You have it or you don't that's a fallacy

"You imply, I infer." I always thought that was the rule of thumb. Such as, "I infer from your post that you're still upset." But if that's not the correct usage, my mistake.

Nope, that's the right usage. It's just that no one infers, but I imply a lot, apparently.

And as ever, I'm five by five.

Okay. Well, sorry again for the misunderstanding.

Aaron--

You wrote: "Here's the discussion of race mentioned yesterday in dismissive fashion, which ain't no way I could properly encapsulate by quoting, and as I'd feared there is no explicit mention of affirmative action."

I responded, "Aaron Hawkins responds to my earlier post on 'race' and genetics [...] noting: '[...] there is no explicit mention of affirmative action' in my previous entries on race -- the implication being that my failure to mention affirmative action by name weakens my position vis-a-vis racial identity politics, at least insofar as such things are made manifest in particular public policy initiatives."

Lots of qualifiers in my sentence. I tried to honestly capture what you were going for (as I read it). If I missed the implic--er, the drift of your lead-in, I apologize.

I'm left inferring one thing. You can tell whether it's just an accidental thing brought about by lack of exposure to the relevant cultural memes, or whether it's due to prejudice, by their subsequent reaction. When somebody says something that sounds prejudiced, and you call them on it, do they apologise for unwittingly giving offence? Or do they go all defensive and bombastic, declaring that there was no prejudice informing their statement and how DARE you imply otherwise.

I'm reminded of an incident here in Australia in the 1960s. An Australian TV personality (Bert Newton, I think, but like it matters) was sharing a stage with Muhammed Ali. TV personality said the words "I like the boy" about Ali. This had been a famous catchphrase in one of the Australian guy's TV commercials of the time (about a child), and was the sort of thing he'd say about most anyone, because of the context of the commercial he'd done. He had no idea about the racist connotations about the word "boy", because Australia's history was different and black men didn't get called "boy" here, at least not in urban areas anytime in the previous century. The members of the Australian audience who were more aware of the US situation were aghast - "you can't say that!". Ali looked furious. When the Australian TV personality realised the implications of what he said, he was mortified and abjectly apologised. (IIRC, Ali accepted the apology.)

THAT is how unprejudiced (or less prejudiced) people deal with it when they inadvertently give offense. Not by going on a counterattack. Not by saying "no, I'm going to say what I like". Not by saying "how dare you imply I'm racist by inferring from my blog postings". One deals with it by saying "Gosh, I am SO SORRY. I had NO IDEA about that implication. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and I APOLOGISE if I did so inadvertently".

That's not even anti-racism. That's common politeness.

(BTW, geographical differences suck. Our most popular brand of cheddar cheese is called "Coon". Try explaining that to Americans. Ech.)

Jeff, what I probably should have said was, "When I mentioned this yesterday (and the site was down so I couldn't check), I used the term `affirmative action', but those words do not appear in the actual text. Here's what I was talking about."

Was looking for a shorter way to word that, and came up with "explicit mention." Which doesn't quite convey the same idea.

Stupid ambiguous languages, anyway.

freetles, life is too short for politeness. Or political correctness. Or something.

Explain to the Americans that just because it's not warm, they should not say "It's nippy out here" when there are Japanese tourists around. Not that anyone I know or am related to would have done such a thing. . .

Life isn't too short for politeness. Perhaps I should have said "common courtesy". Life IS too short for extended to-and-fros on whether person A has just said something (implicitly) racist, whether person B has a right to feel offended even though person A insists that there was no racist meaning intended, whether person A is a poor widdle oppressed person because someone objects to the words s/he uses ("you can't tell me what to say! How dare you infringe on my free speech!") and so on round the mulberry bush. Life is also too short for punch-ups inspired by the same topics. So courtesy wins, and that crap about an armed society being a polite society is shown up for what it is.

Person(s) A should just get that they don't get it, and apologise for saying it. But they don't. So person C makes inferences.

Oh, and yeah, the nip thing. Ouch! It could work several ways. "Nippers" are pre-pubescent trainee surf lifesavers, so there's all sorts of unfortunate implications.

Columnist of my acquaintance wanted to use the phrase "call a spade a spade" in praise of someone. Editorial staff went nuts. Columnist didn't know the racial overtone (it's pretty archaic usage here now) and was mortified, embarrassed and apologetic. Again, others in the same situation don't seem to have the same reaction.

Aw, stuff it. I should be doing some work right now.

Sorry, I was talking about Rachel's motto. I'm not sure when politeness and common courtesy got stuck with the label "political correctness", but since she's against it, this means I can call her bitch, slut, cocksucker, and dumbass white girl, and she really has no grounds for complaint.

I gots no problem with that.

Do I want to know what time it is there? Guess I could look it up on this newfangled Internet thing I've heard so much about. . .

I'd just come back from lunch (thus answering your question) so it's likely I just wasn't nuance tuned when I posted earlier. Didn't notice the motto at her site, 'cause it's ugly clashy colours and that always causes me to stop paying attention. That and links to RightWingNews because they like it, not because it causes them hysterical laughter.

I'm sort of hanging on the edge of my seat waiting for the answer to who is WE. It will be interesting to see how THAT one gets talked around.

Totally getting your comment: "you're either a card-carrying member of the KKK or utterly free from prejudice." and wishing more people would do the same. As the conversation peters out, I think the memories of some of the more valid points are being forgotten to make room for comforting thoughts of color-blindness.

And it's interesting that some people don't like for white people to tell them their racist and claim to not mind when a person of color does...until a person of color points out their racism.

Now I REALLY need to sleep. I'm rambling...I'm already mega-bitch. I don't want to be mega-ega-ga-a-bitch in the morning.

Ok, the manichean thing gave me a good chuckle this morning. Looks like I'm the only cracker here who's ever taken any history courses, 'cos nobody else seems to have got it.

Scott, I'm figuring they're still trying to work out the Zadeh reference. And I stole that manichean line from Grant Morrison, hoping no one would notice.

Give in to the bitchiness, dru. I did, and I feel much better now. Except it seems to bring out the liberal arts major for some reason.

Rachel has an update, if anyone cares: http://www.rachellucas.com/lovehate.htm

Jim, have you been corresponding with her again? I'd been rather hoping she'd come back for that. . . dialogue she requested.

Tara: "What's five by five?"
Willow: "See that's the thing. Nobody knows."

it doesn't matter, michelle. When Faith says it its so hot my face melts.

I just gave Rachel the URL for Dawn's comment thread and said you had explained what you meant. That's the only time I've talked to her.

From what I understand, "five by five" is lingo used by military radio operators to mean "loud and clear." Signal strength is on a scale from 1 to 5, so "five by five" is the best signal.

Yeah, but I use it to mean, "I am a psychotic, cleavagy slutbomb."

Well, I'm sure Ray will drop by when she's ready.

I heard Faith might be back this season. Slayer jailbreak scene?

Rumor has it that Faith will be on both Buffy and Angel. Double Faith action. Jason will be pleased....he may have to re-evaluate his Buffy: Old and Busted, Alias: New hotness statement.

In reference to a point Aaron made an earlier comment (pointing out how pop culture discussions tended to be nice and serious ones degenerated into namecalling) notice how this thread begins with name calling and ends with a nice discussion of pop culture? Aaron is psych(ot)ic as well as evil.I mean we all suspected but...

You only suspected this?

Stuff over at the Spoiler Slayer talks about...

...no. I shouldn't put up spoilers in comments. I don't know that Faith's return will be the authentic Faith, though, from what I've heard.