You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I don’t know either way but I’m a bit suspicious.
So you don't actually agree with the article. Apologies, I thought you did.
According the article "angry woman" is "clearly" a racist trope, but you are only "a bit suspicious". I think that I am probably generally less suspicious.
As for question would I apologise if someone took what I said the wrong way it would depend on the circumstances - I would not automatically apologise because someone misunderstood what I have said.
In fact I might expect them to apologise, as I just have to you 😊
calling someone who is angry, angry would seem fine to me.
What about calling someone "hysterical" when that someone is a woman? Isn't it the case that certain words are now loaded with a lot of unpleasant freight that makes using them prejudicial, even though they have a perfectly "innocent" meaning?
So you don’t actually agree with the article. Apologies, I thought you did.
IDK why you'd have that idea, I've always said that it's about the context the comment is/was made in. There's enough context for me to be suspicious that the speaker knew. If the absolute conclusion of someone else is that the speaker absolutely knew then yes, 'angry woman' in that context is a clearly racist trope. That's what Younge has concluded. It's an opinion piece, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.
Having read and reread the article, I would have phrased it differently.
One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (a clear racist trope)
to something like "One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (creating inference to the racist trope)
so on that I guess I disagree with that line in the article. In general though I agree with the article, that Labour is hardly unblemished in taking the moral high ground. But we know that, I think.
Good example. While not specifically racist, if used in a certain context it could be and
No, that was decided by a bunch of folk who had never heard the phrase that unilaterally decided it was racist because of a misunderstanding. In that debate not one person offered any proof that it had ever been used in a racist context yet here we are.
The article offers no context other than "angry woman" so how is anyone supposed to draw any conclusion from that?
"she can come across as a very angry woman"
"Like all people of her background she has grown into an angry woman"
Innocent vs clearly dog whistling. But without the context we don't know.
This is why the world is ****ed, too many people taking opinion at face value with no facts to back up their claims. And you laugh at the MAGA crowd...
The context is that it was said about Diane Abbot, a black woman who has been subjected to more personal attacks, racist and not, by people inside and outside her party, than any other MP.
IDK if that was the intent of the speaker; it could be. I'm suspicious, Younge is not and has decided it was, you and Ernie have decided it isn't. All opinions.
have decided it isn’t
No, I have decided that saying "angry woman" doesn't sound particularly racist to me, never mind "clearly racist"
And that to be racist "angry black woman" might be more appropriate💡
Although you obviously disagree.
I also think that black women should wear the accusation of being angry as a badge of honour, it is certainly more desirable than being a docile and compliant stepford-wife type.
There is nothing wrong with being angry if there is something to be angry about, and I celebrate the assertiveness of black American women.
And that to be racist “angry black woman” might be more appropriate💡
But the point is that like so many in this sort of incident, they have created plausible deniability. As I suspect was the intent (I called it dog-whistley), as Younge feels definitely was the intent and (OK will concede) you are 'less suspicious' about.
The jungle drums thing and this have one thing in common. The reactions to people saying it is racist are far more telling about people's attitudes than what was originally said.
Being open to having your world view challenged should be an opportunity for a bit of self reflection. If your reaction is instead angry denial and insults then you should really be asking yourself why being challenged provokes such a reaction.
Do ‘you lot’ deny that in some contexts ‘smoke a fag’ could be intended to be understood as a homophobic slur?
That scenario presumably being "America"?
to something like “One official called Abbott an “angry woman” (creating inference to the racist trope)
How on Earth does one "create inference"? Inference is wholly down to the reader, surely. As ably demonstrated by the last couple of pages, up until your most recent post you've been arguing that Ernie's opinion is wrong.
OK, deliberately create the opportunity to infer.
Sort of how I'd define dog whistle comments.
up until your most recent post you’ve been arguing that Ernie’s opinion is wrong.
No, just different to mine (and Younge's). That's the thing about opinions.
No, just different to mine (and Younge’s). That’s the thing about opinions.
Was that ever in doubt? I'd inferred that from the outset. 😁
No, just different to mine (and Younge’s). That’s the thing about opinions.
