Can someone please define "divisive."

[EffieBlack]

I keep seeing claims that references or discussions about race are “divisive.” But what exactly does that mean?

Who do these references and discussions “divide” and where are the dividing lines?

Does it mean that making someone uncomfortable will make them walk away from the larger group, hence the “divide?”

Does it mean that, absent the mention or discussion, there would be no “division?”

Does it mean that, because someone was made uncomfortable by something a stranger wrote on an anonymous discussion board, they will change their view of or relationships with people of different races and/or no longer support equality and equal opportunity for all?

Please help me put here and explain exactly what “divisive” means.

(And trying to define it by saying THIS post is “divisive” because I’m asking for a definition of the term won’t suffice).

Thanks.

[Trust Buster]

1. If I referred to your race using a derogatory term, that would be divisive. Understand now ?

[tonedevil]

4. You think yours has?

[EffieBlack]

5. No. You didn't answer my question.

Please define “divisive.” How does a term you don’t like “divide?” Divide WHO? from WHOM (or WHAT)? What about you or you views or your actions change as a result?

Exactly how does this division people keep talking about actually manifest itself?

[Trust Buster]

6. What term would you suggest be used to define similar black folks on DU ?

And, do you think that would be considered divisive and in keeping with DU decorum ?

[EffieBlack]

9. Still not answering my question.

[Trust Buster]

12. I am not going to invest much time on this topic. I have watched silently for a week as this

Nonsense has been promoted. I think I have a clear understanding of DU’s mission and promoting racially motivated derogatory terms is not and should not be part of that mission.

[EffieBlack]

18. I'd think that defining the terms you use, especially when accusing people of bad behavior, wouldn't

be all that difficult.

[Hortensis]

24. Discussions of race are not divisive in themselves, Effie.

Many are positive, civil and enlightening. They create empathy and bring people together.

Divisive discussions of race are...divisive. Kind of like pornography, we all know them when we see them.

[EffieBlack]

31. What makes a discussion divisive?

Can you offer any specific examples?

[Hortensis]

35. This is something you need to come to yourself.

There is no better way to learn and develop real understanding than to try to teach something. We have many current threads on racism. Maybe go look at their OPs and the posts to them and explain to yourself why each is divisive or not divisive. Eventually you'll be able to answer your own question.

[pnwmom]

136. I don't think you're understanding the background here. Effiblack has been accused

of being divisive when she tries to talk about racial issues.

[Anon-C]

48. So don't offend white people?

[BumRushDaShow]

32. Wow and first post too.

[EffieBlack]

43. Apparently, I'm really freaking out some people here.

given the targeted and pretty nasty personal attacks and threats that are suddenly coming at me.

Apparently, they haven't figured out I don't scare easily ...

So, anyway - back to the discussion.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. It's a pity, really.

[fleabiscuit]

36. Is english your second language? nt

[BumRushDaShow]

39. Your bs call-out post as a means to dissuade discussion

that made no sense regarding the OP's account, pretty much establishes your intent.

[Demsrule86]

66. How is wypipo offensive exactly? And I have seen the same reaction to the term white people...but

Black People, Latina People is just fine.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. What's divisive is racism itself. Talking about it is not.

Too often the word is used to avoid talking about matters that make us uncomfortable. Unless someone is trying deliberately to create a situation that sets people against each other (which is my definition of the term), I don't see how uncomfortable discussions about race are divisive.

[emulatorloo]

3. +1

[Uncle Joe]

7. Divisive or division is like fire;

while a requirement for human survival and social evolution carelessly spreading it can still burn the house down.

Thanks for the thread, EffieBlack.

[Demit]

8. Maybe what's making some white people uncomfortable is that other white people have

a different opinion of/reaction to the term wypipo. Like, the latter either don't agree that it is a pejorative term, or are not offended by it.

This, to them, is creating a rift that endangers—something, I'm not sure what.

[Anon-C]

49. Great observation! Nt

[EffieBlack]

52. You raise an interesting point

One of the things that puzzles me about the "racially divisive" claim and why I'm trying to break down what it really means to people who use it is that, in most cases where this accusation is made, the disagreements don't break down along racial lines. Invariably, on one side we have a critical mass of minorities along with a very significant number of white posters. The other side tends to be comprised of an overwhelming majority of white posters, with, perhaps, a handful of minority posters agreeing with them.

So, as far as I can tell, these discussions aren't racially divisive at all - in fact, they're very diverse.

I also notice that the people on the more diverse side of the discussion rarely, if ever, complain about "divisiveness" - they are much more focused on discussing the substantive issue and trying to convince the white folks on the other side to see things from a different perspective - the very opposite of "divisive." Certainly, there are exceptions to this, but by my observation, this is largely true.

[Demit]

80. Maybe it depends on how, and from whom, they first heard the term.

I follow a blog that has a frequent commenter who is mixed race, and that's how I encountered it. She uses a lot of slang, and alternate spellings that make puns (like "buybull" for bible), and when she used "wypipo" it was in an observational way. So I didn't sense any hostility in the word.

To me, it's kind of like when people use "catlicks" for Catholics in an online conversation. It's slang, slightly irreverent, not intended as any kind of serious invective. It's playing with language, really.

Now, if people here first encountered the term from the writer referenced the other day, who put negative connotations on the word, apparently, I guess I can see how that could get people's hackles up. But, considering that "wypipo" is just a way of writing "white people" in dialect, I just don't see the fuss.

[pnwmom]

88. I've never seen the term catlicks anywhere, but if I did, and the writer wasn't Catholic

I'd assume it was a deliberate slur.

Like when a friend from Boston, a protestant, made Catholic jokes, including fake signs of the cross. She stopped when I asked why she did that. (She never made fun of protestants or Jewish people -- just Catholics. It was habit, I guess, growing up where she did.)

wypipo, isn't a slur. It's just a variant of "white people."

