"Woke", "cancel culture", and the meaning of words

[Silent3]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

There's been a lot of heated discussion around here about what James Carville said about "wokeness", and similarly, about "cancel culture", and if it even exists or not.

It's important to realize in such discussions that words mean different things to different people. Meanings of words and phrases shift and evolve, and, whether some people like it or not, changes happen to the general understanding of what words mean that aren't to everyone's liking. Meanings seldom completely settle down either, so the same words mean different things in different contexts.

It's one thing to insist on what you believe is the "correct" meaning for certain words. It's quite another, however, to impose your own meaning on a word or phrase and then act as if what someone else has said, no matter how they might have actually meant it, must be treated as if their words bear your preferred meaning.

Someone posted that there "Ain't no such thing as 'too woke'". Well, if you insist that the only possible meaning of "woke" is a good one, meaning being conscious of privilege, and seeking and demanding justice and fairness, you'd be right. You can't have too much of that.

But do you really imagine Carville is saying, "Too many Democrats are too concerned with fairness and justice. They need dull their awareness of privilege, and let some nasty shit slip by, if they want to win elections"?

I think it's pretty obvious that Carville is talking about issues like obnoxious levels of word policing, or insisting that everyone must admit they're a racist, or be an even worse racist for not admitting to being one at all. Let's not pretend their aren't people out there in this world who get fucking annoying about trying to one-up each other in performative wokeness.

You might still disagree with Carville, but then get to the real disagreement rather than arguing against a straw-man Carville of your own creation. Try giving Carville the benefit of the doubt about meaning something where he might, just might, have a point, and see where that takes you.

If you want to argue for what words do mean, or should mean, fine. But don't stupidly act as if other people must mean their words way you mean those same words, and then tar them with all that goes along with imposing your meanings.

[Caliman73]

1. Why is it that we have to give Carville the benefit of the doubt?

By doing that you assume that his intentions are to be cognizant of the experiences of people he has no idea of what they go through or have gone through.

He should have just stuck with his core idea that we need to be better at messaging and we need to use personal language to speak to different people.

When he started to say that we have a "woke" problem, he intruded into Black spaces where the word originated. He imposed his own take on what the word means to HIM and then said it was a problem (likely for people like HIM).

If people don't want push back then they should choose their words more wisely. You can comment on a situation and not provoke a reaction by utilizing words in a way that is provocative.

[Lars39]

2. He grew up in Louisiana, born in 1944.

He knew exactly what he was saying and implying.

[StarfishSaver]

3. This is the problem

Carville is lecturing people about saying and not saying things that he thinks are offensive to some (white) people. But in so doing, he is offending may other (Black and Brown) people. Yet, when we say we find his comments offensive, people jump in to explain that we shouldn't be offended, he really meant this or that, etc. But if we try to explain that what WE said doesn't mean what some white folk think it does, we're told that doesn't matter - all that matters is how they hear it.

This is a common occurrence. Someone says something that offends people of color. We object - and WE are told that WE are being intolerant, etc. When we say something that offends other people's sensitivities, we are just offensive and divisive and need to rethink our words. But when someone says something that offends us, they're just "speaking hard truths" and we need to stop being so sensitive.

[Loki Liesmith]

5. I don't think people shouldn't be offended

But I don’t give a good goddamn if they are.

[Loki Liesmith]

4. That's largely nonsense.

His usage of the word was fine.

People are free to pushback. But for the most part I hope he ignores the pushback and continues to make his criticism.

[stopdiggin]

6. pretty much affirming exactly what the OP said

'the words belong to me' -- mean what I say they mean -- and you have no right to employ them otherwise. all right then. glad we cleared that up. Sigh.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Do you see the abject fallacy in your reasoning?

[stopdiggin]

22. I'll admit I do not

But I do think that when we get to the place where we are lecturing people like Carville that they do not have legitimate 'place' (or opinion, or language) -- then that is getting pretty friggin' intolerant -- and perhaps a bit silly. (also destructive?) And the fact that we're having such an argument/discussion -- more or less epitomizes the basic issue.