So what you are saying is that racism is just a matter of opinion? Have you considered joining the Tory party?
In any case, I'm with Ernie here. I've never heard of the "trope" - possibly because it is apparently aimed at Americans? - and even if I had it seems something of a leap to mentally insert "black" into a sentence and then cry racism. That does no-one any favours.
So what you are saying is that racism is just a matter of opinion?
No. Where did I say that?
The question of opinion is on whether when "[a labour party] official called Abbott an “angry woman” " it was meant to be a racial slur, to lead a listener to connect it to the ABW trope or not.
What do you think? Was the listener supposed to connect the two?
In any case, I’m with Ernie here. I’ve never heard of the “trope” – possibly because it is apparently aimed at Americans?
So I linked to it and tried to create understanding that the adjacency was creating the issue. The fact you hadn't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't a trope understood in the UK
– and even if I had it seems something of a leap to mentally insert “black” into a sentence and then cry racism. That does no-one any favours.
I agree, to an extent. If we leap on every potential transgression of language then we get into these circular arguments. But at the same time, I still am suspicious that it was intentional. So what's the correct response? Challenge it or always benefit of the doubt? That's where the context is important. Who said it, who did they say it about, how was it said, etc.
How on Earth does one “create inference”? Inference is wholly down to the reader, surely.
Well I would disagree. Inference is what someone understands to be meant from what they read taken in context. It is not solely down to the reader, though it may be coloured by the reader's own experience and state of knowlege (which are part of the context I guess). The original text and the framing and occasion is highly relevant.
Of course part of that context then becomes the reader's various prejudices and hang-ups and indeed the reader's understanding of the writer's various prejudices and hang-ups. If you are genuinely intent on understanding what the writer is saying, you will of course try to understand where the maker of the statement is coming from whilst doing your best to discount your own prejudices and special knowledge. This approach to interpreting things is rarely found in public discourse, which tends to be all about trying to come up with a plausible interpretation of something that will further your own argument without regard to the message that the person making the statement was actually trying to get across.
Anyway, you create inference by saying something that you know will be interpreted in the intended way, at least by people with particular prejudices and hang-ups, and/or people who (think they) understand what your's are. I have always understood this to be what people mean by the "dog whistle". Making your point in this way introduces an element of deniability which is useful in the case of statements likely to attract criticism or legal problems (although generally the law is not as stupid in this regard as people often think it is).
you create inference by saying something that you know will be interpreted in the intended way,
...
Making your point in this way introduces an element of deniability
Good point, well made.
There are posters on here who do this regularly.
I have always understood this to be what people mean by the “dog whistle”.
I've never understood what it means. I should look it up really.
Wikipedia:
"In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. " So, like a dog whistle, a statement which will only be heard by a select group.
Martin Forde is on the Sangita Myska LBC program talking about his report into the Labour Party, The report identified what it called a “hierarchy of racism”, with antisemitism taken more seriously within the party than other forms of racism ....
Good listening so far, and he's again called for Diane Abbot to reinstalled immediately
The report identified what it called a “hierarchy of racism”
Baddiel was on C4 the other night claiming that he invented that phrase. I wasn't aware that my opinion of him could sink any lower, but apparently it can.
Diane having the whip re-instated is a matter completely separate to how horrendously she has been treated and I don’t believe it should happen.
I really hope the lunatics on the far left of the party don’t make this labours problem, let the tories own this sleaze all the way to the election.
Saying she is an angry woman is as racist as me saying she is a car crash of an MP for the current Labour Party - not in the bloody slightest but she does need support to deal with the actual racism out there.
The thing about this sort of trope is that you can almost never know whether it was meant or not. That's built in, if it didn't have that effect there'd be no point. A person can be doing it deliberately, or they might have absolutely no idea that it's even a thing. Which means sometimes it's a coded message to people who understand the code and that everyone else misses, sometimes it's an innocent message that people who think there's a code use to add meaning to their crazy worlds (see: "died suddenly"), and everything inbetween. A way of saying things while not saying it is also a way of not saying things.