[Demit]

117. I trust you would take context into account.

I wonder, what do you think it would be alluding to, that would make it a slur? There's no association in the religion with either cats or licking. It's slang, playing with spelling, as so much of online writing does. The worst it does is mimic dialect. Just like wypipo, in fact.

I've never interpreted it as a slur. I am Catholic. Twelve years of Catholic school, though not very religious now. That's probably the context I can offer you: the source was a political blog where commenters are not overtly religious and have roughly the same sensibility (which includes being clever with language). Sorry about your friend. I had a coworker once, an otherwise genial Episcopalian, who didn't do hostile things like make fake signs of the cross, but he did refer to Catholics as papists. I didn't like that. You could hear the scorn in his voice.

[pnwmom]

131. Among Catholics I wouldn't care. But if non-Catholics used that term

I wouldn't assume that there wasn't any association with the words cat or lick. You can't hear someone's voice online, so it's hard to know how much of an edge there might be in the joke.

[Demit]

148. They're not making jokes. It's conversation on a topic.

You can't hear someone's tone of voice, but context matters.

Besides, if you're Catholic, you know there's no basis for making a joke associating the religion with cats, or licking. No bible story, no religious rite, no religious dogma. Such a "joke" wouldn't relate to anything. There'd be no internal logic to it. It would just make everybody say Huh? which no one has done. Instead, it's understood as just playing with spelling, mimicking sloppy pronunciation. Dialect.

I wish I had seen such a conversation recently so I could link you to it. You obviously don't want to take my word for it, a (fellow?) Catholic who has tried to describe the context for you. If you understand "wypipo" as being innocuous, I've tried to show how "catlicks" is the same sort of thing, but I guess I failed. I hereby give up.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. Yep.

[lapfog_1]

10. In this case divisive means that a certain segment of our society

might take issue with some stmts or prior positions or even current positions of a particular candidate who is running as a Democrat... and divisive means that the aforementioned segment (be it racial or religious or sexual orientation or whatever) is less likely to vote or support said candidate, even while acknowledging that the other party running for that office are much much worse for "all of us".

Much of the divisiveness is, of course, stirred up by the opposition.

That doesn't negate the nature of the controversy or the legitimate concerns by the "divided" segment of our society.

[EffieBlack]

15. So someone is less likely to vote for a candidate they otherwise support because of something

a stranger wrote on an anonymous discussion board? How does that actually work?

And this term is usually used in response to comments or discussions about race and racism, the suggestion being that they are somehow racially divisive. How does that work?

[lapfog_1]

19. More of an indirect effect

Someone might still vote Democratic, but is less likely to contribute to the party or encourage neighbors to vote or drive someone to the polling place simply because of the divisive stories in the "press" (online postings on discussion boards now count as "press&quot .

And just because the term "divisive" is most often used to discuss racial divisiveness, there are many other examples as well.

[Bok_Tukalo]

11. Do statements become questions with the simple use of an eroteme?

<OPE>

[LanternWaste]

20. Grammatically and informally, yes.

Both grammatically and informally, yes... regardless of its irrelevance to the sentiment.

[Blue_Adept]

13. It's like porn, I'll know it when I see it.

Or "if it offends me, it's divisive."

The more the years change, the more DU stays the same.

[Va Lefty]

17. Your 2nd answer is spot on.

[Blue_Adept]

23. And so many want to be offended on the behalf of others

[Bok_Tukalo]

14. "Divisive" in the context you appear to be using

... means a wedge that separates one group into two or more groups.

[EffieBlack]

21. How does a comment or a discussion "drive a wedge?"

If someone has cancer, talking about it doesn’t cause it metastasize. If there’s not already a racial wedge or a schism or faultline, how does discussing race cause one? And what does that look like. If someone is open-minded about race, how does someone else’s comment, regardless how offensive they may find it, change their views or actions on the issue?

[Bok_Tukalo]

40. If I understand what you are saying, I disgree with little.

A perfectly uniform group is a rare thing. There will be "schism[s]" and "faultline[s]" both small and large that can be exploited and people in a group sometimes react defensively when they believe a wedge is being placed in those known fissures.

As far as being open-minded about race, I don't see how an individual fond of using racial epithets, or at least being comfortable with their use by people in their lives, would change a person's views or actions on the issue. It would probably just be instructive on the character of that individual.

But any group will have both written and unwritten boundaries on acceptable discourse and those boundaries will be explored. I don't personally find that overly divisive. I consider it a form of socialization where a group defines itself by what it will tolerate in terms of behavior.

Sorry to be so long winded.

[G_j]

130. just a flash

[unblock]

16. i think "divisive" adds a negative connotation to a denotation of "controversial".

"controversial" is a fairly neutral, if perhaps a slightly dramatic, description of a question or topic on which there are differing points of view.

"divisive" takes something "controversial" and spins it as something to be avoided, as we should prefer to be unifying. the implication is that we should ignore or minimize the controversy, rather than shining a light on it and trying to unite through understanding at the risk of causing deepening and hardening the differing points of view.


"divisive" is of course a political football. donnie is not often deemed "divisive", even though dividing people into good and bad groups is his stock and trade. whereas hillary has long been tarred as "divisive" even though she talks about nothing but bringing us all together, because some people love her and other people hate her. naturally, it's foxnews and hate radio and republicans who have been divisive in tarring hillary this way, but instead they insisted on applying the label to her. same goes for pelosi (though admittedly, pelosi is at least in a more partisan role than hillary has ever been).


i think here on du, "divisive" similarly carries a meaning of "i don't like this topic and the resulting head-butting, i'd prefer to just ignore it like polite people avoid talking about religion and politics." obviously, this attitude denies that any actual learning and understanding might result from such discussions....

