This whole wypipo thing is a Russian troll farms dream

[Lee-Lee]

It’s exactly the kind of thing they dream of. A divisive issue that they can play up a bunch to create division and animosity among Democrats.

I’m not saying it came from the Russians. But just like they jumped in with BLM, guns, Bernie and other issues they can easily sieze on this issue and push it to create division. I suspect they have.

The terms only purpose is to make white people uncomfortable. And while I can see where some would think that’s a way to advance racial issues in a roundabout way, the term will almost certainly be used far less for any actual racial activism and far more for just creating division. While the creators of it may have had one intent I expect it will, if it already hasn’t, be hijacked by those whose only intent is to cause harm.

I’ve seen more and more it being used here at places like DU. Not much at all in any place where it’s a broader audience, but almost always in places where the majority of the audience is liberal. That says a lot.

It’s a perfect one for them to sieze. A bunch of Russian trolls can pretend to be black, use that term, and assume an air of moral superiority around it. If you disagree with them and you are white you are labeled wypipo displaying your white fragility or your just racist. If you start using it, you just multiplied thier influence. But a whole lot of people on our side will think it’s anywhere from silly to stupid to bigoted to outright racist, and they will mostly not say anything because of fear of being labeled by disagreement- but it creates quiet division and lack of voter motivation that follows.

We need to be really careful to watch for all this going forward.

Once again, I’m not saying the persons who created the term were trolls with the intent to divide. I know some people think you bring about change by that kind of action that makes people uncomfortable to make them realize their own privledge and internal bias. I get that. But they created something that’s a perfect tool for others to use to create division by not thinking several steps ahead about how this could be misused.

And you can see it already creating division here on DU.

So there really needs to be an awareness of how this issue and things like it can all be abused and hijacked to create division on the left. And when you see people intentionally creating division using what is essentially a made-up issue or scandal that piggybacks on real issues you should look closely at who it is and what the motives are.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. The sooner white people get comfortable with things that are uncomfortable, the sooner we'll all

make progress. How exactly are we at DU supposed to talk about the racial issues facing the Democratic party, the progressive movement, the left in general and society as a whole without acknowledging, sitting with and working through discomfort? This board is not a monolith. Nor is the Democratic party. As subsets of society, there are societal issues embedded in them. Anything can be weaponized by "the Russians" or "the other side." Saying we should discard vocabulary, ignore issues and try to unite without dismantling the very structures we're trying to work against will get us nowhere.

[sheshe2]

2. +1

[Lee-Lee]

6. I'm not saying don't do things like this or discard vocabulary

I am saying be aware of the possible repercussions if it is hijacked by people who don’t share your goals, and be vigilant for people doing so.

Some people get tunnel vision on just their goal and can’t see anything past that, or don’t care about secondary effects that can have more overall impact than what their primary goal is.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. It's good strategy to think about what your opponent might do at any point, sure.

Worrying about "secondary effects" or "repercussions" also sets the stage for people to push back on being uncomfortable as things change. "They're feeling attacked, it must be the Russians trying to keep them from voting!" is just as useless. Talking and moving and acting and pushing is better than sitting in fear that someone might misunderstand our discussion or take our words out of context.

[Lee-Lee]

26. Oh I'm not saying don't act

I’m saying be aware and be vigilant about how it can be hijacked or misused.

For those who use it as a tool, be observant for people with bad intent and call them out to not let the tool get misused.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

31. So at what point does that become concern trolling?

[Lee-Lee]

71. Probably when it's posted in a response every time the subject comes up

Someone raising a concern or point of view isn’t concern trolling.

Someone who repeatedly posts that same thing in response to every time they can find that even tangentially connected over and over, who doesn’t engage in honest debate about it, is likely concern trolling.

At least that’s why the line seems to be to me. How do you define it?

[grumpyduck]

59. IOW, don't get sucked in.

"Wypipo" is just one more label that somebody came up with for whatever purpose -- probably to get people to start arguments. Snake oil was very popular at one time too. And so were pet rocks, but I never bought one.

[GusBob]

7. Discard vocabulary?

I don't think you mean to say that

The words are white people. Common words in the English language.I think we should be strong enough to say those words without sounding like we are mumbling ,mocking a speech impidement ,or making up some secret code words

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. Why do you think I would not mean to say that?

I'm talking specifically about the term "wypipo."

[EffieBlack]

8. This

[NurseJackie]

19. There you have it ... thank you!

[Doodley]

51. Do you support childish name calling?

[geardaddy]

84. +1 million

[wasupaloopa]

87. I don't know how old you are but many of us here have been talking about racial issues since the

50's. So to be schooled by wypipo junkies is troubling.

To some young people here I guess this is a new cause celeb but not to me. People of my generation actually helped bring about the awareness of civil right issues to other white people long before anyone ever dreamed up wypipo.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

100. What does age have to do with it? Why do you feel "schooled"?

Some tactics over the years have worked. Some haven't. Some did, but were rolled back. New generations are going to incorporate new vocabularies, new ideas and new approaches to problems. But thinking a term coined by POC to talk about white people -- allies and enemies alike -- shouldn't really be seen primarily as a tool to "bring about the awareness of civil right issues to other white people."

[phylny]

124. I think we do it without hateful, divisive words meant to knock each other down.

But that's just me.

[sarah FAILIN]

136. If I called any race a name here, I would be kicked out

If I told them to get comfortable being uncomfortable, I would be kicked out.
Talking about racial issues doesn't require calling people names.

[Tipperary]

143. Yep.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Good analysis!

Thank you.

[cpamomfromtexas]

4. One thing is certain. Russians do their homework.

They can use use things they did not create.

Excellent analysis.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Reading more closely:

It’s a perfect one for them to sieze. A bunch of Russian trolls can pretend to be black, use that term, and assume an air of moral superiority around it. If you disagree with them and you are white you are labeled wypipo displaying your white fragility or your just racist.

If someone calls you out online on racial issues, or if you happen to disagree with someone you understand is black but don't know because Internet, do you then assume they're Russian trolls?