(oh .. and welcome back .. even if you are being a pain in the b. -- --- -- )

[Silent3]

10. Whether you like it or not, you're doing exactly what Carville is calling a problem.

When he started to say that we have a "woke" problem, he intruded into Black spaces where the word originated.

A great many people do not, and do not want to, treat a word like "woke" as if the word itself is a territory they must carefully tread upon.

He imposed his own take on what the word means to HIM and then said it was a problem (likely for people like HIM).

You're not getting what I mean by "imposing a meaning". He used the word the way he himself meant the word, and in a way he (correctly) knows many people in his audience will interpret the word. He did not quote someone else using the word "woke", and then interpret what another person said only in the light of his own meaning for the word. That is what I mean by "imposing a meaning".

You can comment on a situation and not provoke a reaction by utilizing words in a way that is provocative.

Or, you can comment as you wish, not carefully parsing each word as if you're walking through a lexical minefield. That is the cultural baggage of "wokeness" that Carville, and many other Americans, do not like, and which Carville rightly suspects could be alienating potential Democratic voters.

[Caliman73]

26. So you are saying, that rather than educating themselves...

By speaking to people who actually have that experience, that we should take it from a White guy and just stop talking about the situation?

The cultural baggage of "wokeness" is baggage that White people have put onto wokeness. What do you think is the common experience that Carville and people who don't like and "suspects could be alienating potential Democratic voters" share?

You don't have to answer. I'll just mind my manners and sit quietly while you all save us and wait my turn...

[Silent3]

28. No, I'm saying there's no need to expect Carville to "educate himself"

You're admitting that there is "cultural baggage of 'wokeness'", and that's half way to the point.

I would hope all human beings, regardless of race or life experience, to at least attempt what is called "the principle of charity" when interpreting what other people say. At least make some effort to find the best possible interpretation of what someone is saying, and run that by as at least one point to consider, rather than either getting needlessly angry misinterpreting their words, or missing the main point because you simply don't care what someone meant if they offended your sensibilities by not tailoring they're words to your liking.

It's important to realize this: There is no correct way to make a point that someone won't misunderstand it. The best anyone can do, especially when listeners are lazy about applying their own preconceptions, are to hope you reach as many of the people you most want to reach. If the topic is at all controversial, a bunch of people will be pissed off and/or miss the point.

And, while vocabulary and sensitivity in wording are important, remember there are usually much more important issues on the table, and bigger fish to fry.

This is not a call for you to bend over backward, or make some great personal sacrifice for the benefit of someone else who you don't think has earned any special favors from you.

You should not view the the "principle of charity" as anything other than a favor to yourself, and better communication in general.

[Caliman73]

31. Of course not. No need to understand others if you are the dominant culture.

I forgot that liberals are all about minority cultures adapting themselves to what the dominant culture says is the "objective reality". Except that is not at all what liberalism is about.

It is important to realize that there are different experiences that what the dominant culture says and that we, who are not fully in the dominant culture, have valid experiences, our own language, and cultures, You need to understand that we have had to learn to navigate our own culture AND the dominant culture while people like Carville can just go about thinking that there is only one objective experience in life, the one he inhabits.

I know what Carville wants to mean, I am just not giving him that benefit of the doubt, especially when it is clear that people are taking what he said to mean that people of color just have to suck it up, again, so that White people can win elections, Then we will get our piece of the pie.

[Silent3]

33. If you say "I know what Carville wants to mean"...

then you know what he means, period.

When you follow with, "I am just not giving him that benefit of the doubt", you're saying, "Even though I know what he wants to mean, I'm going to punish him for not meeting my criteria for demonstrating what I deem to be the necessary humility in a white man talking about a black issue, and I'll throw this whole baggage at Carville of how I feel about him as just another imperious white man demanding to have things his way while I suck it up until he's ready to give me my due... uh, even though I know he was expressing a different idea, he deserves to be misinterpreted, and that's just what I'll do, damn him!"