[ProudLib72]

51. I like this definition and discussion

So whether or not a topic is "divisive" depends on two things: the audience's innate bias and the speaker's agenda. If bias matches agenda, then there is no apparent division. If a topic makes people uncomfortable, that betrays either bias or (nefarious) agenda.

[treestar]

158. religion too. On DU we have real liberals who are both

religious and those who are not, including some very antagonistic towards religion.

[malthaussen]

22. As far as I am aware, "divisive" can be defined...

... as making the group who is complaining about "divisiveness" uncomfortable, guilty, irritated, or off their feed (since they're almost always higher on the food chain than the people they are accusing of being "divisive." ) This "divisiveness" can be the intended result, or the unintended consequence.

As to what or whom it divides, I don't think that is really considered by those who use the term, but perhaps it divides the complaining group into people who want to continue whatever it was that caused "divisive" remarks to be made about them, and wish to turn the perceived attack, and those who just feel sheepish about the whole thing, and want to continue as they have been without any light being shined on them.

-- Mal

[grumpyduck]

25. From what I've seen here over the past few months

it would appear that "divisive" is a term used by one individual when he or she doesn't like what someone else said, calls the post "divisive," and then several other people jump on the bandwagon and start arguing about what "divisive" means and whether or not the OP was "divisive."

IOW, IMHO, "divisive" is a term of convenience generally used to stir up doo-doo.

[Cosmocat]

26. Any democrat or liberal

let's keep it simple ...

[Cary]

27. Dear EffieBlack:

I will attempt to explain something to you. First understand that I can speak only for myself. I am a white, Jewish male. I empathize 100% with your cause.

Let's start with that. Can you accept that I empathize with your cause 100% or are you going to tell me that I am misguided or lying?

[jberryhill]

124. What species of "-splaining" were you intending?

I will attempt to explain something to you.

Were you planning on mansplaining, whitesplaining, or some other species of "-splaining" which negates any substantive content of the "-splaining" you have in mind?

[meow2u3]

28. Here's how I define "divisive"

Any attitude, behavior, and/or policy that pits one group of Americans against another.

[EffieBlack]

44. How do you define "group"

And what do you mean by "pits."

If you say that Donald Trump is terrible, some people will agree with you, some people will disagree. Are you being "divisive" because your comment prompted an argument between the group that likes him and the group that doesn't?"

[SomethingNew]

29. The deliberately obtuse act is tiresome.

[kentuck]

33. By their fruits you shall know them.

Matthew 7:15-20 New King James Version (NKJV)
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

[GeorgeGist]

34. di·vi·sive

adjective
tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.
"the highly divisive issue of abortion"
synonyms: alienating, estranging, isolating, schismatic
"a divisive scheme to set his rivals against each other"

[Nitram]

37. Effie, I think it entirely depends on the perceived motivation behind the references or discussions.

It can be divisive if someone feels they are being attacked rather than reasoned with or educated. Of course, many people are so defensive they are afraid to engage in real discussion or allow themselves to be educated. I don't know what to do about that. For those people the mere topic of race seems divisive. They want to pretend that the issue of race is not a problem that needs to be solved.

[cyclonefence]

41. I think "divisive" in this context means

that our unity as Democrats will be threatened if the racism of some of us--and I include unconscious racism, like my own--is talked about. There is a concern, I think, that talking about race will cause defensiveness and incivility here--which it clearly has--and that we are not mature enough, or confident enough in our shared ideals, to survive this perceived threat to our moral superiority to Republicans.

I think it's painful for many of us to confront racism, especially if we are made to feel guilty about our own unconscious participation in what is called white privilege. We like to think of ourselves as enlightened and kind, and to be reminded that we benefit every day from racism that we never signed up for, at least not wittingly, hurts our feelings and makes many of us feel judged unfairly.

[procon]

42. It's not the "talking" that is divisive. It's the intent.

I suspect this farcical, soul searching plea is disingenuous at best and just another ludicrous attempt to validate prejudices. To be clear, it's not about any objections to discussions on matters of race. It's not about being "uncomfortable", but more about you repeatedly trying to pigeonhole anyone who objects to derisive labels that are based on racial animus, into that one inconsequential box.

No, it's the obvious intent to deliberately cause division. It's about not being honest enough to see that complex racist attitudes cannot be rendered down into such simple minded divisions. It's the perception of bigotry that creates needless suspicions and division. The thinly veiled race baiting and the use of dehumanizing pejorative labels is an intent to humiliate and dehumanize others, i.e. creating a division.

Racial stereotyping is wrong when it's attached to anyone, black or white, it's not the one way street you seem to think it is. The words you like to flaunt are intentionally divisive and meant to cause harm, and any preschool child understands that, why don't you?

[EffieBlack]

46. I have been on DU for years and everytime I bring up race, someone accuses me of being "divisive"

The vast majority of these accusations had nothing to do with concerns about "stereotyping" or "derisive label," which only came up in the past few days in connection with the term "wypipo."

As for deciding that "intent" determines whether something is divisive, couldn't it be just as - or even more - true that inferring that other people's "intent" is malacious is the divisive aspect of the discussion, not the discussion itself?

And very few people here have actually provided any proof that they actually know what they mean by "divisive." In fact, the people who are the most eager to throw the term at anyone who talks about race seem to have the greatest difficulty defining their term, you among them.

[procon]

56. So, when you innocently asked for "someone please define "divisive", it was just a ruse?

You complain that people who don't look like you are rendered "uncomfortable" by your authentic name calling, taking an inordinate delight in creating unnecessary wedges between factions. There's no denying the dissension you have created, so if that makes you are "uncomfortable", then pin that label on yourself before you try to brand anyone else.