[Lee-Lee]

11. Not at all

But it’s a set of circumstances that those kind of trolls love to jump in to, where they can stir division and are able to deflect criticism.

I start suspecting a person is a troll if their overall pattern of behavior is such that it seems their only intent is to stir division.

I disagree with people all the time. I disagree with lots of people on this board on certain issues. But I don’t think everyone I disagree with is a troll.

There are some I disagree with who don’t argue using logic and don’t engage in honest debate but just roll over to insults and ad-hominem attacks, those are more likely trolls. Sometimes I wonder if some of the more over the top ones are not way over the top trying to discredit the side they claim to agree with.

So no, it’s far more complicated. I welcome honest debate and disagreement and don’t think anyone I disagree with or who calls me out is a troll. Automatically labeling those you disagree with as trolls is an intellectually dishonest way to avoid debating those you disagree with.

It’s only those who don’t seem interested in honest bebate but only seem to seek to stir shit that I start to suspect as trolls.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. Identifying and discussing division caused by racism is not troll behavior.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. This is what this post seems to want to do

The reports of (basically verified) Russian trolls appear to show they have targeted the types of social media that gets the most "bang for the buck", i.e., that can go viral, but not necessarily on what I would consider an "old geezer" forum like this (i.e., I have seen polls done on DU that place the median poster age here pretty significantly in the boomer age group).

Doesn't meant they wouldn't come here or aren't already here. But labeling anything to do with "discussion of race" as "Russian trolls seeking to divide" is merely to shut down debate and could easily be done by "Russian trolls" as well.

[EffieBlack]

36. Yup

Honest discussions about race are a positive thing that lead to real, sustainable understanding and change. Shutting them down is a tool we should not encourage here.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. One of the things that keeps getting missed when people label something as "divisive"

is that this subject seems to only apply to discussing certain topics like "race". When it comes to other topics like "guns" or "religion", as vitriolic as those subjects can be, the arguments go back and forth but aren't called "divisive" in terms of somehow suddenly keeping people from voting for Democrats, despite the fact that in some cases, this is often the end result.

Yet with "race" (or gender or orientation), we are talking about actual people - voters - who cannot help who they are and do not have the same binary choices such as owning or not owning a gun, or practicing or not practicing a religion.

So talking about PEOPLE and how certain policies may negatively or positively impact them (and WHY), is now considered taboo, and will automatically be labeled "divisive". And that is because rather than allow the discussion as to why certain policies may or may not work for those of various persuasions, with attempts to illustrate certain cultural reasons, such is summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit the majority culture's viewpoint or narrative and is thus considered irrelevant.

[EffieBlack]

48. EXCELLENT point!

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. And the only time "divisive" comes up in this discussion is when non POC are

responding to what they perceive as an attack.

Given the POC have been and continue to be under attack 24/7 from every angle, it is almost humorous to watch the complaining from the non POC.

[wasupaloopa]

89. No it is not. I am one of the old geezers here. I think the OP is right on.

[DLevine]

9. Agree.

As you said, be aware. It's up to each of us not to feed into the divisiveness.

[Bucky]

14. plus the word looks a bit like wypi-poo

which is good hygiene, but bad nomenclature

[betsuni]

16. "A bunch of Russian trolls can pretend to be black"

THIS IS TOO FUNNY.

[procon]

28. It probably would be hilarious, except that it's already happened.

... Russian trolls stoked racial tensions
Russian trolls used concerns about police violence and voter fraud to simultaneously court and attack communities of color.
...
In September, CNN reported that two different social media accounts under the handle “Blacktivists” were being used to connect with black audiences and “regularly shared content intended to stoke outrage.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17021420/russia-indictments-mueller-elections-race-voter-fraud-police-violence

[betsuni]

30. No, the OP is about DU.

"I've seen more and more of it being used here at places like DU." "And you can see it already creating divisions here on DU."

[Lee-Lee]

34. Exactly- they have done it, they will again

So be vigilant.

[betsuni]

39. "they"

[procon]

68. There was no confusion that the pronoun refers to Russians, or was this about something else? nt

[betsuni]

145. Oh dear, you can't tell the difference?

Or was this about something else?

[LexVegas]

17. Wypipo are getting salty about the wypipo thing. nt

[NurseJackie]

21. You noticed too, eh?

Go figure.

[Lee-Lee]

27. Well, I'm not white, but your assumption is interesting

[LanternWaste]

37. As is your concern.

"your assumption is interesting..."

As are your allegations of concern regarding a mere appellation.

[nini]

29. That's it wrapped up in one concise sentence

Well done

[ehrnst]

77. Yep. (nt)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. With as many white people who insist they aren't racist, one would think they'd be happy to have

a term to describe white people who are.

[procon]

41. Why is a derogatory term needed to stigmatize people?

With an important issue like racism used as a weapon, it creates even deeper rifts that only serve to divide everyone into separate warring camps. There are already enough of those, so how does it help in fostering a change in hearts and minds, if that really is the ultimate goal, to expand the use of derogatory terms?

When whites have used similar labels to marginalised blacks it sure didn't help to create solidarity or unify public opinion in a positive way. It's destructive, so why is a different outcome expected when whites are on the receiving end, or is the agenda something altogether different?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

47. Yes, why on earth would we want to identify and define racist behavior?

Why could an oppressed population possibly want shorthand terms to describe behavior they experience?

When whites have used similar labels to marginalised blacks it sure didn't help to create solidarity or unify public opinion in a positive way. It's destructive, so why is a different outcome expected when whites are on the receiving end, or is the agenda something altogether different?

A different outcome is expected because we live in a white hegemony.

[procon]

64. And how's that tactic working for you?

You chose that specific response for a reason. I'm not seeing where there is any payoff in pursuing an inflammatory and combative strategy here. Similar strategies that were used to marginalize blacks have largely backfired and have had the opposite effect of what those white race baiting factions intended. Maybe there is some other point that I'm missing where the use of divisive terms will result in some sort of transformation that will bring about a greater understanding and the end to the white hegemony?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

67. What tactic?

[div class="excerpt"You chose that specific response for a reason. I'm not seeing where there is any payoff in pursuing an inflammatory and combative strategy here.

