When Felipe Alou and his brothers, Mateo and Jesus, played for the Giants he never publicly said word one about the racism that he and others encountered both on their team and as they traveled about the United States. I'm glad that he has decided not to roll over anymore about this issue.

Alou, Mays, McCovey and Cepeda held their tongues about their racist manager, Alvin Dark, who genuinely did not believe that blacks and people with dark skins were as smart as whites but American and Hispanic blacks are not going to tolerate guys like Dark anymore. This is a good thing. KNBR's eventual response, however, probably has more to do with the changed demographics of the Bay Area than with any genuine concern for the behavior of its on-air talent.

On another point: I am old enough to remember when the term "politically correct" was owned and used exclusively by the left to describe those in their ranks who slavishly followed the Stalinist/Soviet line as pushed by the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America) or who refused to entertain any criticisms whatsoever of China, North Korea or Cuba. In other words, people described as being politically correct were dogmatic Marxists and their views on a host of issues, domestic and foreign, were not taken seriously because it always parrotted the official party line.

Now the term "politically correct" has been appropriated by the folks who Ishamel Reed once aptly described as "spoiled frat boys driving Chrysler convertibles" who use it to defend the offensive behavior and speech of their socio-economic class. In other words, they feel that they are entitled to behave in a publicly uncivil manner and when brought to heel on their comments and actions they want to scream that they are the victims of political correctness.

Their obviously absurd positions and beliefs have now fastened onto our popular culture to such an extent that their critics, generally on the political left, constantly have to defend themselves against accusations of prudishness and intolerance. The reality is that those who emulate the fired announcer at KNBR are the real purveyors of political correctness because they hold, in point of fact, ideas and beliefs that are dogmatically white American in terms of their cultural, social, political and intellectual assessments, values and judgments. (Non-white Americans can also be classified as dogmatically white Americans too. Look, for example at Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber.)

Implicit in their viewpoint is that the standards allegedly exemplified by white Americans (recall Bill Clinton's coded phrase about "those who work hard and play by the rules") represents the standards by which the actions and beliefs of others should be measured and judged. In Krueger's mind the use of the term "brain dead Caribbean hitters" is just an expression of what any right thinking, red blooded "white" American knows to be true. Anyone who disagrees is just being politically correct in the sense of not wanting to offend Latinos.

KNBR's eventual response, however, probably has more to do with the changed demographics of the Bay Area than with any genuine concern for the behavior of its on-air talent.

You know what? That's good enough...in fact, it's probably the only reason that will stick. 

These kind of events are tragedies in black-white interrelationship.

The victory is mean spiritied, and eventually tarnishes even in the minds of the victor. The loss is directly stimulative of more alienation, and fear; because of the publicity, this alienating effect is widespread.

Alou was feeling defensive. Not because of his race, but because of his team's performance.

The comment was rude, unfriendly, mean spirited, and unlikely to actually stimulate any improvement, but rude comments from the press come with the territory when one is involved with professional athletics. 

Eventually, we need to categorize this kind of racism along with other forms of rudeness. Not welcome, not witty, not pleasant, but one can choose how to react, and staying cool will look vastly superior in hindsight.

What was the step that took Alou over the limit?

"Alou was feeling defensive. Not because of his race, but because of his team's performance."

Bullshit, DW! Why do you believe that a black person is acting defensively when they have publicly been subjected to a racist attack. Do you think, for example, that Mr. Alou was acting defensively many years ago when as a rookie he was denied admission to a movie theatre in Houston, Texas and returned to his hotel room nearly in tears?

I think your take on his behavior is in fact part of the problem and in some ways is as insidiously denigrating.

I suppose it was his refusal to sit down with someone who intentionally and maliciously directed a racial slur toward him and his ballplayers. I think Alou was right. Even Miss Manners says that you have the right to avoid dealing with or speaking to people who have gone out of their way to insult or harm you.

What was the step that took Alou over the limit?