I'm not speaking for any "vast majority", but I don't bow to the tyranny of the majority, or attend you Pity Party either. If you only wanted definitions from folks who agree with your assertions, you should have stated so up front. Yet, here you are, a person who thinks race baiting labels are not "divisive", arguing that my POV is not as valid as your own. That significant lack of self-awareness, and your inability to recognise that other people might perceive you as a controversial and racist provocateur, is conspicuous.

[kwassa]

77. Criticizing something as "divisive" avoids the substance of the commentary.

It is name-calling in it's own right. Calling something divisive is quite like calling something politically correct; it is a way of avoiding the argument in itself. "Divisive" is nothing more than a label.

Being divisive is not the worst crime in life, either; it is only divisive if those that feel the division don't really consider the argument being made. If they are so easily divided, are they really your allies?

[procon]

84. What argument are you referring to?

The only one I saw was almost a comical effort to stigmatize "the other" via a made up pejorative that has instantly created a division on every thread its been on.

While, "divisive is not the worst crime in life", the intent to dehumanise and segregate a whole segment of the population along racial lines is inexcusable. If words that define racial profiling is abhorrent when they are tacked on black people, how is it any less offensive when its slapped on white folks, yeah?

[kwassa]

114. White fragility noted. Wypipo doesn't refer to all white people.

says this white person.

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

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

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

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

[procon]

122. Do two wrongs don't make a right?

Isn't this one individual's, opinion? I looked at the topics on his/her blog, and if white folks had written similar stuff they would have been banned from social media sites.

You're basing your argument on one person's rant, but what does calling people racist pejoratives do to change history, or create understanding, or foster solidarity, or advance policies that promote equality? How does creating a second tier of segregation and discrimination drive activists to work for necessary changes in society?

Yes, discuss history, talk about inequality, and promote justice, but bashing everyone just because they aren't living up to your expectations isn't an effective way to build consensus among peer groups.

[ehrnst]

145. What do passive agressive, whitesplaining, demeaning posts serve?

Perhaps you have an idea?

[Eliot Rosewater]

57. And even when you ask nicely as to why that is, you get this.

Non POC have all the power and privilege and have had it for over 200 years and anything that threatens that is "divisive"

And it lives on and on and on.



and on

[procon]

58. Hogwash.

There is nothing that resembles "nice" in this whole divisive feint. Look, if there is no justification to use racial pejoratives on blacks, why is OK to tag whites with similar dehumanizing sobriquets?

You want to speak about equality, and history, and power and privilege, fine, I'm all in and will support anything that will bring about positive change, but I won't join you in petty shaming and name calling based on biases.

[EffieBlack]

62. Case and point

Thanks for illustrating it for me

But aside from the "Wypipo" controversy, where we'll just agree to disagree, when do you think I've engaged in "petty shaming and name-calling," used any " dehumanizing sobriquets" or applied any "racial pejoratives" to anyone?"

[radical noodle]

74. You don't

The real problem lies in white people who think that because they don't burn crosses in people's yards, they shouldn't have to discuss race.

This whole thing reminds me of the Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes lessons with Jane Elliott.

[procon]

75. Read, EffieBlack. Get a mirror.

You're not a Pollyanna, and you don't seem so frail that you need anyone to lead you by the hand. If you can't hear and see all the quacking ducks in your wake, then the problem is likely much deeper than you will ever admit to.

[ehrnst]

85. What problem does Effie have that is "deeper than she will ever admit to?"

Really, how is she ever going to learn what POC need to if you don't tell her?

[procon]

87. I dunno, maybe there's a lesson in how she tells all us "wypipo" how to behave. nt

[EffieBlack]

91. When did I tell "Wypipo" (or white people or anyone) how to behave?

This is pretty funny coming in the same sub thread in which you instructed me to “read” and look in a mirror.

But I digress ...

[procon]

94. Finish reading your posts; you must be one of EffieBlack's "Wypipo" if you... (fill in the blanks)

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[ehrnst]

99. And what duck is that?

There's another question for you to evade.

[EffieBlack]

103. In other words, you have nothing to back up your false claim about me

Par for the course.

[ehrnst]

97. That juuuuuust this side of describing Effie as "uppity."

Isn't it?

[ehrnst]

147. No response. No surprise.

Defending that post would be very difficult, wouldn't it?

[pnwmom]

92. Quacking ducks in your wake? Please delete this insulting comment. n/t

[ehrnst]

86. Petty shaming... you mean like this?

The words you like to flaunt are intentionally divisive and meant to cause harm, and any preschool child understands that, why don't you?

[procon]

89. Didn't you teach your kids not to deliberately cause harm to others?

Did you shame them... No? C'mon, if you have to contort your response like a pretzel, whatever point you thought you were making is already as off kilter as is appears.

[ehrnst]

93. Not going to answer?

Good call, not owning up to your own tactics.

[ehrnst]

100. "dehumanizing sobriquets"... you mean like

the euphemism "duck?"

Or saying that a preschooler has more understanding of racial stereotypes than Effie?

Do go on.

[procon]

106. The Duck Test has been around for a couple hundred years, how did you miss it?

If it helps, google the old maxim, The Duck Test. It doesn't mean that someone is actually a duck -- LOL... sorry, I know, sorry! -- it just refers to something that can be readily identified by its habitual characteristics. You know, like intent can be identified by the continued use of words that convey a divisive message of racial stereotyping.

If you want to discuss, please do, but be forewarned that it's not going to advance your position to rewrite my words in a transparent attempt to fortify your somewhat weak assertions. Do better.

[ehrnst]

135. I guess that I have been called

"uppity" as well as Effie.

I suppose I owe you a thank you for your privileged 'splaining?