[Caliman73]

34. If you say so.

Sorry but this is not productive.

Good thing we can all believe what we want and still generally support similar political goals.

Carville is just plain wrong about wokeness, but you all believe what you need to believe.

[StarfishSaver]

42. "there's no need to expect Carville to 'educate himself"'

Of course not.he's a white man. What does he need to learn that he doesn't already know?

[Silent3]

49. That is of course what I meant

Glad to see you aren't blinded by preconceptions or anything, and clearly know me better than I even know myself.

[Demsrule86]

36. Liberal was a fine word and description of a political ideology for years but then it was hijacked

by the right and became a word used to criticize and sneer at Democrats which is why most Democrats call themselves progressive. The same will be true of 'woke'. And by the way the term 'whitey' is pretty much an insult and uncalled for IMHO. It is going to take all Americans to end police brutality and racism. We need a coalition of like-minded people and to attack those who are on your side is pointless really.

[Caliman73]

45. I agree that "whitey" is a slur and uncalled for...

Just wondering why you chose to insert it into the discussion since it is not in any of my posts.

I also agree that it will take a coalition to win and I don't think that there is any person of color who is pushing back on Carville's statement, that is not planning to support the Democratic Party. I would hope that that situation works in the opposite direction and people who are "upset" by people of color demanding respect of our issues won't vote for Democrats as a result, as that is what Carville is warning us about right? You can expect people of color to support the Democratic candidate regardless, but we need to not upset certain sensibilities if we want to form this "coalition".

[Demsrule86]

47. Another poster used the term and I posted to you in error...mea culpa.

[Caliman73]

50. No worries. I did a spit take!

I can get heated but I typically try to avoid using slurs.

[Demsrule86]

74. Yeah, I am sorry...I could make the excuse that my house is a disaster as we prepare to sell it

and my ADHD has kicked in big-time...it would be true but still not an excuse because there isn't one.

[Beastly Boy]

19. We don't. Carville left no doubt what he meant.

In his comment, Carville did not intrude into Black spaces at all. On the contrary, he made it clear that his problem with how "woke" is being used originates outside of Black spaces where the term has a well established meaning that doesn't require further explanation. He was talking about Democrats using the term, specifically those Democrats who do not define Black spaces. His point was that when, as an instance, a white Democrat talks about "wokenesness" to an audience of apolitical Latino immigrants, it is like someone who just learned a foreign language speaking that language to an audience who don't understand it at all.

Try to imagine a blind person describing what a flower looks like to a deaf person upon hearing the description from a black person. We can all see a problem with this scenario. That's the problem Carville is talking about.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Sounds like you're doing damage control for Carville.

Here's the thing. Why doesn't he come out and explain himself? Because white conservatives, Democratic or Republican are going to look at it one way, and progressives are going to look at it another. No benefit of the doubt. Carville needs to come out and tell us just how he meant it. And, don't be surprised if it doesn't go your way.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Only Black and Brown people and our allies are expected to explain ourselves and adjust our words

so that they don't offend any white people.

White people can say whatever they want and if anyone of color is offended, they need to get over themselves, stop being so sensitive and why do they always make everything about race anyway?

[Silent3]

12. Actually, I'm pointing out a general problem of communication...

...and using Carville as a convenient current-events example of the problem.

Rather that wait for other people to explain your possible misunderstandings, make some effort to not misunderstand in the first place.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. Nope. The burden of proof is not on the people who will be most harmed by the misunderstanding.

This becomes a dog-whistle in reverse. You're talking about Carville who played a huge role in the Centrist era, where they very intentionally tried to silence minority issues, just to be sure they didn't lose the moderate white voter. That was actually a thing.