I had to think about this one for a while. I don't know that Alou did anything over the limit. If he successfully prosecuted a demand that Krueger be fired, he did. But let's say he didn't. In the Donovan McNabb case, as I recall, McNabb handled it superbly. He said something like "I wish he'd have left race out of it, but other than that he's entitled to his opinion".

Alou wasn't cool, he was defensive, as judged by his intermperate reaction. However, I don't really disagree with PT; I don't really claim that an intemperate reaction was wrong, rather sub-optimal.

What we need to get to is that these kind of things are not that big of a deal. The writer says something like that. The target responds, cool or not. Done, move on. No tragedy. No nationwide increase in tension. This event negatively affected current and future relationships between ordinary black and white people.

This event negatively affected current and future relationships between ordinary black and white people.

Alou's reaction is not the problem. When a Black person gets angry over a racist action, you should focus on the racist action, not the anger. Were it not for the racist action, there would be no anger.

I don't expect to eliminate rude behavior, nor angry reactions to rude behavior.  So long as they remain non-violent, I accept both as part of life.

The problem is, we're all rude on occasion, usually by being careless with our emotions.  If the penalty is that we get yelled at, fine.  If, however, we observe that if the target is some black guy, that means we get fired, we're going to be scared of black guys.  And if blacks experience every incidence of rudeness by whites as some kind of threat to their psyche, they're going to remain permanently in a state of feeling threatened by whites. 

Rude people are part of life.

If, however, we observe that if the target is some black guy, that means we get fired, we're going to be scared of black guys.

I don't see the problem. 

You like white people to be scared of you?

"The problem is, we're all rude on occasion, usually by being careless with our emotions. If the penalty is that we get yelled at, fine. If, however, we observe that if the target is some black guy, that means we get fired, we're going to be scared of black guys."

Krueger was being intentionally provocative; he deliberately chose the words that he used. He was not having a bar room argument with Felipe Alou and in the heat of the argument the words "brain dead Caribbean hitters" just spilled out. Krueger let his mouth write a check that his ass couldn't cash. You should accept it and move on.

You like white people to be scared of you?

I'm used to it. 

You should accept it and move on.

Have you seen me defending Krueger? I mean, I would defend him to point out that he didn't hit anyone, he didn't threaten to hit anyone, he didn't personally harass anyone (like that other Baldwin did). But agreed, he spoke like a jerk. He deserved to be confonted.

Krueger is in the business of using his mouth to assist his employers in selling advertising time to manufacturers and distributors of various good and services. To the extent that his mouth jeopardizes his employers' ability to promote the consumption of products he is a liability. People who sell cars, for example, don't want to have their products identified with someone who makes disparaging remarks about Latinos because Latinos buy cars. Krueger knows the rules of the game that he plays. He'll get another job but probably in a market that has few, if any, Hispanics. That's the way the prune wrinkles.

Have you seen me defending Krueger?

No, but we've seen the folks calling into the show defend Krueger.

You DO see why I might consider that a bit of a problem, don't you? 

To the extent that his mouth jeopardizes his employers' ability to promote the consumption of products he is a liability.

And if that's why he got fired, it would make good sense.

That's why he got fired. Alou did NOT ask for it...just called him "spawn of the devil."

And white folks are blaming Filipe. Reflexively. 

You DO see why I might consider that a bit of a problem, don't you?

I do, but I confess that until I set out to answer your question of when did Alou go over the line, I hadn't clarified for myself that I didn't find fault with Alou's publicised behavior.

Maybe someone needs to ask them that kind of question. 

And now that you've considered it, would you still write your first comment in this thread?

 And now that you've considered it, would you still write your first comment in this thread?

I'd still write this introduction: 

These kind of events are tragedies in black-white interrelationship.

I think they showed their asses and got bit in the butt.

DW, if the Giants baseball team indicated that it wasn't happy with how KNBR treated its personnel that would be entirely appropriate. The relationship between the Giants and KNBR is entirely transactional. The owners and managers of KNBR don't believe that they have any editorial leeway as far as the Giants are concerned. KNBR pays the Giants to broadcast its games and it sells advertising time to manufacturers and retailers of goods and services who want to sell products to people who listen to KNBR's broadcasts of the Giants' games.