All that said, if Diane Abbot wasn't angry I'd put her up for sainthood, being constantly furious would be a completely rational response.
Ignore me.
But at the same time, I still am suspicious that it was intentional. So what’s the correct response? Challenge it or always benefit of the doubt? That’s where the context is important. Who said it, who did they say it about, how was it said, etc.
The problem is that beyond those two words nobody has any idea what else was actually said.
End of.
The correct response is to recognise that and not rush to make a judgement without any idea of the facts.
Being open to having your world view challenged should be an opportunity for a bit of self reflection. If your reaction is instead angry denial and insults then you should really be asking yourself why being challenged provokes such a reaction.
Good job nobody's doing that. If you're talking about my MAGA comparison being an insult then maybe some self-reflection of your own is in order. Yes, it was deliberate, no I'm not sorry. That's the same kind of unquestioning thinking they employ and I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with you with subtle suggestions that I may be racist, might I remind you that earned you a mod intervention last time you pulled that card.
If anyone can provide the context to those words so that I can actually make a fact based decision as to whether the intent was actually racist be my guest but until then all we have is hearsay and happenstance and I'm not hanging my hat on that.
Good job nobody’s doing that. If you’re talking about my MAGA comparison being an insult then maybe some self-reflection of your own is in order. Yes, it was deliberate, no I’m not sorry. That’s the same kind of unquestioning thinking they employ and I’m not going to be bullied into agreeing with you with subtle suggestions that I may be racist, might I remind you that earned you a mod intervention last time you pulled that card.
Well, one of us is definitely employing unquestioning thinking.
Here's a hint. It's not me.
Personally I'm going to listen to everyone and at the end of it I might not even form an opinion. Like in this case.
However, when it comes to racism in general, I am going to give more weight to what people of colour say than middle aged white blokes on a mountain biking forum. Somehow I suspect people of colour have more direct lived experience of racism and might be a bit more au fait with the language used by the current crop of racists.
Anyway, I've never been warned for suggesting people might harbour racist views. Been warned for calling people a **** a few times though. Personally I think if someone is suggesting all the white blokes batter the uppity black bloke for complaining about comments perceived to be racist that merits calling someone a **** but the mods disagreed which I accept.
But feel free to report my posts if you think it'll stop me making you feel uncomfortable.
The very serious function of racism is distraction,” Toni Morrison argued in a lecture in Portland, Oregon, in 1975. “It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and so you spend 20 years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says that you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says that you have no kingdoms, and so you dredge that up. None of that is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”
So, in the furore over Frank Hester’s comments, let us not be distracted by the question of whether they were racist. Let us not demean ourselves by explaining why the statement “you see Diane Abbott on the TV and … you just want to hate all Black women” is racist. We do not need to explain that this is not a question of rudeness. Racism is an issue of power and equality, not politeness and etiquette. Those who don’t get it, won’t get it.
The first two paragraphs of the offending article. I would have a read of that and then have a think about the last three pages.
Context as i understand it is that it was part of a sustained 'dripfeed' attack on her and her character from within the party. She has regularly been subjected to racist attack, including being labelled as a classic ABW in the past (I'm not searching/writing a reference list, they're easily searched). Some even suggest that the textbook photos that they use of DA are done to perpetuate the stereotype.
The comment was allegedly made by the Labour Head of Press Neil Fleming. In a role like that should they have been aware of the trope, and steered clear altogether? Or was the phrase specifically used to lead the people who said it to towards that inference?
So no - unless they explain exactly what their intent was* it'll remain 'hearsay and happenstance' - but there's enough in there to raise suspicion for me. Not convict - I agree there isn't proof that was what was intended. YMMV, where Y = Your or Younge's.
* I again note they haven't come out and apologised or half-apologised, eg: 'that was never my intent' or 'If you interpreted that way then I'm sorry you feel like that' either.
to lead the people who said it to towards that inference?
said = heard - missed the edit window. Even better 'it was said to' because I suspect someone else overheard it hence why it's semi-public domain.
but there’s enough in there to raise suspicion for me.
Why are you discussing one possible incident of racism within the Labour Party against Diane Abbott that you personally are "suspicious" about?