[Silent3]

20. They why would Obama have said pretty much the same thing?

The concept is either valid or invalid, regardless of whether you think Obama, as a black man, simply has more right to talk about it than Carville.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/30/barack-obama-on-political-purity-obama-foundation-summit-chicago-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

Some Democrats are alienating people by excessive, performative piety and purity tests.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Obama didn't say the same thing

He never said that the party needs to abandon "wokeness."

Being woke is not a purity test nor is it "excessive, performative piety." It simply a matter of being aware and sensitive to the realities of institutional racism and its impact on people of color.

[Silent3]

24. That's what wokeness means *to you*.

But it is fairly clear that, when someone is speaking about "too much wokeness", they are almost certainly talking about too much "excessive, performative piety" and not too much awareness and sensitivity.

[StarfishSaver]

25. That's what wokeness means

It's what the people who first appropriated it 60 years ago coined it to mean and it's how it's been used for the last 60 years until a handful of white people "discovered" it and decided to be offended by it And then took it upon themselves to try to redefine it.

Most words and phrases have objective meanings. The fact that someone decides to interpret them differently is their problem. But when they do try to change the meaning of it to suit their own ends, they shouldn't whine about cancel culture when they're called on it.

Take the word racist. If I decided to call someone on this board a racist, I don't think I'd be given a pass by saying "That's not offensive at all. I'm using racist to mean something different than you think it means."

If Carvel wants to describe something as political purity, he should just say political purity rather than use a different term that has a completely different long established meaning - at least if he wants to be understood.

[Caliman73]

27. Oh come now StarfishSaver...

You can't expect people to respect the actual origin and usage of the word for 60 years!! We just have to adjust our reality to what the right and our friends say the word means, because that is important. Our experience of the world doesn't matter as much as winning elections and we need to just back off.

[Silent3]

32. The thing is I think you do understand what he meant...

...and you're making a bigger point over how he said than what he meant.

Most words and phrases have objective meanings.

Some words have fairly objective meanings. Many words are squishy and slippery and incredibly contextual. If you're in the realm of politics, it's a lot more of the latter than the former.

Actually, many people have, in a sense, been called racists on this board. Not as a direct accusation, but by many who espouse the view that everyone is at least a bit racist to some degree.

Take the word "liar". The objective definition? "One who lies". By the most objective definition, everyone human being capable of communication has told at least one lie in their lifetime. Many very nice people tell a few lies per day.

But what happens when you accuse someone of being a liar? Context is utterly, absolutely important to what the word means. "Liar" becomes "one who is lying about the subject at hand". "Liar" becomes "one who lies frequently". "Liar" becomes "one who is best characterized by their propensity to tell lies".

[LanternWaste]

30. Or (almost certainly) simply playing games while acting sanctimonious.

"they are almost certainly talking about too much "excessive, performative piety" and not too much awareness and sensitivity."

Or (almost certainly) simply playing games while acting sanctimonious.





(See also: Much Ado About Nothing: "I have a good eye, uncle. I can see a church by daylight..." )

[Baitball Blogger]

23. Obama will have to explain his position, as well.

And as of today, Kamala Harris, too. Let's here them do the explaining.

On edit: Actually in the 2012 election, Obama did say that he was being impacted by racism.

[Demsrule86]

39. Nobody has to explain themselves...everyone can have their own opinion. I agree with

VP Harris. This is not a racist country but there are racists in this country.

[Baitball Blogger]

51. Excuse me? The Woke community is being called out by name, here.

All the woke community has done is to bring attention to racial imbalances in this country. And now, suddenly, big names are being dropped in order to rein them in. As long as people, like Carvel, bring them up in his conversation, he can expect push-back. There is no way to confuse his intentions.

[Demsrule86]

73. I don't like the term and the GOP will exploit it.

There are racist and institutional racists in this country...no doubt. And we must defeat them. It is will take all of us to do this. I consider this the legacy of the dreadful sin of slavery. This is an American problem.

[Baitball Blogger]

77. GOP exploited a black president just because he wore a tan suit.

Minorities are not going to make true advancements in raising consciousness to their issues, until we can separate the truly racist, from the just badly oriented white people in the Republican party or in the swing groups. And you don't do that by capitulating.