In this sort of relationship it doesn't matter if the owners and executives of the Giants leaned on anybody. KNBR and its on-air talent has no freedom of speech that the Giants are bound to respect by law or custom. You can't piss on the hometown team and try to convince its owners and players that you're only putting out a fire.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that the Giants have to maintain a cordial relationship with the residents and voters of San Francisco. On three or four separate occasions in the not so long ago past, for example, the voters in San Francisco killed measures that would have allowed for the public financing of a new stadium for th e Giants. The owners of the team were threatening to move if they didn't get a new ballpark. The voters message was that the Giants were looking for a home when they moved to San Francisco and besides that we already gave the Giants a ballpark.

Hispanics are a significant part of the voting constituency in San Francisco. The Giants' owners and executives know that they might have to go to that well again someday so why antagonize people. Krueger and the other two guys who were canned know the rules of the game they play. They were fired for being stupid. That's the breaks.

Let me add another point because many years ago I had the distinct displeasure of dealing with some executives at KNBR. I'm sure that KNBR's managers were quite aware of Krueger's attitudes toward ball players from Caribbean countries. In fact, based on my experiences, I'm sure that some of them shared his views. What Krueger made the mistake of doing was to publicly air his covertly racist views. Money talks, DW, bullshit walks. That's why Kreuger was told to let the door hit him where God split him.

I don't really disagree with your analysis PT, but let me ask you this.

Do you agree that this kind of event drives a wedge between ordinary black people and ordinary white people?  Not between you and me today, but between you and me before we came to be able to predict that we're going to treat each other reasonably?

Who drove the wedge?

No, I don't think an event of this type drives any wedges between what you call "ordinary black people and ordinary white people". Those wedges, to the extent they exist, have been in place long before Krueger's outburst. Krueger's statements were designed to be provocative and antagonistic. He didn't think there would be any blowback because he doesn't see blacks and Hispanics as having any influence over someone like him. Who you should think about are people like Krueger and the folks who called in to defend him. All the wedges are in their court.

Who drove the wedge?

Whoever leaned on KNBR to get these guys fired.

Racist comments aren't all the same. I'm not sure what kind Kreuger had in mind, but for most whites, the scary ones are:

1. comments which betray repressed/unthought of racist beliefs.
2. comments which are mistakes in wording.
3. comments which are factually accurate, but perceived racist nonetheless.
4. comments made in anger, with the intent to hurt, but not reflecting any general superioricist or hating view.

Now again, Krueger doesn't seem to qualify, although his comments aren't white power in nature either.  However, all white people are guilty of one or all of those in that list from time to time.  Further, they don't want to get fired from their jobs.  The solution: avoid black people, be scared, because they can get you fired. For sure, when in the company of black people, maintain absolute control of your emotions, and consider every comment in advance.  Any lapse will likely get you fired.

So what can Black people do about that? Seriously.

So what can Black people do about that? Seriously.

Understanding how it works is progress. 

"The solution: avoid black people, be scared, because they can get you fired. For sure, when in the company of black people, maintain absolute control of your emotions, and consider every comment in advance. Any lapse will likely get you fired."

DW, let's go 'round one more time. Black and Hispanic people had nothing to do with Kreuger getting fired. What got Krueger fired was the potential effect of his remarks on the buying habits of listeners to KNBR's broadcast of Giants games and the actual affect of his remarks on members of the Giants baseball team.

The Giants suck and the team has enough problems to deal with this season. The owners and managers of the Giants and KNBR don't need a paid mouthpiece who pushes beer and winter vacations in Lake Tahoe saying things that give them more headaches. They can hire somebody else who can sell just as much soap and is not whipping the rednecks in Contra Costa and Solano counties into a frenzy about ballplayers from the Caribbean.