Are...are you saying I should moderate my tone? That I sound angry? That I'm making you uncomfortable?

Similar strategies that were used to marginalize blacks have largely backfired and have had the opposite effect of what those white race baiting factions intended.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. What strategies to marginalize black people?

Maybe there is some other point that I'm missing where the use of divisive terms will result in some sort of transformation that will bring about a greater understanding and the end to the white hegemony?

Here's a hint: Sometimes, when black people talk about white people, it's not for white people. They don't care what white people think about it. White people have done everything they can to eliminate black people, and they still haven't succeeded. The absolute lack of fucks black people have to give is reaching record proportions. Black people do not need to modulate their behavior or language to be treated well or make progress with whites. They've tried that before, and it doesn't work. The tactics of racism vary widely, but white people like to think if they're not KKK members, they're not racist and don't need to examine their own behavior. Getting called on that is going to hurt, but it's important. POC have tried to do it with love for years, but many white people simply refuse to listen.

[Doodley]

73. Please stop generalizing about white people. You are being offensive.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

102. Pretty sure I've told no lies. Just say #notallwhitepeople and save us both some time.

[Doodley]

117. What does that mean?

[procon]

74. I rather suspected that, but the level of racial hate is heartbreaking.

While I can empathise with vengeance, and you rightfully point out how detrimental it is when whites use racism, how would there be a different outcome expected when the tables are turned? Beyond revenge, is ther some purpose or attainable goal that can only be achieved by open declarative race warfare? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe lots of white people will appreciate this confrontational approach and they will eagerly embrace tolerance and change their ways. Anything is possible.

[ehrnst]

78. Yes, anything is possible

With discussion that isn't cloaking confrontational, racist name calling in passive aggressive, overly flowery writing.

I think that maybe you're really wrong, but not about what you think.

Ya feel me?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

101. Are you saying the term "wypipo" is a term of of racial hate, revenge and race warfare?

People are really giving this word a lot more power than it holds, which just goes to show how they feel targeted by it, I guess?

[procon]

109. Perceptions are a tricky thing, all too often we end up creating a

vastly different impression than anything we might have initially thought when derogatory words are brunted about. It's not -- I think -- a matter of feeling targeted, but rather the universal perception of being unfairly maligned that we all share when we are being dismissed as unworthy, mere objects of derision, based on something as trivial as the skin we were born with.

[EffieBlack]

86. "Here's a hint: Sometimes, when black people talk about white people, it's not for white people."

“They don't care what white people think about it. White people have done everything they can to eliminate black people, and they still haven't succeeded. The absolute lack of fucks black people have to give is reaching record proportions. Black people do not need to modulate their behavior or language to be treated well or make progress with whites. They've tried that before, and it doesn't work. The tactics of racism vary widely, but white people like to think if they're not KKK members, they're not racist and don't need to examine their own behavior. Getting called on that is going to hurt, but it's important. POC have tried to do it with love for years, but many white people simply refuse to listen.

This was so awesomely eloquent and eloquently awesome, I just wanted to say it again.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

106. .

[annabanana]

118. This is a great quote.

As a white person, I am neither surprised or upset (not that my feelings are germain)

[Doodley]

55. Would you like slang language to be used to be describe you? If not, why do you seem to support it?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

60. I'm pretty sure slang language is used to describe me all the time.

As someone who's interested in language, I'm fascinated by the invention of words and why languages evolve the way they do. I'm also not quite sure why people are so mad about a term used to describe people who display racist behavior or are worried that it's "derogatory."

[Doodley]

72. Are you saying that all white people (wypipo, as you call them) display racist behavior?

[George II]

79. Are you saying that that word is used to refer to "all" white people?

[Doodley]

115. That is the implication of the slang word, isn't it?

[George II]

121. No.

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. Yikes...

[ChubbyStar]

105. Let us read what the poster wrote

" I'm also not quite sure why people are so mad about a term used to describe people who display racist behavior or are worried that it's "derogatory."

Does that say ALL WHITE PEOPLE? No, it does not. Happy to help clear that up.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

69. And are you saying we should think about racist white people's feelings when using certain terms to

describe them and their behavior?

[EffieBlack]

88. Yes, because apparently some of them are thinking about being not racist, but when they see

an anonymous stranger on DU say “Wypipo,” they’re so hurt and offended that they’re going to stay racist and it’s all your fault they’re not going to vote Democratic from now on.

At least that’s what I’ve been told.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

99. They were totally gonna stop being racist, but being conflated with ACTUAL RACIST PEOPLE

will make them keep being racist and also stop voting Democratic. Or something. WHATEVER SHALL WE DO.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. If wypipo is describing you, then, by definition, you SHOULD be identified with wypipo...

If wypipo is not describing you, then, by definition, wypipo doesn't apply to you... so what's the problem?

[treestar]

108. "insist?" Do you think it is not possible?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. Yes, one WOULD think that... how ironic the term "wypipo" is outing wypipo.

[jmowreader]

141. "Racist assholes" always worked well for me

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. On the other hand...

When you see stupid, useless, nonsensical bullshit on DU or elsewhere, you can ignore it

[sarah FAILIN]

137. They make a button for that

I've been using it a good bit lately.

[MineralMan]

22. My comment: Not every difficult discussion means that Russians are behind it.

[Dave Starsky]

23. Fuck yeah it is.

That's why I'm trashing every single thread that comes up on the subject, including this one. (No offense.) I suggest others do likewise.

[phylny]

125. I'm ready to do the same.

My father is 90. He calls people from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., "Orientals." I correct him all the time. To me, it's impolite, it's not what people I know who are from Asia care to be called, and that's enough for me. He doesn't mean it in a demeaning way - it's just what they "used" to be called when he was younger. He doesn't, however, use the word "Negro" to describe Black/African Americans. So, he learned a little something, anyway.

I imagine the term "wypipo" is similarly a slur against a group of people. Even though it's a slur against "the bad whites," it IS meant in a demeaning way. I thought we Democrats were better than that.