Oh, right - you don't answer anyone calling you out on that.

Do go on. White boys correcting those who aren't on what "racist stereotyping" is in passive aggressive, evasive, condescending posts are so impressive But I guess one needs validation where one can get it, no?

[procon]

139. Um, no, in either case, that wouldn't be the first word of choice I would have used. 🤐 nt

[ehrnst]

141. Well, not here on DU.

But many here can see right through passive-aggressive male privileged whiteplaining.

Your second choice is obvious.

Is that clearer, Honeychile?

You're welcome.

[George II]

162. ..

[EffieBlack]

59. Yep

Even when I respond to innumerable "racism goes both ways, you know-white people can be victims, too!" posts " and say " OK - I'm listening. Tell us YOUR stories," I get swarmed with "You're trying to trick us," and "We know what you're up to!" posts - not to mention, personal attacks and outright threats.

Go figure

[Eliot Rosewater]

60. In one way it is understandable if one group has ALL power and ALL privilege

for 200+ years and then to expect them all to ACKNOWLEDGE THIS, not even expect them to give it up but JUST to acknowledge it, that some would put up a squabble.

The beauty of your VERY patient and reasonable posts and approach is some of them will get it.

[EffieBlack]

61. Thanks - I really hope so.

[Demsrule86]

65. I hope so...it makes me sad to see such things here.

[Caliman73]

133. The problem with acknowledgement

I totally agree Eliot. The problem with acknowledging privilege is that the next step is having to do something about it. Like if I acknowledge my privilege as a man, then I have to choose to continue to stay silent about it or to actively do things that are conscious of it. I try not to use terms that are gender offensive like, "Why are you crying like a little girl" and other things that are accepted in terms of male privilege. When I hear people using those terms, I speak up about it. It can be difficult and as a result I do not have a heck of a lot of men as friends. I don't really fit in.

If people acknowledge their White privilege then they have a choice to allow the perpetuation or to do something about it. Sometimes it is easier to call someone or something divisive than to have to make changes in your own life.

[procon]

78. Still on the Pity Party?

You still can't see how people may perceive you differently than anything you might have anticipated. That's your shortcoming. The opinions and critiques of acrimonious assertions are no less valid jst because they make you feel uncomfortable in being challenged.

Go figure, yeah, we already have.

[ehrnst]

82. Aren't you going to say that she doesn't understand what a preschooler does again?

You left that out.

[ehrnst]

81. The POC here on DU are so lucky to have you splain "racial stereotyping" to them.

As well as tell them that they don't have the understanding of a preschool child.

Along with telling them what their "intent" is.

How on earth are they ever going to learn these things without you?

[procon]

108. What? That only works when others "racial stereotyping"?

You can't have it both ways, yeah?

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander as well.


I'm in a fowl mood today! Full disclosure; it's another old maxim, (I can splain that, too, if needs be) and it doesn't mean that you are literally a goose. I'm fair certain the DU TOS prohibits any geese from posting here.

Carry on!

[ehrnst]

134. Well, I guess you just have to splain it to everyone here on DU

that doesn't have white male privilege.

Do go on.

[ehrnst]

143. Well, you're here, aren't you?

[George II]

155. How can you know the motives of this person? In what way is this "race baiting" and divisive?

[Maeve]

47. Since the discussions here have made me reconsider my views and the reasons for them

I'd have to say, no, discussions on an anonymous borad are not divisive for me. Sometimes things have to be highlighted so we can see them--it's easy just to skim over reality without seeing what others are suffering.
'My way or the highway' is divisive; 'come let us reason together' is not.

[OneGrassRoot]

53. +1. Well done. :) n/t

[average_mo_dem]

50. Divisive

Intentionally and dishonestly using emotions to pit different groups against each other for personal, political or social 'gain.'

Used to shut down debate and control a narrative by forcing people to choose between a simple ' you are either with us or against us.'

Discussing the issue itself isn't divisive, the ignoring of actual facts and the personal attacks on those who question the narrative, are what's divisive.

[betsuni]

55. "Divisive" is the new "establishment."

Means: you are not keeping to the ECONOMICS ONLY propaganda.

[ehrnst]

163. Bingo. (NT)

[aikoaiko]

63. I'll try to provide a sincere answer.

I think when most people use the phrase "divisive" in DU threads, they are trying to express that they, as members of a group, do not feel welcome based on the tone or words used in our conversations.

Others' mileage may vary.

[EffieBlack]

69. Thanks

But what does that actually mean? Does it mean that they now feel divided from someone they previously were connected to? Who would that be? And how does that new divide manifest itself? They're going to stop participating on DU? That hardly seems to be happening. They no longer will support civil rights and equality?

I'm really trying to get an explanation of what it actually means when they say someone has been divisive.

When, in response to white DUers saying that discussions of racism is divisive because racism against whites is being ignored, I ask white DUers to tell their stories, but am that told I'm peddling "divisive crap," what exactly does that mean? What about the tone or language of such an question is divisive?

[aikoaiko]

116. I only offered my definition of divisive speech...

...and I'm not necessarily justifying the use of the term in every case.

You asked:
Does it mean that they now feel divided from someone they previously were connected to?
My answer
Yes.

I think it does push some people out of DU either voluntarily or they get PPRed because their frustration leads them to questionable posts.

As far as wipipo goes, my initial reaction was negative because it sounds like broad brush pejorative, but I listened and realized that the usage was essentially equivalent to "white racists" and I saw the point of it.

I still don't like it, but I understand the label better. I think some of the uncomfortableness with wipipo is partly based on the realization that I'm a member of a privileged group in a racist society who doesn't always confront such privilege and I have my own implicit biases to address. In that way, I am wipipo -- and that's the point of the label.