DW, you need to ask yourself why you believe that the display of emotions on the part of a white person would of necessity entail them making a disparaging remark about the intelligence of black or Hispanic people. I've been around some pretty rabid white basketball junkies in my life and I never heard them refer to, for example, brain dead players from Harlem or East Los Angeles. Maybe they did when no black folks were around them but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. In front of me and other black folks they appeared to be pissed off about a particular team or some players on that team but not about the neighborhoods or countries where those players came from.

Okay, I'm not discussing Kreuger specifically at this point.

DW, I don't think there's a Black person in America that disbelieves your description. But can you understand what that looks like to me?

1. comments which betray repressed/unthought of racist beliefs.
2. comments which are mistakes in wording.
3. comments which are factually accurate, but perceived racist nonetheless.
4. comments made in anger, with the intent to hurt, but not reflecting any general superioricist or hating view.

Numbers one and two are the same thing...take responsibility for that, and number four, and number three can be dealt with. But what I hear is "Be less sensitive about my insensitivity."

You KNOW that's unacceptable. You wouldn't accept it from me.

Do you realize you are assigning NO responsibility to the guy that made the racist statement?

How does that work? 

DW, you need to ask yourself why you believe that the display of emotions on the part of a white person would of necessity entail them making a disparaging remark about the intelligence of black or Hispanic people.

A few months back, but after I knew you, I had a seriously bad  thought, PT.

I've played the medical provider/medical insurer game for a long time now. There's a very common dynamic: the insuance company denies coverage, the provider asks the insured to pay directly, he insured calls the insurance company, things stir around a bit, and settle out.  But meantime it's not that unusual for a year to go by.

I get a call from someone who identifies himself as a collection agent.  This isn't normal for me, I pay my bills.  He's trying to collect.  Phone calls bounce around, people accept, then deny responsiblity.  Eventually it boils down to I owe some $2000 or so.  But when I go to pay, they claim I owe $4000.  Different, and new screwup.  I get a call from a new collection agent.  By her voice, I conclude she's a black woman.  I explain the new screwup.  She declines to listen.  Eventually she tells me that they're charging ...pause... $2,200 interest per month.  "two thousand two hundred dollars interest per month on a $4000 bill?" I ask.  "Yes".  "You can't be serious, maybe you mean twenty two dollars per month?"  "No, I mean two thousand two hundred dollars per month".

By now I've concluded that I have a black woman who really has no concept about how this kind of thing goes.  Further, by resisting all input, she's losing my intent to communicate with her.  "That's bullshit, you can't go around threatening people with two thousand dollars of interest per month on a four thousand dollar bill".

"Don't talk to me like that. You apologize right now or I'm going to hang up."

It was then when I had the bad thought, PT.  It was a thought like you describe.  I wanted to use words which would cause the woman to suffer, and in that moment ....

But instead, and probably because I didn't truly feel vicious toward her, she seemed more naive than seriously threatening, I tried to explain why it is offensive to threaten people with ridiculous interest charges. She wouldn't talk about anything beyond her expectation of my apology, and not getting one, she eventually hung up.  The next time I got a call it was from someone else.

So your question is fair, and my answer is like the other one, "because it is progress to understand".  Why did I think to combine race and low intelligence as a way to inflict damage?  Because my brain was seeking a way to maximize the damage I could do. Because it seemed an attack on her weakness: her confidence. I predicted she wasn't doing well on this job, and the evil thought was to attempt to lower her already low confidence with a racist comment.

But what I hear is "Be less sensitive about my insensitivity."

Not from me.  Be as sensitive as you like, but respond in kind.  If you hear bad words, respond with your own selection of bad words.  And then move on.  Hold the speaker responsible, but get rid of this firing thing.

It's not Black people that do the firing. Not Black people that set the standard. Frankly, not Black people that commit the offense that causes the problem. Why is the Black guy blamed right away? Isn't this a documentable case of victim mentality?

All the audience outrage isn't moral, it's self defense. It leaves the Kreugers of the world totally free of responsibility for their actions.

It's not Black people that do the firing. Not Black people that set the standard. Frankly, not Black people that commit the offense that causes the problem. Why is the Black guy blamed right away? Isn't this a documentable case of victim mentality?