White people in America live in enclaves. And that's not just metaphorical. Even if they don't open their arms to minorities, they need to respect our rights.

[StarfishSaver]

52. That's not what she said

She was very clear that there is a long history of racism in this country and much of that racism is ingrained in the systems still in place. This goes beyond simply having some racists in the country.

[Baitball Blogger]

56. She made a sweeping comment that the US is not racist.

Many would disagree with her. Racism is institutional and we have a fight on our hands. Kamala's statement made it sound like it was in the past tense.

[StarfishSaver]

58. She in no way suggested this was 'past tense"

Institutional racism is here and now and needs to be addressed and that's basically what she said.

If racism was no longer an issue because it was in the past, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion or a policy priority for the Biden administration

[Baitball Blogger]

61. Everyone is basically characterizing it the same way.

Harris agreed with Tim Scott that America is not a racist country. From my experiences, from living in a suburban white island, I know that's not true.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/29/kamala-harris-responds-tim-scott-saying-america-not-racist-country/4886682001/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-scott/index.html

[StarfishSaver]

66. No, she didn't agree with Tim Scott

Read what Scott said - not just one sentence - and read what Kamala said.

Tim Scott it only denied that America is a racist country, but then proceeded to claim that racism is not a serious problem.

Kamala gave a very detailed and nuanced answer explaining that America is indeed saddled and continues to suffer from the damage racism causes and called for us to remedy it.

And let's be real. There is no way Kamala could have said America is a racist country and not spent the next four years digging herself out of the crap that would be headed on her. There are some things a Black woman - even a vice president - cannot say. She was way to wise and savvy to fall into that trap.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Obama doesn:t "have" to do anything

He definitely doesn't "have to explain himself" to anyone.

And not it because he was perfectly clear. The only people who seem to be confused are those who want to use his words to justify their own obtuseness.

[Baitball Blogger]

53. Actually, Obama was very vocal about racism being directed at him going during the

2012 election. And he has steadily supported black Americans who brought up the same issues. So, I'm fine with him, unless he suddenly starts making statements that racism doesn't exist. Which, I don't think he has.

[StarfishSaver]

55. He had to walk a very fine line while he was president.

Most of his comments and observations about the racism directed at him were made after he left office.

[Baitball Blogger]

57. Not true. Not true at all.

[StarfishSaver]

59. Well, you sure set the record straight with that pithy and well researched response

[Baitball Blogger]

60. I know definitely that he was talking about racism around that second election because

it was the moment that everything changed. Those four years before, he was walking the full Centrist line, not saying too much about minority issues, in order to avoid upsetting the moderate swing-voters. But then, Trayvon Martin was killed on February 2012. Obama said that he could have been his son. Of course, the moderate swing-voters were turned off by it, but that's when the issue of racism began to get legs. By the time the election came up in November, Obama clearly stated that the resistance he was facing from the Senate was racist-related.

Then, after Obama came BLM, followed by the huge win in awareness with the George Floyd prosecution. And now, they want to put the black genie back in the bottle. Good luck with that.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Anecdotes about the few times Obama mentioned race in no way obviates my point

Do you have any examples of President Obama calling out white supremacy by name in any speech to a joint session of Congress or, for that matter, in any other major speech while president?

Or perhaps you can find instances in which he spoke in depth in interview after interview about systemic racism?

Or how about examples of policies that he put into place specifically and expressly designed to root out and remedy institutional racism in government?

[Baitball Blogger]

65. You sound like someone who is bobbing fiercely to stay afloat.

In 2012, Obama made the changes that would gradually grow to the point where we are today. I'm sorry if he wasn't militant enough for you to satisfy your position. But, for his moment in time, he stepped up to the plate. And I'm satisfied with it.

[StarfishSaver]

67. You have spent the last several posts pulling things out of thin air I did not aay

I let it go because your comments wee ao weird, but claiming I that Obama wasn't militant enough for me based on what I've written is pretty wacky.

