Privileged by Kyle Korver (Merged)

[gift]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

No, I think he’s arguing the quote was sloppy and unclear, regardless of context.  It implies that something nefarious is going on when white people don’t put everything into a racial context.

He didn't argue it was poorly written (which it certainly could have been written better, but then again he is a professional basketball player).  And the second part, it only implies something nefarious when you take it out of context.  That is why context matters.

Well no, it implies something nefarious *in* context.

The good, polite white folk in public are (nefariously) in private talking about how not everything is about race.

He calls people who act like that racist, and that’s asinine.  Korver is the one who picks the dichotomy, and he juxtaposes acting politely in public toward blacks with privately not wanting to make everything about race.  He uses the label racism.

What context are you seeing differently?

He doesn't say what you're claiming at all. He draws a distinction between two types of racism: one that is loud and obvious and another that is polite in public while harboring hate in private.

The argument that the latter is more dangerous seems reasonable to me.

Here's the thing though. I do believe there is quiet racism and I do think that's probably the most dangerous kind. Disagree that anyone who wants to think differently about race (not all the time) is racist.

[number_n9ne]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

No, I think he’s arguing the quote was sloppy and unclear, regardless of context.  It implies that something nefarious is going on when white people don’t put everything into a racial context.

He didn't argue it was poorly written (which it certainly could have been written better, but then again he is a professional basketball player).  And the second part, it only implies something nefarious when you take it out of context.  That is why context matters.

Well no, it implies something nefarious *in* context.

The good, polite white folk in public are (nefariously) in private talking about how not everything is about race.

He calls people who act like that racist, and that’s asinine.  Korver is the one who picks the dichotomy, and he juxtaposes acting politely in public toward blacks with privately not wanting to make everything about race.  He uses the label racism.

What context are you seeing differently?

He doesn't say what you're claiming at all. He draws a distinction between two types of racism: one that is loud and obvious and another that is polite in public while harboring hate in private.

The argument that the latter is more dangerous seems reasonable to me.

Here's the thing though. I do believe there is quiet racism and I do think that's probably the most dangerous kind. Disagree that anyone who wants to think differently about race (not all the time) is racist.

I really don't think he was trying to imply that "quiet racism" is a two-faced person that says the right things to PoC and then schemes the hate behind their backs. He's trying to say that "quiet racism" is exactly that, actively quiet rather than speaking out against racism. His whole point of blending into the crowd, the majority of white faces, does nothing for PoC. Here's an extreme hypothetical: "I'm murder-blind, I choose not to see murder." Wouldn't that make you guilty by association?

[gift]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

Ok let me break this down for you. To your first point, "because they'd rather not observe race at all." This speaks to part of Korver's thesis statement. You, being a white male (I'm assuming) can ignore race. You can make that active choice to be "colorblind." PoC don't have that choice, they are constantly judged by their race. You choosing to ignore race because it makes you uncomfortable is not helping PoC. This is exactly what he mean's by "The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time."

To your second point, removing yourself from racism is removing your acknowledgment of it. By doing that you are telling PoC they are on their own. You are no longer actively contributing to stopping it.

To your third point, because something is being ignored, doesn't mean it's getting better. It just means that you aren't seeing it, therefore you think it's getting better. For PoC, it's all the same. Also, there's no such thing as "serious racism," just racism.

And fourth, after reading through all this I hope you see you are not acting like an ally. You are a bystander. By allowing racism to happen and not holding others accountable, even if you yourself aren't the one doing racist things, you are saying to PoC "It's not my problem, don't make me uncomfortable."

Please believe me, I don't think you're a bad person. I think the majority of this board is most likely great people. I used to say I was colorblind too, I get it. I don't want to feel blamed for being a white male. I didn't do anything wrong to anyone, why is it my fault? But you have to look past that and listen to others. We have it so easy in this country. And for the first time ever we are taking heat, and we are crumbling under it. If you, or anyone else is truly interested in learning why the whole "colorblind" motto hurts more than it helps, check out the documentary "The Color of Fear." It was filmed in 1994, which I think is important for you regarding how you think things are getting worse than they used to be. Maybe you can see things are just getting louder, not worse. Additionally, I don't want to argue with you. I'm not here to crap on you or try and make you feel like a bad person. But this is what Korver meant by holding others accountable and speaking up. If you truly view yourself as an ally, that's how you do it.