An interesting perspective, because it's at least partially true in all cases, and completely true in some.

All the audience outrage isn't moral, it's self defense. 

100% true.

It leaves the Kreugers of the world totally free of responsibility for their actions.

If Kreuger's punishment was to live the rest of his life having being called "the spawn of Satan" on national television, no one would have felt threatened. 

I feel so...totally vindicated.

Anyone who entertains the idea of interracial rapport any time soon, sees little or nothing of their own inner world. I'm going to projectively dissect what you've said DW with an eye toward peeling back the onion to get at its kernal. We all have multitudinous onion layers to peal away...the trouble arises when, after pealing a few of the outer layers, one stops and settles for a comfortable "balance" between one's "personality" and life...i.e. possible objective development comes to a halt in a never-ending cycle of growth stunting repetitive self-justifications. That's how the machinery of personality and culture {implemented in language} works.

I wanted to use words which would cause the woman to suffer

Is the hard cold truth. Really there's no shame in it either, because she and the scripters of her dialogue at that collection call center - genuinely lacked any human empathy for you whatsoever. While you expected a modicum of humanity and common sense, she expects and is expected to mechanically perform her antipathetic dunning job with the assurance that she has the dehumanizing upper hand because you're in arrears. To make matters worse, she has the audacity {possibly scripted} to demand that you respect her arbitrarily inflated sense of self-importance. {all the better for the purpose of recording the conversation - as ill-considered words would most definitely be used in a maximally unflattering way against you}

Why did I think to combine race and low intelligence as a way to inflict damage? Because my brain was seeking a way to maximize the damage I could do. Because it seemed an attack on her weakness: her confidence.

You didn't think to combine race and low intelligence. Don't feel badly about this, it's a primary artifact of American culture. You felt the combination and your thoughts put pragmatic brakes on the feeling - as one who sincerely believes in the evolutionary accomplishments of America - I believe it's important that you understand that genuine cultural evolution is manifested at the emotional rather than verbal level. What you felt was not particularly evolved. Don't get me wrong DW, this is by no means exclusively about blacks and whites, for example, Cobb has been busily venting some repressed spleen on gays - I daresay because that prejudice remains permissable, though I don't suppose he's been dunned lately by a flamingly effeminate man.., though from some of what he's said in that post I believe it's safe to say he genuinely despises practitioners of the gay lifestyle, as distinct from timid, closeted homosexuals which thought strikes me at this moment as somehow socially equivalent to good negros...,

But instead, and probably because I didn't truly feel vicious toward her, she seemed more naive than seriously threatening

Nonsense. In the moment, you felt the desire to reciprocally inflict the maximum amount of psychological injury on her pointy little head. After the fact, I suspect you thought {and rightly so} that it would serve no practical purpose to unload on such a drone, and might in fact be counterproductive of self-injurious. Remember, thoughts are post hoc rationalizations or simulations of the underlying and exponentially faster feelings.

The machinery which opined on the structure of your impressions in that moment seems all topsy turvy DW.

I wanted to use words which would cause the woman to suffer

I projectively suspect that her flagrant lack of empathy genuinely offended you and you genuinely wanted to hurt her. The detailed rationalization you've given above doesn't appear to me to accurately jibe with the underlying sequence of emotional transaction and behavioural restraint.

Consequently, it distorts the objective nature of the overall transaction so that we end up with a fragmentary opinion (the old) and not an objective record of that transaction (the new)...with the upshot being that the principle artifact of our racist culture {personality} wins.

It appears to me that this thread has lost steam at what is only the outermost layer of the psychological onion..., considerably more Work could be done here.

First off cnulan, I express my pleasure that you and I continue to share an intellectual space.

Second, I agree completely, my narrative no doubt reflects some amount of revision to the story. It's natural to have forgotten parts I wanted to forget. So it's perfectly fair to respond as you have.

But to the specific thesis:

You didn't think to combine race and low intelligence. Don't feel badly about this, it's a primary artifact of American culture. You felt the combination.