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my pointing out that there are things that Obama couldn't say as a Black man that Biden, a white man, can say. Maybe it was just easier to throw that against the wall that to actually answer my questions.

I see you.

[Baitball Blogger]

71. No, you don't see me at all.

Biden has had an interesting journey. The Biden of today is very different and changed from the Biden of the nineties. If he is able to now represent minority issues, it might Be because he owes his presidential win to the ascension of minority voting power. He is listening to them because he sees them. He can say the things he says because the political changes have taken place.

[Demsrule86]

38. This is revisionist history. When Clinton ran for president, we had 12 years of GOP presidents.

12 years! The country was very much to the right. Clinton ran to the middle; it was the only way he could win...and consider that even that was not enough for a majority win. Clinton did not win a majority. And without Perot, likely Clinton would have lost. All this sneering at the moderates who took back the presidency after 12 years is ridiculous. I would remind you Clinton is the reason we had Ginsberg. Democrats moved to the middle in the '90s because they had no choice. We have a 50 50 majority and are fighting to hold onto it in 22.

[PurgedVoter]

11. Carville worried about our wording?

Stupid, Carville, damned stupid. Carville needs to first get his wording right or shut up. But then this is Carville talking. We won the election. We will never convince the idiots who think Trump one. Carville needs to look at the statistics and shut up till he has a clue and not a clue handed to him by his wife who voted for Trump in 2020. Carville thinks we can throw a few racist dog bones to the Q crowd and get more votes. Not happening. Not ethical.

Backing down has never worked with the Republicans. Reaching across the isle when they hold onto the insane attacks on Obama and Hillary, just makes us look weak. Joe is crazy popular and Carville wants to throw the Stacy Abrams crowd under the bus. Carville did nothing to help Joe win. He is doing nothing to help secure anything except his next interview.

The media owners always love it when a pundit says the Democrats need to dilute and try to appease the far right. The undecided, come on, they just witnessed the Trump years and Joe in contrast. If they are still undecided, giving into the word weasels on Fox is not going to help decide them.

[Silent3]

13. Are you so absolutely, positively certain...

...that what Carville was engaged in was, "throw(ing) a few racist dog bones to the Q crowd"? I don't think that interpretation is worthy of much certainty, hence the exact communication problem I'm trying to point out.

[Caliman73]

29. I don't think he was doing anything racist. He is just privileged

Therefore he doesn't understand that woke has an actual, long standing meaning that needs to be defended rather than given up to the bad faith of the right. We can argue that being sensitive to the experiences of Black people, who have been and still are oppressed in this society is important. We can also deliver tangible economic benefits to people and promote that as what Democrats do. We work for everyone, but we also expect people to grapple with our history.

As a man, I understand that women have been and are still very disadvantaged in society. So, as a man, with privilege, I have to fight that battle. Men are not going to listen to women when they complain about oppression so I have to step in and help to validate that experience, even if women are saying all men are horrible. I know that I am not horrible and I want to use whatever little bit of power that I have, that a woman may not have, to push for them to have equal rights.

I am not offended when I hear feminists decry the patriarchy. Patriarchy hurts me too. Just like Racism hurts white people. That is an example of being woke.

I don't have major problems with what Carville said that Democrats should do. My problem is when he starts using words in the way that the right is trying to bastardize and use as a weapon to divide people. He is basically acquiescing to what the right is trying to do.

[Silent3]

35. I listened to a video with a crazy women afraid that vaccinated people were a danger...

...to unvaccinated people, just by being near them. She claimed that women were getting terrible menstrual cramps from mere proximity, and that this was all a plot to sterilize people against their will.

She admitted that she had no proof, but then claimed she was an "intuitive", and she just knows what she knows. And if you don't believe her?

Patriarchy!

Yes, expectation scientific of proof was "patriarchy" to this woman.