And spending an extraordinary amount of time doing so - so far it seems to have spanned three days!
Have you not heard of the Forde investigation into racism within the Labour Party? It provides clear and unequivocal hard evidence of rampant anti-black racism within the Labour Party - much of it specifically aimed at Diane Abbott.
In fact the Forde report, which was commissioned by Keir Starmer, talks of a "hierarchy of racism" the very thing that Starmer withdrew the Labour whip from Diane Abbott allegedly claiming.
You can get away with treating some forms of racism as more serious than others unless your name is Diane Abbott.
So instead of spending so much time focusing on one possibly suspicious incident how about discussing some of the cold hard facts mentioned in the link below?
Have you not heard of the Forde investigation into racism within the Labour Party? It provides clear and unequivocal hard evidence of rampant anti-black racism within the Labour Party – much of it specifically aimed at Diane Abbott.
I don't doubt that at all. It forms part of the backdrop to why the 'angry woman' phrase is not IMO as innocent as some would say.
Why are you discussing one possible incident of racism within the Labour Party against Diane Abbott that you personally are “suspicious” about?
Because (going back 3 days)
Am I missing something here? How is that ‘clearly’ racist?
Yeah I saw that too cougar and did wonder why I wasn’t picking up a “clear” racist trope.
Certainly tenuous at best.
Initially I tried to explain why I thought there was something being missed; since then I have only ever responded to others points. It does feel a bit like being treble or quadruple teamed, so at your request I'll drop it, i think my suspicion is clear.
Well, one of us is definitely employing unquestioning thinking.
Here’s a hint. It’s not me.
Oh okay, do you have that context I was asking for then? Do share.
Objectivity isn't taking opinion at face value. I absolutely will give weight to someone with lived experience of racism but without context the statement quoted is meaningless.
Once again, I'm not denying racism is an issue, on reflection I'm probably being a pedantic arse and not trying to force an argument but that comment, without context, says nothing. Given how widespread it is you would think there would be significantly less tenuous examples he could have used.
The first two paragraphs of the offending article. I would have a read of that and then have a think about the last three pages.
Wait, are we at cross purposes? I'm talking about the "angry woman" comment, Hester is a done deal at this point, did anyone here have any doubt otherwise?
Anyway, I’ve never been warned for suggesting people might harbour racist views.
Never said you had but you called me a racist because I sided with Stanton over an IP thief and your post was subsequently edited by mods.
@ernielynch thanks for bringing up the Forde report, it may well add more context.
Never said you had but you called me a racist because I sided with Stanton over an IP thief and your post was subsequently edited by mods.
If it was they never told me so I'll have to take your word for that. There are a handful of folk on here who I suspect might be racists but you aren't one of them so if I called you a racist I'm sorry.
I thought you were talking about the jungle drums. FWIW, I never thought that the guy intentionally said something racist in the first place. The reactions from some folk though were without a doubt racist. Especially the ones that were not so subtly hoping the black guy met with a nasty accident or got 'sorted out' by his (white) colleagues.
Like I keep saying, it's the reactions to people saying something is racist that are often more telling. It's entirely possible to unintentionally say something racist. How you react to having this pointed out is what is important.
It's Labour's reactions to being told they are doing and saying racist things that is far more telling than what they are actually saying and doing.
I tried to explain why I thought there was something being missed;
And in that you were successful, thank you. As I said, I was unaware of the trope.
@ernielynch thanks for bringing up the Forde report, it may well add more context.
To be clear Forde's claims in the report include that Diane Abbott was the victim of sexism as well as racism:
Forde’s report also found that some of the attitudes expressed towards Diane Abbott and other black, Asian and minority ethnic MPs in private WhatsApp messages among staffers hostile to Jeremy Corbyn represented “overt and underlying racism and sexism”.
Which imo is astonishing when you remember that we are talking about the Labour Party, not the Tory Party.
@brucewee no worries, it all got rather heated and I suspect something was lost in the noise as per here! My own reaction wasn't exactly contributing to a sensible discussion so I apologise in turn.
@ernielynch sobering reading.