Here's something to consider.  I've never either thought or felt any such thing about you or other posters here at P6.

I propose a different mechanism, but it's not something I'm much more proud of, so feel free to criticize as appropriate. 

The basis for my means to damage was a feeling, or a belief, that a black person who hasn't achieved much success in the world would likely feel unintelligent, and might fear that being black had something to do with feeling unintelligent.

Now we all know that reality is far different: that feeling of unintelligence has to do with lack success and nothing more than that.  Once this person tastes success, she will elevate her opinion of her abilities by an order of magnitude overnight.  She will acquire confidence.  Works the same for white kids, but they don't have to deal with that bogus racial thing.

But I concluded that this person hadn't as yet tasted much success, because she seemed to be oblivious to what 50% interest per month would mean.  She'd looked the number up, and that's what it said, and she lacked the experience to test the result against likely reality.

First off cnulan, I express my pleasure that you and I continue to share an intellectual space.

I believe in reciprocal sincerity DW. You put unselfconscious Work into your description of that transaction and that is precisely the space in which I choose to operate.

1. Nothing is more difficult than exploring ones emotions with ones intellect. {It's a lot like trying to capture lightning in a bottle}

2. Few things are more cognitively daunting or unpleasant {which is precisely why so few people do it}

3. Nothing is more rewarding than doing this difficult Work. {it is after all the basis of genuine Christian praxis}

However, it is impossible to transcend mechanical limitations of the language/ personality construct without unbottling the emotions and sublimating the synthetic construct of language/personality into the furnace of emotional cognition - everything else is - as they say - merely conversation.

The basis for my means to damage was a feeling, or a belief, that a black person who hasn't achieved much success in the world would likely feel unintelligent, and might fear that being black had something to do with feeling unintelligent.

This is a profoundly revelatory statement. It is, however, only one of several variations on the peacock/peahen matrix on which human social life is culturally and synthetically framed. Permit me to compare and contrast it with a couple of possibly familiar others;

Conan, what is good in life?

To crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of his women

Beenie Man - Dude;

I want a dude with the wickedest slam,
I need a one, two, three hour man
I want a dude who will tie me to the fan,
a thug that can handle his biz like a man
I want a dude with the wickedest slam,
I need a one, two, three hour man
I want a dude who will do me in his van,
a thug that can handle his biz like a man

Trust me when I tell you this DW, the valuation/construction subconsciously informing your response to that woman could've been waaaay wide of the mark.

Would you have been crushed if instead of demanding that you apologize, she'd said to you, look mister, it's clear from your attitude with me on the phone that you have a teeny weeny peeny! ?

Let's try another one. Can you solve a differential equation or write a complex program in the C programming language? Would you be crushed or feel unintelligent if either of those numerate measures were applied as the yardstick by which your intellectual merit and personal utility was evaluated?

What you term success is surely the quintessential American measure, and this American measure is a very compelling variation on the peacock/peahen matrix, with its emphasis on dopamine maximization. It's been marketed for decades now and is a proven strong sell. However, as the present clash of cultures clearly reveals, it's certainly not the only game in town. Matter of fact, one could argue that it's getting its ass kicked at the moment by impoverished but determined resistance.

Now we all know that reality is far different: that feeling of unintelligence has to do with lack success and nothing more than that. Once this person tastes success, she will elevate her opinion of her abilities by an order of magnitude overnight. She will acquire confidence. Works the same for white kids, but they don't have to deal with that bogus racial thing.

Well, I should hope that from the above illustrations, we can all gather that it is only one of several - and possibly very many -systematic variations on human consensus realities.

Although this is off-topic for this thread, I think it's very important to reflect on the fact that the American variant on consensus reality underlies a situation in which 5% of the worlds human population is consuming nearly 50% of the world's gross material output. We gobble 21-22 Million barrels of oil per day, while china gets by on 5 Million barrels and India on less than 2 Million barrels per day.

Do you imagine for even a moment, now that world oil supplies have indisputably peaked, that the quintessentially American variant on consensus reality will be the dominant variant 50 years hence?

