Of course crackers here are twisting themselves in a knot about Black people being rightly pissed off about blatent racism and ludicrous accustions of ableism
Also it’s a just simple statement of historical fact, a disproportionate number of slaveowners were indeed disabled, it’s almost like the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse hmmm
it’s almost like the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse hmmm
Of course it doesn’t.
Also it’s a just simple statement of historical fact, a disproportionate number of slaveowners were indeed disabled
Come on, we all know that “simple statements of fact” that disparage marginalized people without context are not actually morally and ethically neutral “simple statements of fact”. This logic is reductive and it harms not only disabled people but all other marginalized people as well.
nd it harms not only disabled people but all other marginalized people as well.
Suure, BlackRedGuard is “harming” ALL marginalized by pointing out basic historical facts, hey at least you pasty fucks can detect some form of harm, but apparently only when Black people are commiting it
Suure, BlackRedGuard is “harming” ALL marginalized by pointing out basic historical facts
Yes, reinforcing the practice of pointing out “facts” without context that might disparage marginalized people harms marginalized people including black people.
Edit: white people strip “facts” and “statistics” of context all the time to serve racist purposes. I’m not saying that’s necessarily BRG’s intent here (to deliberately promote ableism), but I am saying that we shouldn’t pretend stating inflammatory “facts” without context is a neutral act. Normalizing this practice has real harmful impacts for all marginalized people.
Yes it’s the existence of a disability that pissed BlackRedGuard off and not the obnoxious displays of hard-headed whiteness
Yes, reinforcing the practice of pointing out “facts” without context
What’s the context BlackRedGuard missed, seems to me he was knee-deep in some real nasty context and felt some historical perspective would shock some people out of the white haze they’re in
white people strip “facts” and “statistics” of context all the time to serve racist purposes. I’m not saying that’s necessarily BRG’s intent here (to deliberately promote ableism)
No you’re not “saying” that’s what he’s doing, you’re just implying it
but I am saying that we shouldn’t pretend stating inflammatory “facts” without context is a neutral act.
Stating historical facts in now “inflammatory” when used to advance simple and correct positions like “the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse” (which you happen to agree with by the way) yet BRG is still somehow in the wrong because…implications… Ok.
Yes it’s the existence of a disability that pissed BlackRedGuard off and not the onxionous displays of hard-headed whiteness
I was replying to your comment there, not BRG’s. The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet “a lot of slaveowners were disabled” is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.
No you’re not “saying” that’s what he’s doing, you’re just implying it
I’m saying he may not have meant to do it, but it in my opinion had the effect of promoting ableism. This is separate from the racial aspect and does not take away from the point there.
“the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse” (which you happen to agree with by the way) yet BRG is still somehow in the wrong because…implications… Ok.
If this was BRG’s point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people. That may not have been the intent, but sadly it may have been the effect. This doesn’t negate the racial trauma behind it, or indeed the correctness of the point that black people have a right to be traumatized by slurs regardless of the intent behind them.
As I said in my reply to you in the other sub-thread, I don’t think I’m going to be able to reply to you further in this discussion without hurting you and myself more. This is a difficult and traumatic topic for everyone involved and I don’t want to keep triggering those issues for both you and myself when I don’t feel we’re going to resolve this with this conversation.
You were replying to my comment about BRG’s tweet, don’t be obtuse
The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet “a lot of slaveowners were disabled” is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.
Ok, so now you’re back to talking about BRG, got it, let’s figure out what the operative word in BRG’s tweet was, hint it wasn’t “disabled”, it was “Slaveowners”. Why? Because in the context of the wider discourse about Black people being subjected to racial abuse, he’s making a point that even the densest cracker can understand, which helps illustrate the wider argument he’s advancing which is “disability does not negate racial abuse”
Which, by the way already you agreed with
If this was BRG’s point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people
OH NOW WE START TO GET IT, after paragraphs and an entire thread trashing BRG (and anyone defending him), suddenly his point (that every Black person in his replies immediately understood) becomes clear, despite that fact it was always clear
Also why is BRG supposedly “careless” maybe your whiteness got in the way of seeing the obvious, you ever think of that?
Of course crackers here are twisting themselves in a knot about Black people being rightly pissed off about blatent racism and ludicrous accustions of ableism
Also it’s a just simple statement of historical fact, a disproportionate number of slaveowners were indeed disabled, it’s almost like the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse hmmm
Of course it doesn’t.
Come on, we all know that “simple statements of fact” that disparage marginalized people without context are not actually morally and ethically neutral “simple statements of fact”. This logic is reductive and it harms not only disabled people but all other marginalized people as well.
I wasn’t aware white people were marginalized
Suure, BlackRedGuard is “harming” ALL marginalized by pointing out basic historical facts, hey at least you pasty fucks can detect some form of harm, but apparently only when Black people are commiting it
Disabled people are. This reply is beneath you.
Yes, reinforcing the practice of pointing out “facts” without context that might disparage marginalized people harms marginalized people including black people.
Edit: white people strip “facts” and “statistics” of context all the time to serve racist purposes. I’m not saying that’s necessarily BRG’s intent here (to deliberately promote ableism), but I am saying that we shouldn’t pretend stating inflammatory “facts” without context is a neutral act. Normalizing this practice has real harmful impacts for all marginalized people.
Yes it’s the existence of a disability that pissed BlackRedGuard off and not the obnoxious displays of hard-headed whiteness
What’s the context BlackRedGuard missed, seems to me he was knee-deep in some real nasty context and felt some historical perspective would shock some people out of the white haze they’re in
No you’re not “saying” that’s what he’s doing, you’re just implying it
Stating historical facts in now “inflammatory” when used to advance simple and correct positions like “the existence of disability doesn’t negate the impact of racial abuse” (which you happen to agree with by the way) yet BRG is still somehow in the wrong because…implications… Ok.
I was replying to your comment there, not BRG’s. The marginalized identity being potentially harmed here by the contextless statement in the tweet “a lot of slaveowners were disabled” is disabled people, not white people who are not marginalized.
I’m saying he may not have meant to do it, but it in my opinion had the effect of promoting ableism. This is separate from the racial aspect and does not take away from the point there.
If this was BRG’s point (which makes sense) then I agree with it. However, I feel it was expressed in a careless way which harms disabled people. That may not have been the intent, but sadly it may have been the effect. This doesn’t negate the racial trauma behind it, or indeed the correctness of the point that black people have a right to be traumatized by slurs regardless of the intent behind them.
As I said in my reply to you in the other sub-thread, I don’t think I’m going to be able to reply to you further in this discussion without hurting you and myself more. This is a difficult and traumatic topic for everyone involved and I don’t want to keep triggering those issues for both you and myself when I don’t feel we’re going to resolve this with this conversation.
I was replying to your comment there, not BRG’s
You were replying to my comment about BRG’s tweet, don’t be obtuse
Ok, so now you’re back to talking about BRG, got it, let’s figure out what the operative word in BRG’s tweet was, hint it wasn’t “disabled”, it was “Slaveowners”. Why? Because in the context of the wider discourse about Black people being subjected to racial abuse, he’s making a point that even the densest cracker can understand, which helps illustrate the wider argument he’s advancing which is “disability does not negate racial abuse”
Which, by the way already you agreed with
OH NOW WE START TO GET IT, after paragraphs and an entire thread trashing BRG (and anyone defending him), suddenly his point (that every Black person in his replies immediately understood) becomes clear, despite that fact it was always clear
Also why is BRG supposedly “careless” maybe your whiteness got in the way of seeing the obvious, you ever think of that?
Love the condescension