[EffieBlack]

24. How odd

It's interesting how little some people know about black conversations and vocabulary - not because they're done in secret, but because they never venture beyond predominantly white enclaves like DU to find out what anyone who doesn't look like them thinks, says and how they say it.

For example "Wypipo" and other versions thereof are nothing new. But to hear the way some folks are reacting to it, you would think that Michael Harriott invented it last Wednesday, blapipo held a meeting to approve it on Thursday and on Friday we rolled it out for approval by white folk.

But if any of these people ever bothered to make any effort to interact with with us outside of their comfy confines - you know, maybe read the "Root" or Essence" or some other source where minority viewpoints frame the debate rather than get treated as an annoying distraction - they would have already been very familiar with it, as well as the dynamics and history surrounding it and many other aspects of black life and culture. "Wypipo" didn't suddenly spring to life as a thing just because YOU only now discovered it.

I'm sure the "Russian trolls" you're so concerned about already are very aware of this since they probably visit all kinds of websites, not just white enclaves like DU. I

And if they're having a field day with it - which I sincerely doubt - it's not because of the word or the fact that some black people use it. They're probably laughing at your reaction to the word as further proof of the racial divisions in this country that have existed for centuries (and have absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody said "Wypipo" ) and will continue to exist if they aren't addressed (and by "addressed," I don't mean never mentioned) - and they can see how vulnerable and susceptible even some supposedly progressive white people are to viewing themselves as superior, entitled and victims all at the same time.

So, please spare us the "You're feeding the Russian trolls" lectures just because you don't feel comfortable with a conversation.

[Bok_Tukalo]

42. I have seen the slur used many times.

In places that are predominately black from theroot to closed Facebook groups. I know I am going to see bigots in those contexts and understand there will be individuals who will use racial pejoratives directed at Caucasians. I can choose to read Michael Harriot and Monique Judge or not. I can choose to spend time online with close friends on a closed Facebook group or not.

I really don't post much on DU but I read it every day. When I saw the slur used here, I pushed back. I am a bit surprised at how much discussion was instigated by that mild rebuke. Claims of Russian trolls is really over the top. I don't consider any of the discussion divisive, deliberate or otherwise. It did get a bit sharp but that is the nature of argument.

If this group considers it acceptable to use this specific pejorative, or that racial pejoratives directed at Caucasians in general are fine, there is little I can do other than give my opinion that I think it is wrong.

[Control-Z]

25. I've seen wypipo in the headline of

a few threads over the past week. I have no idea what it means and I wasn't interested in knowing what it meant. Now I'm thinking I want to know.

Can someone give me a brief summary, please?

[leftstreet]

40. It's a somewhat loose term

On DU there's recently been a link to this article, but I don't think anyone's actually reading it. It combines serious accusations with mocking silliness:

Most white people love animals, but wypipo will kiss their dog in the mouth and feed them with the same silverware they are eating with. While it would be wrong to lump all white people’s motives towards humans and nonhumans together, wypipo generally love animals more than they love people. Wypipo can see an unarmed bullet-riddled black body leaking blood in the street and feel no empathy, but will be outraged upon hearing that someone mistreated a house cat. Wypipo steer clear of black neighborhoods and don’t think about the economic and social remnants of segregation on black youth, but will show up at Sea World with picket signs to protest the captivity of killer whales.

White people don’t season their food, but wypipo like theirs organic, free range and gluten free.

Wypipo are deathly worried about radical Islamic terroristm, but won’t acknowledge that the vast majority of terrorism in America comes from white people.

Wypipo are pro-life when it comes to abortion, but cool with the death penalty and police brutality. Those wypipo will tell you that “pro-life” is just a term to describe the anti-abortion movement, that it has nothing to do with issues of police violence and capital punishment. But if you mention the movement that focuses on State violence against black bodies, they will quickly say, “but what about black on black crime?”

Wypipo have the intestinal fortitude to wear shorts and flip flops all year round. When it is absolutely too cold to wear them, yoga pants will suffice.

http://neguswhoread.com/wypipo-explained/

[Control-Z]

45. Thank you.

It seems silly enough to be a thing, for a while, I guess.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. If you read that essay

it is written with quite a bit of over-the-top hyperbole but it was done to point out some of the hypocritical behaviors that occur among a select group of people (whether they are actually white or otherwise, because the author threw some blacks into the category as well), for how they actually apply some of the policies and viewpoints they purport to embrace.

[Tarc]

32. "The terms only purpose is to make white people uncomfortable"

As a white boy, I think this is kinda necessary. What invariably comes up in these discussions is "what can we do for persons of color?", "are we doing enough for the black voters", and so on. It implies the we (whites) should hold all the cards and decide things for PoCs.

That has to change, we all need more of them at the top to call the shots and direct the party platform and such. "What can we do for them?" has to go, and be replaced with "what can we all do for each other?"

This means a less, percentage-wise, white voice in party leadership. If that makes some uncomfortable, well they better learn to adapt.

[EffieBlack]

33. " And you can see it already creating division here on DU."

Here we go with that again.

I will ask you the same question I've asked others who trot out this line - I have yet to get an answer, so maybe this will be my lucky day.

What exactly do you mean by "division" and how does someone saying the word "Wypipo" on a progressive Democratic board "create" it.

Are you saying that until you saw the word "Wypipo" on DU a few days ago, we had no racial divisions?"

If we didn't, how exactly did the word and the discussions around it create divisions?

If you are a progressive, open-minded Democrat who believes in equality and equal opportunity, how precisely does some stranger on an anonymous discussion board divide you from anything or anyone. Who does it divide you from? Other white progressives? Black Democrats?

Does it divide you from other Democrats with whom you agree? How?

Or does it divide you from those Democrats who see it differently than you do? And, if that's the case, weren't you already divided on the issue anyway?

How does this affect you as an ally? Does the fact that some black people you don't know and will never know - and a whole lot of white people you don't know, too - are fine with the term "Wypipo" "divide" you from the cause or make you any less committed to supporting civil rights? If so, how does that work? If not, what's the problem?

Thank you in advance for better defining your terms.