[PETRUS]

64. I'm surprised you have to ask.

There's a long history in the US of drawing attention to race in order to help prevent the formation of broader (class-based) coalitions that might threaten the position and privileges of elites. It's likely there were at least two different versions of this tactic used during the last presidential election cycle. Of course, without knowing specifics it's impossible for me to say whether or not I think there's any merit to the accusations of divisiveness in the instances you have in mind.

[EffieBlack]

67. So, talking about race perpetuates the power of the elites?

Gotcha.

Not a response to my request for an actual definition of "divisive," but, nonetheless, a very interesting look into how you think about this.

[PETRUS]

72. That's not what I said.

I said it has often been used that way. Do you dispute that?

[EffieBlack]

76. Gotcha

I think you're right, but that's far beside the point since the fact that someone else might use something to further their own advantage in no way tells us anything about the meaning or merits, thereof. But it sounds like that's also what you're saying.

An example: it can't be disputed that Barack Obama's presidency ignited a lot of fear among freaked-out, insecure white people which provoked the backlash that helped put Trump into the White House. And, in fact, Obama was often called "divisive" not because of anything he said or did but because of the way some people reacted to him. But the fact that some people insist he was divisive and some folk exploit the reaction to his presidency to elect a hateful racist and to succeed him doesn't mean that he was divisive or that his presidency was a negative thing.

[PETRUS]

79. Yes.

Accusations of divisiveness can be baseless and can be a (disingenuous) tactic in and of themselves. The example you provided is one that I think fits in that category. I was careful to use the word "likely" when describing my opinion of the last election cycle because while behavior can be observed directly, motives have to be inferred.

[PETRUS]

109. An addendum.

Had it occurred to me in time, I might have mentioned this right away: My profession affords me frequent opportunities to provoke examination of and conversation about race, and I take advantage of that as often as I can. So no, I certainly don't think talking about race is necessarily divisive (I don't know of anyone who has received my efforts that way, and it's certainly never been my intention), but I think a fair amount of what is said and done is counterproductive, and at least some of the time that's deliberate.

On edit: I should add that given both the weight of history and present reality, confronting racial issues is, in my opinion, crucial.

[EffieBlack]

120. Agree regarding the need to confront racial issues

The problem comes when some people insist that these can only be discussed or addressed on their terms, only when they want to and only in language that hey approve. In other words, not at all

[PETRUS]

125. Yeah.

It's never been easy to get a fair hearing for the voices and concerns of the disadvantaged, and it probably never will be.

[NurseJackie]

128. Nobody is doing that.

But it wasn't me, so you don't have the right to take it out on me.

Nobody is doing that.

[NurseJackie]

132. Aw.

[NCTraveler]

68. Withing the realm of discussion....

I believe "divisive" is something that entrenches one or more groups even further.

That is some serious shit considering the context of these conversations. Those claiming divisiveness on a lot of what I'm reading are from people clearly showing the topic is making them more ridgid or confined in their beliefs. When the believes being mentioned revolve around race, it's kind of a sick argument.

[MineralMan]

70. Divisive means that what someone said bothered someone else.

Sometimes it's a real issue, and sometimes it's something that hits a little too close to home and gets someone's defenses up.

Other times divisive means that someone's privilege has been identified and someone feels uncomfortable about that.

Divisive is a very useful word. It can take the place of discussion by using it to dismiss an argument without explanation.

Now, I'm going to stop being divisive by ending my post that attempts to define the word.

[NCTraveler]

71. I want to add that a lot of the conversations I'm reading.

Leads me to believe that many truly have no clue what systemic societal and governmental oppression is and the power structure that keeps it in place.

That is really sad.

[mcar]

73. Some said Obama was "divisive," many said HRC was "divisive"

Many of those saying it about them were the ones doing the dividing.

I take the word with a big grain of salt.

[Hortensis]

159. In other words, words can be weaponized and used to attack others.

Poor Effie, by her own admission, has been targeted with such attacks for years, apparently including every time she earnestly tries to have a civil discussion about race with white people on DU.

"I have been on DU for years and everytime I bring up race, someone accuses me of being "divisive""

I didn't see the post(s) that prompted her to start this thread about divisiveness, but seemingly it was yet another accusation?

Surely we can at least all come together in admiration of Effie's courage and perseverance in the face of these "divisive" slings and arrows and in shame at a years-long pattern of verbal persecution of one member?

[elocs]

83. Divisive is an absolute of right and wrong with no possibility of dialogue.

Divisive is an absolute of right and wrong with no possibility of dialogue.
If the only outcome of something said or written requires one side to be totally right with the other totally wrong with no middle ground or compromise, with no hope of coming together or understanding one another, then that is divisive. There is no hope in divisiveness other than one side overpowering the other.

[pnwmom]

90. I disagree that discussions about race are divisive, so I don't know what is meant by that.

They're necessary discussions, even among progressives and liberals.

And the point is to, in the end, share some knowledge and bring us closer together.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

96. Remember

during the Obama years, we were constantly told by the right-wing (and even occasionally by the MSM) about how "divisive" Barack Obama was as POTUS. Of course, it was never really explained how/why he was, just that he was.

[el_bryanto]

98. I think to be safe we should never say anything that anybody could disagree with.

Nothing improves a discussion board like silence.

Bryant

[Abu Pepe]

101. of or related to the stirring of shit. nt

[kentuck]

102. Can't we all agree that this is a very "unifying" thread?

And answers the question quite clearly that was asked in the OP??

[EffieBlack]

104. If everyone doesn't agree with you, does that mean my OP is "divisive?"

[kentuck]

105. If there is an "outlier" that does not agree with you, it probably doesn't mean much at all.

If closer to 50% disagree with you, it is probably "divisive". Just my opinion.