The Color of Fear: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484384/

I understand your opinion. I understand you believe in it. I've been through it and it leads to worse race relations. I can't convince you, but I have to at least speak up. You're going down the wrong road. But it's not just you, it's the prevailing thought. It's unfortunate. All I want is the best strategy and, like so much of prevailing thought, this is a bad strategy.

I don't deny there are racial problems. It's not a matter of me just saying "not my problem". But I must disagree with "solutions" that I see as making things worse. I'd be a real bystander if I just agreed with something, thinking it was incorrect.

Observing race has a slightly indirect, but intimate relationship with racism. It's one the average member of the population cannot or will not parse (for a variety of reasons--bigger discussion). Thus the strategy of viewing everything through the prism of race leads to a majority of the population prone to racism or at least susceptible to it, and subsequently the salience of race misdirects our efforts to solve racism.

My biggest problem with this, is that I'm being told not to think differently about a problem that is seemingly getting worse during this era. Either the perception of racism's impact is off-base, or my concern is justified by the current prevailing strategy's failure to improve anything.

I hear you. At this moment, I feel exactly like you but opposite. And I can say that I have felt exactly like you and had a similar viewpoint. I think you're right, there's a lot of telling you or others who share your viewpoint how to feel, especially by me or people who share my viewpoint. And the "telling" is a very divisive, accusatory mechanic. If I think back, I used to react very negatively to others telling me how to feel, think, or how I should be. It's not fair that I'm in turn doing that to you or others. I think a better way to go about this rather than telling is to keep discussing and encouraging each other to listen. I disagree with you that things are getting worse in this era. What PoC have told me is that things are the same as they have always been, it's just now people are speaking out about it. Whether this is race, #MeToo, LGBTQ rights or the next thing – people feel empowered to speak their truth. So at this point all I can do is encourage you to at least hear people out. Actively listen and try not to dismiss their truths so quickly. And seriously, check out "The Color of Fear," it is a life-changing film and might give you some more to think about.

I appreciate your understanding. The worst part is when your opinion discredits you from participating in a solution. I agree the important thing is that we keep talking, even if we disagree.

I have more ideas I'll share later.

[gift]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

No, I think he’s arguing the quote was sloppy and unclear, regardless of context.  It implies that something nefarious is going on when white people don’t put everything into a racial context.

He didn't argue it was poorly written (which it certainly could have been written better, but then again he is a professional basketball player).  And the second part, it only implies something nefarious when you take it out of context.  That is why context matters.

Well no, it implies something nefarious *in* context.

The good, polite white folk in public are (nefariously) in private talking about how not everything is about race.

He calls people who act like that racist, and that’s asinine.  Korver is the one who picks the dichotomy, and he juxtaposes acting politely in public toward blacks with privately not wanting to make everything about race.  He uses the label racism.

What context are you seeing differently?

He doesn't say what you're claiming at all. He draws a distinction between two types of racism: one that is loud and obvious and another that is polite in public while harboring hate in private.

The argument that the latter is more dangerous seems reasonable to me.

Here's the thing though. I do believe there is quiet racism and I do think that's probably the most dangerous kind. Disagree that anyone who wants to think differently about race (not all the time) is racist.

I really don't think he was trying to imply that "quiet racism" is a two-faced person that says the right things to PoC and then schemes the hate behind their backs. He's trying to say that "quiet racism" is exactly that, actively quiet rather than speaking out against racism. His whole point of blending into the crowd, the majority of white faces, does nothing for PoC. Here's an extreme hypothetical: "I'm murder-blind, I choose not to see murder." Wouldn't that make you guilty by association?

I've been told by others in this thread that that is not the context of the piece. I'll let you discuss with them.

[Big333223]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

If that was my argument I probably would have included some sequence of words to that effect.

Instead, can you imagine a world in which a statement is worthy of critique within the context of the discussion we are having, even if it is not the context of the original piece?

So, again, you are arguing that it's ok to ignore the context of the quote.

[Moranis]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

If that was my argument I probably would have included some sequence of words to that effect.

Instead, can you imagine a world in which a statement is worthy of critique within the context of the discussion we are having, even if it is not the context of the original piece?

So, again, you are arguing that it's ok to ignore the context of the quote.