[Lee-Lee]

43. Maybe my point of view on this lets me see it different

I’m not white. But I’m also not black, so the degree and type of discrimination I’ve seen in my life differs from others, and certainly not as bad as someone perceived as black.

I am a bit of an outlier on this discussion, in a way, and that gives me a different vantage point.

I don’t see the tactic of making people uncomfortable as a best practice for combatting racism, although I fully understand the intent and reasoning behind it.

At the same time I’m not white so it doesn’t offend me or impact me personally, and I take some amusement at how easily it offends them.

However, I can also see that it does also come across as petty and insulting to some white people who, while they may not be great allies are Democratic voters when they vote. And it does make them, rightly or wrongly, feel attacked.

And trolls intent on creating division know that. So they can start using the term in a way not intended by the original creators, but in a way intended to stoke those feelings of being insulted or attacked.

My personal feelings on the term are mostly ambivalent. I’m not white so I don’t care what terms people use personally, but I don’t think it’s a very effective tool to use in combatting white supremacy either.

My entire concern is big picture on how it can be used as a way to increase division on the left and suppress voter turnout. And the more I think about it also be used to stoke the false feelings of victimhood among the racist right and motivate them to turn out.

My main concern is 100% the effect this will have on election results.

[EffieBlack]

46. This is a very thoughtful response - but it still doesn't answer any of my questions

What do you mean by DIVISION?

How will any of this negatively affect voter turnout? Are you saying that someone is going to decide not to vote or not vote Democratic because some anonymous people said, "Wypipo?"

If that's the case, the problem is far deeper than a word and this person was already "divided" from other Democrats.

And black people are insulted and demeaned every single day. Our opinions are discounted, our issues are dismissed as "identity politics," we're told that any effort on our part to discuss anything beyond what the white majority wants to discuss had better be done in a way that doesn't make any white person "uncomfortable" and no matter how gently, respectfully or eloquently we venture to comment, we're told that we're doing it wrong and causing "divisions."

Yet, we're supposed to sit docilely while other people insult, dismiss us and defend and make excuse after excuse for the outright abuse of our brethren (the Starbucks arrest and Arkansas teacher case being two recent examples_ and if we DO say something, again, it is WE who are being "divisive.

In other words, we're being divisive if we make any white person uncomfortable in any way. We're being divisive if a white person makes us uncomfortable and we say something about it. We're being divisive if we don't respond to white people throwing fits about THEIR discomfort and hurt feelings. And we're being divisive if we say that we're uncomfortable and hurt.

[Lee-Lee]

70. Yeah, it's a tough line to look at

When I say divisive I mean look at the arguments here- and this is a place where only your solidly democratic voters come.

Now consider the effects on the wider electorate. The not so dyed in the wool voters, etc.

When you do things that are intended to make people uncomfortable in a political or quasi-political setting that affects the electorate and it’s behavior at large.

Here on DU do I think it would keep anyone who posts here home? No.

But outside here, that person who isn’t very motivated or that considers themselves not be to a racist but is offended and told they suck as an ally if they feel that way- well you might affect them. Suzie Soccer Mom who voted Democrat but isn’t very passionate about issues may end up feeling so bummed on politics she just doesn’t bother to vote, because when it’s not a priority it’s not a long reach for her to get there.

Now, once again to be clear- I am not saying people who use the term as a tool to try and achieve a goal of making white people more aware of their privledge and more aware of what it’s like to be a minority are doing it to be divisive. Sure, it is to a point- but all good political debate will be divisive to a point and there isn’t anything wrong with that. Anything that takes people outside their comfort zone by design will be divisive to some extent.

What I am saying is that this is a very ripe fruit for trollls to pick and run with. So those who see it as a valid tool need to be aware and call out that is they see it. I’m not saying don’t use it as a tool, I’m saying guard the tool and use it wisely and protect it from those who would abuse it.

As an example if trolls start labeling everything they see a white person do that makes the news as “stupid wypipo” or every political disgreeemt gets down to someone posting “wypipo” just to inflame, then it’s been moved from a tool for raising awareness to just a word used to troll. When they start making headlines on posts using it just because it involves a white person, then is that an attempt to raise awareness or an attempt to cause division?

It’s a tough line. A person using it as you talk about isn’t being a troll. A person throwing it in people faces without regard for intent behind it but just to throw it around possibly is.

A

[EffieBlack]

82. If "Suzie Soccer Mom who voted Democrat but isn't very passionate about issues" is so bummed out

by anything she reads on DU that she’s not going to vote, frankly that’s HER problem. It’s not MY responsibility - or anyone else’s - to pull their punches and water down their opinions and comments to accommodate Suzie Soccer Mom’s delicate sensibilities.

By the same token, people of color are insulted and dismissed here every day. We’re told that our perspective is biased. We’re lectured constantly about why black men deserved to be arrested and killed because THEY didn’t respond the correct way to white racism. We’re told that we shouldn’t complain when cops make arrests that are patently illegal. Our efforts to talk about issues we care about are greeted with hostility and derision (“Not THIS shit again!), veiled racist snark, and blatant threats to shut us up by abusing alert system. We’re blamed for causing “division” - as if racism and discrimination would magically disappear if only we didn’t mention it on DU.

Well, black and brown folk are just as capable of seeing - and are very likely to see - all of that and more as Suzie Soccer Mom is of seing someone saying “Wypipo.” But for some reason, the folks who worry about poor Suzie NEVER display the least bit of worry or concern that such behavior might drive a PERSON OF COLOR away, could lead a BLACK PERSON to not vote, could make a MINORITY less likely to support the party. If black people are offended, not only are we overreacting, we’re blamed for causing the very problem we’re trying to point out - and then iwe’re instructed again to tiptoe around and soothe the hurt feelings of potential former racists.

And you say WE’RE being “divisive?”

I don’t accept that for a second. Sorry, not sorry.

[Lee-Lee]

107. You don't seem to get my point

Or don’t want to.

I’m not saying people using it in the original intent are doing so with intent to be divisive. No more than any political discussion is inherently somewhat divsisne.

I am saying people with ill intent can manipulate it to be divsisive.

And everyone should be aware of that possibility.