[EffieBlack]

118. What someone says is divisive if a majority of people don't agree with them?

So, whether what they say is divisive or not depends on how popular their comment is and if they don’t want to be divisive, they should only say what they guess tha a majority of their listeners will agree with or just not say anything?

Okayyyy.

[kentuck]

137. Half of your comment is right....

"So, whether what they say is divisive or not depends on how popular their comment is"

The other half is something else:"and if they don’t want to be divisive, they should only say what they guess tha a majority of their listeners will agree with or just not say anything?"

Your post was about defining "divisive".

[EffieBlack]

140. That doesn't make any sense

If there's a split in opinion about what someone says, the divide already exists.

Polls show that 40 percent of Americans favor impeachment while 60 percent oppose it. If I post that Trump should be impeached, am I being divisive? How have I divided anyone - people are ALREADY divided?

And if I'm being divisive by saying Trump should be impeached while a majority disagrees with me, by your standard, someone who says Trump SHOULDN'T be impeached ISN'T being divisive because a majority agrees with them. How does that work?

[kentuck]

144. "If I post that Trump should be impeached, am I being divisive?"

I don't know. Why don't you try it and see?

I'm afraid your argument has devolved into gobbledygook...

[EffieBlack]

146. Naw, dear -I'm just pointing out the fallacy of arguments, such as claiming

that whether a post is divisive is determined by whether a majority of people agree with it.

[Demit]

150. You're the one who said 'If closer to 50% disagree with you, it is probably "divisive".'

What did you mean by that? Did you mean that any question—such as a pollster might ask—is divisive in itself? That a pollster is being divisive because the question he asked elicited a split in opinion from the responders? Because that's what it sounds like you meant.

[procon]

110. Isn't that what you've been saying throughout these endless posts?

Read how you consistently respond someone doesn't agree with you. Whenever you don't get replies that are brimming with praise and accolades, you become very aggressive. You tend to resort to a Strawman Fallacy, attacking opponents themselves without actually refuting their valid arguments.

That is divisive, and it only confirms what I said before, this whole thread is a ruse.

[EffieBlack]

123. I think you have a crush on me

The way you follow me around hanging on my every word is a little annoying, like a goofy little brother who just won’t leave me alone, butbis also kind of endearing. Nice to know you find me so fascinating...

[procon]

138. It's true then, you only want replies that agree you and offer up

gratuitous accolades. I noted that above. You never were seriously wanting any white people to help you learn new words. Criticism makes you very uncomfortable, and the best response you can field are these passive aggressive displays of name calling.

Yes, EffieBlack, I certainly do disagree with you and the blogger who fomented this egregious, racially prejudiced schism that some of you seem to have latched on to. I strongly dispute those are trying to promote his divisive POV.

You counter by pretending that it's all good fun -- stupid old wypipo, what do they know! -- and once again, you stuff anyone who disagrees with you into a convenient pigeonhole. Voila! suddenly I'm not an adult with a relevant and countering POV because you've resorted to dehumanizing me as the "goofy little brother".

It should come as any surprise that I won't wear that label either.

[EffieBlack]

142. No, boo, that's not what I said.

I just think it's precious that you can't seem to stay away from me ... it's a little obsessive, but kind of sweet.

[procon]

154. It's an open thread, yeah?

You have options to avoid reading posts that trouble you. Use them.

[rzemanfl]

152. bookmarking n/t

[ehrnst]

160. "You never were seriously wanting any white people to help you learn new words. "

That's not

"fomenting this egregious, racially prejudiced schism,"

at all, is it?

[Demit]

127. You don't actually understand what a strawman fallacy is, do you?

Attacking opponents instead of their arguments is another kind of fallacy entirely. One you've been using consistently throughout this thread, in fact. You should brush up on the name of it.

[ehrnst]

161. "Whenever you don't get replies that are brimming with praise and accolades,

you become very aggressive."

But does she use really flowery, condescending language to deliver demeaning insults?

Because that would be very, very passively aggressive.

But she doesn't.


https://local.theonion.com/area-man-s-intelligence-probably-just-too-intimidating-1819575602

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Talking about issues of race is essential, not divisive. But anything can potentially be divisive

Clearly race issues exist in America and in all of us to at least some extent. Clearly they have been at the root of massive pain ranging from slavery and lynchings at one end of the spectrum, to cultural misunderstandings at the other. Clearly they didn't "go away" with the abolition of slavery, or with the end of legal segregation, or with the election of America's first Black President etc. Silence on issues of race is complicity with an unacceptable status quo.

A focus on race only (potentially) becomes "divisive" when it divides an actual "us", one that constructively exists as the result of hard work undertaken by folks building real bridges of understanding between people with some actual differences, but also a common larger cause. I'll use a concrete example, prefacing that by acknowledging that the line between constructive and divisive is often blurred and seen differently by different people.

I find it constructive, not divisive, to discuss the essential role played by African American voters (particularly Black women) in the Democratic Senate win in the special election in Georgia. I find it constructive to point out that the long deep loyalty of African American voters to the Democratic Party in general too often results in those voters being taken for granted, often leading to a failure by Democrats to deliver on promises made to that community. It is also constructive to praise the leadership shown by that community on a wide range of issues of importance to almost all Americans.

What potentially is divisive is to seemingly discount the value of those White voters who did vote for the Democrat in that Georgia special election, even though they were in a distinct minority of White voters overall. White voters made up almost half of the votes Doug Jones received to win, and he only won by a narrow margin. It is important to note that 96%+ of Black women (if my memory serves right) voted for Jones and well over 90% of Black men did as well. It is important to note that most Alabama White women voted for the asshole Moore (though by a narrow margin) and that a large majority of White male voters in Alabama supported the bigot over Jones. That is reality and it must be faced. But so is the fact that African American voters in Georgia will not achieve a measure of justice through the electoral process in that state anytime in my lifetime without the support of a sizeable minority of White voters joining ranks with them. It is a coalition that must not only be preserved, but actually built on. Most of the people in Georgia (though some of them stubbornly refuse to see it) need for that coalition to succeed for all of their lives to improve.