I've seen some ridiculous arguments on this thread, heck I've probably made some of them, but I think this is in fact the most ridiculous thing I've read on here.  Context apparently doesn't matter. 

[gift]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

If that was my argument I probably would have included some sequence of words to that effect.

Instead, can you imagine a world in which a statement is worthy of critique within the context of the discussion we are having, even if it is not the context of the original piece?

So, again, you are arguing that it's ok to ignore the context of the quote.

Read through the thread. Not everyone is interpreting the original intent, given the context, the same way. My response was to a particular interpretation. I'm not ignoring context, I'm considering more context than the original piece (the subsequent discussion). The literal statement, as quoted, creates more context when discussed. It's worth critiquing both within the context of the article (in which the intent of the statement is debatable, apparently) and within the discussion in this thread.

[gift]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

If that was my argument I probably would have included some sequence of words to that effect.

Instead, can you imagine a world in which a statement is worthy of critique within the context of the discussion we are having, even if it is not the context of the original piece?

So, again, you are arguing that it's ok to ignore the context of the quote.

I've seen some ridiculous arguments on this thread, heck I've probably made some of them, but I think this is in fact the most ridiculous thing I've read on here.  Context apparently doesn't matter.

Try to comprehend my entire statement, and not just the part that catches your eye first.

[Big333223]

IDK if someone said this already, I can't bring myself to read every response, but Korver was able to eloquently describe a lot of what's going on in this thread.

But in many ways the more dangerous form of racism isn’t that loud and stupid kind. It isn’t the kind that announces itself when it walks into the arena. It’s the quiet and subtle kind. The kind that almost hides itself in plain view. It’s the person who does and says all the “right” things in public: They’re perfectly friendly when they meet a person of color. They’re very polite. But in private? Well….. they sort of wish that everyone would stop making everything “about race” all the time.

TL;DR if you're fighting this tooth and nail rather than listening, you're part of the problem. And yes, racist, whether you are actively trying to be or not. *Shrug*

There's inherently something wrong with accusing someone of racism because they'd rather not observe race at all.

The common thing among racists and those who view everything through a prism of racism, is that race is extremely important to both. In this way, those who choose to be "colorblind" are further removed from racism.

At one time, it was a popular strategy to choose not to see race. And in my opinion, things started to get better (not perfect, but moving in the right direction). Now, you are being called racist for choosing that strategy. In this way, you will never defeat racists, because even in the absence of serious racism, you will have those who just go about their business regardless of race. It's a bad strategy, and in my opinion it's why things seem to be getting worse, not because racism is increasing in power, relevance or frequency. Our awareness is raised and therefore the racism that always will exist is magnified beyond what it needs to be.

But according to Korver, I'm a racist for having this opinion. Don't you see the problem with that thought? It's making an ally into an opponent needlessly. Stop. That's the wrong way to do it.

This is what happens when you only look at pieces of an article, you come up with things that were never the intent of the drafter.

If the quote doesn't match the intent, it shouldn't be included in the article. If the quote can be taken the wrong way by me, it can also be taken the wrong way by others, who maybe don't share Korver's intent, but rather his literal statement, no? Perhaps we should critique the article rather than praise its intent for this very reason.

You can pull anything out of context.  That was my point.

Therefore it's worth critiquing the literal quote.

Are you seriously arguing that context should be ignored?

If that was my argument I probably would have included some sequence of words to that effect.

Instead, can you imagine a world in which a statement is worthy of critique within the context of the discussion we are having, even if it is not the context of the original piece?

So, again, you are arguing that it's ok to ignore the context of the quote.

Read through the thread. Not everyone is interpreting the original intent, given the context, the same way. My response was to a particular interpretation. I'm not ignoring context, I'm considering more context than the original piece (the subsequent discussion). The literal statement, as quoted, creates more context when discussed. It's worth critiquing both within the context of the article (in which the intent of the statement is debatable, apparently) and within the discussion in this thread.

I've read through the thread and just done it again now. It seems to me you want to discuss a quote pulled from the article without taking into account what preceded the quote. This is, literally, removing context.

There is certainly discussion to be had about the quoted section. I think I would find common ground with you on your position about that section of the article, if not total agreement. But from what I read it does read to me that you want to ignore other parts of the article, which would lend context to the quote itself and that matters.