You seem intent on making this about you and how you use it and your intent, when I think I’ve been quite clear it’s not about that.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make that.

As for not caring about Suzie Soccer Mom, my main objective is winning elections, that means votes. Her vote is what I care about.

[EffieBlack]

110. I get your point perfectly

If comments that offend Suzie Soccer Mom can be manipulated to affect Democratic support, comments that offend Khalilah Soccer Mom can also be manipulated for the same purposes. But you and some others here seem concerned only about not upsetting Susie and don't seem the least concerned about upsetting Khalilah - and, in fact, insist that if Khalilah says she's upset, it's HER fault if Suzie ends up not voting. Yet, on the other hand, you show no concern whatever whether anything you say might offend Khalila, whose sensibilities and opinions apparently mean little to nothing unless they align with Suzie's.

[Lee-Lee]

142. Yeah, you don't get it

Let me be clear.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU OR ANY OTHER POC WHO USE THE TERM.

I never said you shouldn’t. I never said you were wrong for doing so.

You seem hell bent on bring this always around to being about you, or being about African Americans and claiming it’s me saying what you can or can’t do or should or shouldn’t do.

Go back and read my posts again.

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU.

Do you get it now?

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU.

ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO OR DO NOT SAY.

ITS NOT ABOUT If WHAT YOU SAY AFFECTS HOW THE PEOPLE FEEL OR VOTE.


My entire point is that the movement/term/etc has a high possibility to be hijacked and used against all of our interests BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT YOU OR I.

You seem to not be able to discern the difference between me saying that if Russian trolls hijack the term or movement it can cause harm, what I reaky said, and me saying that you or all black people are the ones causing that harm, something I never said but what your arguing with me as if I did.

[EffieBlack]

144. Wow. Did you even read my post?

Apparently not, since your rather hysterical response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

If comments that offend Suzie Soccer Mom can be manipulated to affect Democratic support, comments that offend Khalilah Soccer Mom can also be manipulated for the same purposes. But you and some others here seem concerned only about not upsetting Susie and don't seem the least concerned about upsetting Khalilah - and, in fact, insist that if Khalilah says she's upset, it's HER fault if Suzie ends up not voting. Yet, on the other hand, you show no concern whatever whether anything you say might offend Khalila, whose sensibilities and opinions apparently mean little to nothing unless they align with Suzie's.

Or maybe you just can’t respond to my point without undercutting your own argument, so you’ decided instead to simply rant about nothing.

Whatever.

[BumRushDaShow]

96. To respond to this

When I say divisive I mean look at the arguments here- and this is a place where only your solidly democratic voters come.

This statement is probably way off the mark, particularly given the existence of the sister site "Discussionist" and breakoffs such as JPR. When those who aren't "solidly democratic voters" here start coddling or outright posting RW talkpoints, then they are either gently persuaded the other way through debate or dinged through juries or even by MIRT. And there are quite a few here, including independents.

Now consider the effects on the wider electorate. The not so dyed in the wool voters, etc.

When you do things that are intended to make people uncomfortable in a political or quasi-political setting that affects the electorate and it’s behavior at large.

This is true, however it seems that one group's "uncomfortableness" is given more weight than another's.

Here on DU do I think it would keep anyone who posts here home? No.

But outside here, that person who isn’t very motivated or that considers themselves not be to a racist but is offended and told they suck as an ally if they feel that way- well you might affect them. Suzie Soccer Mom who voted Democrat but isn’t very passionate about issues may end up feeling so bummed on politics she just doesn’t bother to vote, because when it’s not a priority it’s not a long reach for her to get there.

But what you miss here is when people try to have those intelligent and gentle and thoughtful discussions with "Suzie Soccer Mom" about things that she might be doing to make OTHERS "uncomfortable", and those efforts are ignored. And then you try again a different way and then "Suzie" storms off in a huff. So then your solution is to "drop it", put your head in the sand, and allow "Suzie" to continue to make ME "uncomfortable" so that she doesn't have to make any changes in her behavior. Her privilege trumps mine. And that's fine and dandy but then the source of the infection continues and the symptoms continue to negatively impact certain groups but not others.

Yet "uncomfortable" me KNOWS BETTER (despite my own "uncomfortableness" being dismissed because "Suzie Soccer Mom" is deemed more important), and I will STILL vote for the interests of the country while little "Suzie" storms off in her privileged netherworld. And because of the "Suzie Soccer Moms" of the world, whole swaths of people who look like me who make up from 25% - 40% of southern state populations, are so also "turned off" from politics because they see little or no change in how they are treated by "Suzie Soccer Mom", so they TOO stop voting.

At some point, these "fly by night" voters may really be beyond any help, but refusing to allow someone to engage them initially is never going to bring about any change.

Now, once again to be clear- I am not saying people who use the term as a tool to try and achieve a goal of making white people more aware of their privledge and more aware of what it’s like to be a minority are doing it to be divisive. Sure, it is to a point- but all good political debate will be divisive to a point and there isn’t anything wrong with that. Anything that takes people outside their comfort zone by design will be divisive to some extent.

What I am saying is that this is a very ripe fruit for trollls to pick and run with. So those who see it as a valid tool need to be aware and call out that is they see it. I’m not saying don’t use it as a tool, I’m saying guard the tool and use it wisely and protect it from those who would abuse it.

In this case, anything that is "controversial" (the so-called "wedge issues" ) can be "hijacked". So it seems dubious to suggest how and at what frequency to engage people regarding certain subjects to bring about a "positive" change.

As an example if trolls start labeling everything they see a white person do that makes the news as “stupid wypipo” or every political disgreeemt gets down to someone posting “wypipo” just to inflame, then it’s been moved from a tool for raising awareness to just a word used to troll. When they start making headlines on posts using it just because it involves a white person, then is that an attempt to raise awareness or an attempt to cause division?

It’s a tough line. A person using it as you talk about isn’t being a troll. A person throwing it in people faces without regard for intent behind it but just to throw it around possibly is.

IMHO, the problem with this argument is that sometimes people will exaggerate a "fad" term as having more importance than it does, including to the point of somehow "making the news", or having more "shelf-life" than it actually ends up having. The world moves fast and memes/euphemisms/sayings get replaced at lightning speed with new ones.