Am I, as a man, totally disqualified to speak to this, not knowing the fullness of her feminine experience?

[RobinA]

80. No You Are Not

Everybody has a right to call Bullshit. The person being challenged then offers up their proof of their position. Or not. Then you two either agree to disagree or someone changes their mind. It’s called “the reality-based world.” And I am a female.

[Mossfern]

14. Big Enders vs. Little Enders

Don't be Lilliputians
The Republicans will be laughing all the way to the polls
We just love eating our own

[Demsrule86]

46. And that is the truth and why we don't have nice things policy wise.

[marylandblue]

15. You are about to find out why Carville said what he said.

There is a split in the Democratic Party over the meaning of words, primarily the definition of racism. It was papered over while Trump was in office, but now the fight is coming out into the open and has come to DU.

[StarfishSaver]

17. A big part of the problem is that too many people who have never experienced racism

and don't seem willing to even acknowledge it want to tell the people who've experienced it every day our whole lives that our lived experience is meaningless and our definition and understanding of racism is not as valid as theirs - in fact, they say our understanding is unreliable because we're too close to it to be objective and we need them to tell us what it REALLY is and how it REALLY works.

[Blasphemer]

40. It was never papered over for me. It became blatantly obvious during the 2016 primaries...

I started calling it the culture war on the left. As a Black woman, I do not assume the Democratic party to be a safe space when it comes to race issues. I realized many years ago that my live experienced of racism will never match the definitions used by most of those who do not routinely experience it. I will say that as a GenX'er, my experience of millennials and younger generations does give me some hope. I generally feel more comfortable talking about race with younger people.

[msfiddlestix]

18. Absolutely Spot on. I struggled mightily to articulate

the points you make here. Actually only a couple of main points to be accurate. But I just don't have the skill set that you have.

Such a pleasure reading this. It's all exactly how I see this matter, both generally speaking, and specifically wrt Carville's interview last night.

big and appreciative

[ismnotwasm]

37. Bull Fucking Shit.

Carville is well aware of his position as a pundit and ignoring whiteness as a social structure is just a convenient way to allow people to get a little more comfortable with the unacceptable.

Used to have a friend who would say, “when you first step in fresh dog shit barefoot, it’s not bad, it’s soft, and it’s warm. You don’t notice the stink until you stir it up”

When becoming an active anti-racist, as I would hope every Democratic person, every progressive person, every far left person would want to be, it means you have to get past that soft dogshit feel and starting smelling the stink —-and get uncomfortable enough to start scrubbing it off.

[Silent3]

41. What is your evidence that Carville was "ignoring whiteness as a social structure"?

That seems like quite a gratuitous leap to me.

[ismnotwasm]

43. What is your evidence that he wasn't?

[Silent3]

48. So presumption of guilt is the best approach here? n/t

[StarfishSaver]

54. No

They're just shifting who gets the benefit of then doubt. Some people get uncomfortable when the benefit of the doubt is given to anyone other than the white person in the conversation.

[Silent3]

68. Benefit of the doubt isn't mutually exclusive here

There's no one who gains an advantage by denying Carville the benefit of the doubt here.

[USALiberal]

63. Ok!! LOL

[USALiberal]

64. Please rewrite your post, makes no sense IMO! Nt

[Silent3]

70. If you have a specific question...

I'll gladly answer it.

[Iggo]

69. Carville threw the word woke the same way right wingers do.

Like it’s something bad to be. And it ain’t.

I don’t hate him for it. But I’m also not gonna pretend that’s not what he did. It was a fucked up thing to do.

I’ll get over it. He’ll get over it. And everybody else should get over it, too.

[uponit7771]

76. +1, He used their framing cause he never heard it being used by black folk. He needs some black fri

[Hekate]

72. You are a brave soul

[ck4829]

75. And where was "cancel culture" when people were being fired for simply being gay?

[Silent3]

78. It existed, and didn't have the name n/t

[Ron Green]

79. I think Carville is a much better political operative than

he is a human being.