Coalitions in general need to be deftly managed since adversaries will always seek wedge issues to divide them. I've seen a lot of constructive talk here at DU about what went down in the Georgia special election, but yes, to my ear at least, I also caught whiffs of some divisive talk here as well.

[PoorMonger]

111. I think of it like this....

If an argument deliberately sets aside two believed constituencies against each other clearly intending to divide , and is also entirely uncompromising in its stance because the individual refuses new info or other perspective - then that is divisive.

Here’s a simplified non inflammatory example overblown for emphasis on how I see it.

A person could say that they hate pineapple on pizza and leave it at that. It would be an opinion. No matter how conclusive or flatly stated. You or I could easily disagree but it’s not divisive by definition because it doesn’t set people against one another unless they want to engage that way...

Whereas the same starting point of conversation could be divisive if the argument was framed differently. If for instance the person said - I hate pineapple on pizza and anyone who disagrees and eats it that way is a dumbass who isn’t allowed in my house for our pizza party, because I don’t trust them fundamentally.

The thing I think we have to watch out for in politics is often a little more subtle than that too. Because the end goal of a divisive force is to divide. A more nuanced but equally divisive argument might be. I hate pineapple on pizza and you don’t but I won’t kick you out unless you also like green olives...

I hope my pizza example made some sense

[Ms. Toad]

153. Makes perfect sense.

I have not declared the race conversations divisive - but I have definitely experience division (and have withdrawn from conversations) when the conversation shifted from a discussion of our opinions about pineapple to opinions about my character.

Here are a couple of examples of it happening on DU in the context of race conversations:

Regarding the legal explanation I provided regarding the police arrest of the two individual at Starbucks:

Then I'm surprised at how wrong you are about criminal law and constitutional law - both of which I have also practiced and taught and law enforcement procedure

For point of reference, I am also an attorney and also teach law, including constitutional and criminal law. I disagree with the poster as to to the application of the law on this matter. A non-divisive response would be to phrase it as a disagreement on the law, or even as- notwithstanding our disagreement about the law, I believe there are more important principles involved here, can we talk about those?" The response implying that I am either lying or an incompetent attorney is divisive.

After I separated myself from that conversation, and did not respond to a later post, the follow-up post later appeared as a new OP, and when I did not respond to the new thread, it was brought up in another thread that is unrelated, but for race

I recall just a couple of weeks ago, you took the same tack about the Starbucks arrest and, no matter what facts were presented to you, you stood your ground and insisted that the police were fully authorized to make an arrest based on a manager's racist and false claim, and consistently mischaracterized the law, about which you were flat out wrong. )

In the Starbuck's conversation, I disagreed with an assertion about the venue for obtaining a remedy for discrimination (I believe it lies with the courts via a civil suit, not in demanding the police litigate an affirmative defenses before making an arrest when there is a prima facie case and no facially obvious affirmative defense). I did not mischaractarize the law, nor am I flat out wrong. As attorneys, we simply disagree about its interpretation. That's why I believe matters that require exploring pattern and practice beyond a single incident are better handled in the court system than by the police on the ground.

Yes, yes - you always insist there's nor to the story And tell us we must withhold judgment until we have all the facts - even when the facts are as clear as day.

That is a mischaracterization because it is not something I normally do. I did so in this specific conversation about Lisa Houston because I have yet to find any black person who was involved in the particular incident who is characterizing it as a racial incident, and the protests (in support of the person accused of racist behavior) seem to include blacks in about the same proportion as the school - and the black student and parent involved appear to support the teacher. Because of those unique characteristics of this incident, I want to hear more from the blacks who are familiar with the person and the incident.

Mischaracterizing my comments in a single incident as "you always insist," makes the conversation unproductive from my perspective because, again, rather than discussing the issue, my character is being questioned.

I have no interest in engaging in a discussion that mischaracterizes what I have said, or that devolves into an attack on my integrity or competence as an attorney, or on my character.

So the division that occurs is that I leave (divide from) what might be a productive conversation because of the attack on me as a dumbass - not because it is uncomfortable to engage in a discussion about the value of pineapple on pizza.

[B2G]

112. Divisive Wypipo threads.

You're welcome.

[EffieBlack]

121. I'm welcome for what?

Certainly not anything having to do with your non-response.

[gollygee]

113. Stuff that hurts people's feelings?

Do people actually divide themselves from the Democratic Party over things like a silly label used in humorous articles? I think the issue is that it was used in an anti-racist humorous article and people worried the article was talking about them. Academics have come up with way to talk about this kind of response: http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249

[DFW]

115. 160. Now THAT is my idea of divisive

You can divide 160 by 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 32, 40, 80, and 160. Maybe even a few I've forgotten.

Wait, maybe I'm missing something.....?

[GaryCnf]

149. You certainly don't need it

and probably don't want it

BUT

You have my complete support.

The idea that using wypipo is divisive is just silly. The division exists. The word describes it.

It exists whether the "wypipo" is liberal, conservative, rich, poor, and whether we are liberal, conservative, rich, or poor. The fact that it makes people uncomfortable to think about it doesn't make the word the cause.

Thank you.

[treestar]

157. Anything trying to get you to vote third party

or stay home.

Mere intra-liberal wars are not a bad thing - there is a lot of disagreement within the left; mainly the pragmatic vs. the idealistic. Also on tactics - negotiation, etc.