And as an analogy of "terminology" all one need do is look at Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel) and his nonsensical terms that were used to "teach" various sociological concepts - notably seen in the story of the "Sneetches" (those with "stars upon thars" and those without) -



-the point being that the two sides competing need to discuss why things might be the way they are rather than try to manufacture another way to be "superior". But shutting down that discussion only drives people to any "machine" that will keep their privilege intact.

[procon]

56. The replies that were presented yesterday were summarily dismissed.

Why would the answers today be any different or more acceptable?

In the current version, the new assertion is that anonymous strangers can't create divisions. To accept that flawed premise we would have to ignore our lying eyes and not see any of the flame wars that dominate every discussion board on the internet.

Whenever someone lumps people together and labels them with a derogatory name it's unrealistic to expect them to respond in a positive manner or be open and willing to embrace, or at least tolerate, a differing POV. There are far better tactics to use if the goal really is to promote changing people's hearts and minds.

[EffieBlack]

61. Hey, boo - they were dismissed because they didn't answer my question

But it's nice to see you still following me around.

[procon]

65. The limited criteria that defines an acceptable response stifles differing views.

Maybe a multiple choice checklist of approved definitions would be a better option?

[EffieBlack]

75. Well, let's just say that if you're asked to define "divisiveness,"

“Divisiveness means that it divides people” is not an adequate response.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. What is it that makes people so bothered by you, hmmmmm

[EffieBlack]

85. I can't imagine

Unless it has something to do with being some people’s biggest nightmare (to paraphrase Eddie Murphy): A sister with a brain.

[ehrnst]

81. Well that's not divisive or derogatory at all, is it?

When one slams people, condescends, and attempts to whitesplain to POC on DU, it's unrealistic to expect them to respond in a positive manner or be open and willing to embrace, or at least tolerate, a differing POV.

However, Effieblack has done that countless times here on DU, even though that POV clearly isn't very respectful, positive or inclusive to all those who aren't ignoring our "lying eyes."

You could learn from Effie, if you were willing to open your heart and mind, and not continue to lecture.

Ya feel me?

[kwassa]

94. "Wypipo" is a term from black twitter that doesn't refer to ALL white people.

and was never aimed in discussion at white people at all, but among black people. It is a term that is jokingly derogatory about SOME white people. You refuse to see that.

I posted a long excerpt that explained this yesterday. Michael Harriot in The Root.

So what are the differences between white people and wypipo? The differences are too vast to quantify, but here are some examples:

Most white people love animals, but wypipo will kiss their dog in the mouth and feed them with the same silverware they are eating with. While it would be wrong to lump all white people’s motives towards humans and nonhumans together, wypipo generally love animals more than they love people. Wypipo can see an unarmed bullet-riddled black body leaking blood in the street and feel no empathy, but will be outraged upon hearing that someone mistreated a house cat. Wypipo steer clear of black neighborhoods and don’t think about the economic and social remnants of segregation on black youth, but will show up at Sea World with picket signs to protest the captivity of killer whales.

And it’s not just animals. All white people–to varying degrees–benefit from white privilege, and most white people refuse to acknowledge it–but wypipo get angry that the phrase even exists. Wypipo live under the comfortable delusion that we all live on an equal playing field. They believe the egocentric idea that success comes from hard work and ability alone, and that race doesn’t play any part in their success. White people use the aphorism that some people “were born on third base, and think they hit a triple,” but wypipo believe that anyone who doesn’t reach base must not be as good a hitter, or doesn’t practice hard enough.

http://neguswhoread.com/wypipo-explained/

[procon]

97. It would be appalling for whites to get together and use their favorite little derogatory words

to joke about SOME black people. That's counter to what we teach our children, telling them that it's wrong to make fun of others or use words intended to cause harm. People object to those who use defamatory racial slurs in school or in public venues, and workplaces define that conduct as a fireable offense.

Even if the word is used in secret, its dehumanizing effect isn't hidden and only serves to create a deeper rift. Yes, I absolutely refuse to accept that any form of racial name calling has a positive intent.

[BumRushDaShow]

112. "It would be appalling for whites to get together and use their favorite little derogatory words"

Your assertion seems to be that none actually do this, yet there are many who DO just that. And some even do it in front of "the help".

ALL groups (ethnic or otherwise) do it to one extent or the other but not ALL individuals within those groups choose or desire to participate in such. We have seen post after post after post after post here on DU by those who have family members and (former) "friends" and co-workers or "ex-"es who they say were so intent on doing it that the DU poster has stated that they were sometimes driven to break ties with those folks (which is sometimes hard when it comes to "family" ).

And what is being described is what is done in private vs in public although in some cases, it trickles out to the public, which is exactly what we are seeing has happened with the Drumpfers who are now "allowed" to put it all out there "in public".

But just as you talk about deeper "rifts", many of us see the "healing" of those rifts over a couple generations, enough that it allowed for a black President to be elected to office twice. But what we are facing now is the backlash of those two elections and the core disagreement has been what was the cause of a whiplash election that brought in someone who is the complete opposite of the previous President.

[procon]

119. Please don't shuffle around the words I wrote to recreate a different meaning.

If you require translation services, PM me and I'll do my best -- sans any use of suspicious quotation marks -- to explain what Iactually did write.

[BumRushDaShow]

120. I quoted what you wrote

(literally copied and pasted) which was from this (to include your subject line) -

97. It would be appalling for whites to get together and use their favorite little derogatory words

to joke about SOME black people. That's counter to what we teach our children, telling them that it's wrong to make fun of others or use words intended to cause harm. People object to those who use defamatory racial slurs in school or in public venues, and workplaces define that conduct as a fireable offense.

Even if the word is used in secret, its dehumanizing effect isn't hidden and only serves to create a deeper rift. Yes, I absolutely refuse to accept that any form of racial name calling has a positive intent.

Or do you need a new browser because your current one is not rendering correctly?

[procon]

122. No, you did no such thing. LOL - and it's not even close.

Seriously, do better, yeah?

