me if an actual racist made a decision to waste a whole lot of public money in order to keep black kids away from a beach…. The question is: Is that real history, or did Pete pull that straight out of his ass?
Almost regardless of the answer, the questions should become things like: “How big a problem is it today?” and “Is there another way to deal with it?”, but it’s not going to because now we’re talking about race.
Even if the underpasses were designed with exclusionary racism in mind, ripping out all the underpasses accessing beaches in New York is a massive undertaking, is that actually an efficient response?
From the other side: Even if the underpasses weren’t designed with exclusionary racism in mind, if they aren’t fit to use and represent a hardship, we should probably figure out a solution for the problem.
Yup. This is a “well, yeah, it’s bad but what the hell do we do about it now?”
jvb
There is some merit to the accusation that infrastructure projects were often built in historically black areas, damaging neighborhoods and disrupting the culture by forcing the tearing down of houses and other local buildings.
However, the designing of an underpass is fairly straightforward. I doubt anybody looked at the blueprints and said, “Wow, that’s really going to screw the blacks over!”
To your first point, the video is a few years old.
The rest of what said is exactly the constructive perspective with which humans should be looking at issues, and a lot of them are. I’m working on an updated workshop for making it easier for them to teach everyone else.
There most likely was an intervening event…. such as resurfacing of the roadway going under.
I recall from 60 years ago (+/-) where a very large piece of machinery was knocked off its transporting trailer by a “low ” overpass, killing the driver of a car in the next lane. The size of the device necessitated the route be “permitted” insure against such events. The ensuing investigation revealed that some years earlier that portion of roadway (a state maintained roadway) was repaved due to wear. That reduced the clearance at the overpass by some 6-inches; not much, but it was enough. The state had never updated the record to show the change, let alone replaced the signage on the overpass to reflect the change. So those things happen.
Funny thing about “racism” is that if the right people look hard enough it will be found.
The underpass builders knew that black children die by accidental drownings at a rate 7.6 times higher than white.
They we’re the true anti-racist enactors of BLM, before it was a thing.