[BumRushDaShow]

123. Um okay

Big scotoma ya got there.

[Odoreida]

35. Someone please explain why "wypipo" is an anti-white slur at all.

It's "white people" spelled to be pronounced in a stereotypical "black" accent.

Prediction: The totally wrong kind of white people will pick up "wypipo" and keep it alive long after it would otherwise be out of fashion.

Or have they already.

If this makes me a "concern troll" so be it.

[EffieBlack]

38. The term will likely play out pretty soon to now that it's become a "thing"

But black folk have been doing vocabulary for centuries - and totally killing it - and will no doubt have some interesting new terms to replace it.

"Bein' colored sure is a lot of fun sometimes - when ain't nobody lookin'!" Aunt Missy in "Purlie Victorious"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

63. True, true -- pretty soon some enterprising self-identified edgelords will "co-opt" it and use it as

a term of affection.

But that QUOTE!

[Demit]

66. I predict it will lose whatever sting it supposedly has, and be absorbed

the way other black tropes have been. Like fist bumps. Like how white people say Mickey D's for Macdonald's, and know how to do that sideways head move while saying Oh no you di'int. We routinely talk about our "homies." I'm pretty sure I've seen white people use the word "po-po" for the police.

We love black culture! We couldn't live without it, judging from how consistently we adopt it.

[EffieBlack]

90. Cornrows

[Demit]

93. Saying bruh and boo and a'ight.

Soul handshakes, going back to the 70s.

[EffieBlack]

95. and Jive Turkey

At least they finally figured out it’s “bruh” not “broh.”

Like “Honkey” and “Hunkey.” Only black people on ‘70s tv (in striped sweaters, platforms and apple hats) said “Honkey” and “Jive Turkey.”

[Demit]

111. mmm hmmm.

[BumRushDaShow]

113. Oh Lord thank you.

Every time I see "honkey" I cringe because that term was only briefly used and was quickly replaced DECADES ago. No respectable black person would ever say that but it seems to be a favorite by some whites.

"Jive turkey", "Jive talk", or just "Jive" are other anachronisms that keep get resurrected.

Even "homey" or "home slice" or "crib" have faded. I have had one of my millennial nieces just laugh if I say something like "The place was 'the bomb'" and she says "Nahh Aunt Bum, it was 'lit'".

[HopeAgain]

49. How is this possibly important to anyone?

I must be missing something, or in the alternative, don't see the use of dying for a molehill.

[Blue_Adept]

104. It isn't. It's outrage du jour on DU, especially in the face of significant threats

I've not put it on my ignore list as I was curious to see how some of it would play out but I'm nearing the end of the amusement factor in how people have reacted.

[NCTraveler]

50. Thoughts and prayers to wypipo. nt.

[Abu Pepe]

52. Any threads that aren't about electing Dems. (Except my. music groups etc)

will be ignored. Not even gonna click on them.

[EffieBlack]

91. Except this time

[Abu Pepe]

92. Or several after..

[BannonsLiver]

53. Rec'd

You aren't the only one that has noticed. Don't let some of the responses here gaslight you.

[Ligyron]

57. I don't see the term as being derogatory at all.

It's just a different way to say white people.

[Doodley]

58. I agree with Lee-Lee, the OP. Those who use the word, knowing it might cause offence,

should know better. There can be no excuse for childish name calling or using slang terms to describe others. Those who do it should be aware how it makes them look.

[wasupaloopa]

83. I have been strugling to explain my reason for opposition to this wypipo thing and you solved that

for me.

It is very much like the divisive things that have gone down on this board since 2015.

Good issues like sexual abuse that have made it into the light of day become a cause celeb to some folks who go on a campaign that seem way out of proportion to the other things that need to be dealt with in their daily life.

[smirkymonkey]

98. That is pretty much why I have ignored the whole thing.

I am getting better at recognizing these threads that are meant to divide us and want no part of them.

[Doodley]

116. Agreed, Only trolls would seek to divide.

[JustAnotherGen]

103. We can't temper our words

Because the Russkies might like or dislike something.

[RandiFan1290]

114. Cool story, bro

I've only seen a few people on DU whining about it.

[applegrove]

126. It is not just democrats who will be angry at each other. Also those

curious former Obama and Trump voters who come to places like the DU to get better information on the election. Those people need information. We need their vote in 2018.

[EffieBlack]

133. What about black people who come to the site and see Black DUers, trolled, spoken to like children

Last edited Tue May 8, 2018, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

dismissed, threatened, accused of being “divisive” whenever we speak our minds?

Don’t we need THOSE folks’ votes, too? Don’t you worry about driving THEM away? Because if you are, you’re mighty quiet about it.

Or are you only concerned about Suzie Soccer Mom and Trump voters?

[applegrove]

134. I spoke out about division between black DUers and others when

the great white privilege debate began on the DU. You are wrong that I have been silent on that. Being against racism and anti-feminism are settled issues on the DU. I speak out against any troll campaign to open up the issue. Including the broad brush campaign "wypipo". I don't speak up on one off events. That is not my focus. Or where my abilities lie.

[EffieBlack]

139. Being against racism may be a settled issue on DU - of course people are "against" racism

The problem is many people just don't ever think that racism is at play in any particular circumstance. They tell us they oppose racism and that they know racism exists and that it's a problem. But then they say, "But racism isn't happening in THIS case. You're overreacting. There's some other reason that this person of color had this happen to them.""

And then they double down, lecturing us about what a mistake we're making by making a big deal of something that's not happening. And, of course, telling us that we're being "divisive" and are making it SO much harder to deal with racism when it REALLy happens. It's just not happening THIS time. Or THIS time. Or THIS time ...

[applegrove]

140. I agree it is white privilege to always think there can be a logical

explanation for some event. Just the fact that that is always an option for white people I see in myself. I try to fight against it. That privilege.

[TheSmarterDog]

127. Grow up. Get over it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

130. Then stop using the damn word. IMHO, it should be banned here.

But then, opinions are like.....well, you know the rest.

[TheRealNorth]

138. Divide and Conquer

[Tipperary]

146. Kick.