In my considered opinion, it is crucial to the future structural integrity and well-being of the U.S. that conscious evolution take priority over consumption as the yardstick by which we measure American success. Clearly discernable thermodynamic limits loom just beyond the signpost up ahead for continuing disproportionate American consumption. Theoretically, no such limitations constrain possible American conscious evolution.

As a practical matter, however, the single most formidable barrier to the American capacity to do the conscious Work required to avoid a cultural blind alley is the solipsistic belief that only the American consensus valuation is valid. Comprehending our incomprehension is fundamental. Shifting the emotional centre of American consensus reality to an alternative valuation of life and success in life - may well prove to be a life or death proposition for this society.

Observing "thinking" (i.e. associating) is difficult enough...as we take our mechanical associations as "ourselves"...we don't see the thought it's a nice day, as merely an association, but as a cast-in-cement fact.

Observing the emotions which precede, underscore and drive thinking? HAH!!!

Ingraining the question, "Is that so?" can be a help... as is Separation of oneself from oneself,

Being able to form a dialogue with oneself is the basis of obtaining a glimpse into objective reality...,

All the audience outrage isn't moral, it's self defense. It leaves the Kreugers of the world totally free of responsibility for their actions.

Inability or refusal to observe and to own our real emotional content absolves each and every one of us from our objective responsibility conscience..., the evolved state would be one in which we all;

Feel what we think - Think what we feel.

It appears to me that this thread has lost steam at what is only the outermost layer of the psychological onion

I thought I'd explain that, partly because it lets me make disposible a diversion I feel compelled to make.

I'm working on a collective rather than an individual level here, so sometimes it doesn't pay to go tunneling deeply into someone's head. This is especially the case when it's already coming so honest and direct. In fact, one of the things I feel vindicated about is the decision to consistently engage DW, to trust he knows what he's saying and means it. (<--disposable diversion, rat thur...)

That said, I'm in something of a quandry.

DW, you have explained how white folks categorically refuse to assign responsibility for racial dust-ups to white folks, even when they are objectively at fault, even when they are the sole actors involved. I've said here before Black folk need to make plans as though white folks will never change...that's my second feeling of vindication. I find I don't want to club you over the head or make you the poster boy for the problem.

Had you lied, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. As it stands, I may have to find someone I don't like and compel them to say something similar...

In fact, one of the things I feel vindicated about is the decision to consistently engage DW, to trust he knows what he's saying and means it. (<--disposable diversion, rat thur...)

Public introspection takes courage. That is what I respect and what prompted my engagement.

On both individual and collective levels, the personality construct exists as a mask or diversion from the unfiltered experience of real emotional cognition and expression.

Internally, it nearly instantaneously buffers one against the visceral qualia of unfiltered emotion. we've visited this mechanism a couple times in prior discussion, and likely left those discussions under the erroneous impression of having understood and applied this knowledge.

Externally, well that nearly goes without saying. Broken noses, bar fights, and radio station firings typically follow on the unfiltered expression of one's real emotional content. Thus the civilizing summons to respect others masks..., no matter how awkwardly disingenuous and artificial those masks are observed to be.

On the model of Ekman's FACS or facial action coding system, we could surmise voice and verbal auditory action coding systems, or text, and textual action coding systems, etc..., but then, these are obvious extrapolations. The highest levels of the game depend on the understanding that everyone lies - nearly all the time.

The trick, or so it seems to me, is discerning those who are able to struggle with the mask of personality. One of the underlying assumptions of the Work is that personality is a maze of lies in which one can become stuck. When one easily takes umbrage, then it is a safe bet we are dealing with one who is stuck in personality and unable or unwilling to struggle.

When we see rain, we immediately invoke a word picture, a memory of another rain in the past. In this moment, our experience of the real rain has been usurped by a mental image of rain. In the same way, you can not see your wife or son before you, but instead, you interact with an image of them. In so doing, you lose the present moment.

Racism, sexism, and all inner consideration and keeping of accounts are based in this mental process. Only real contact with people and things - free of the mental construct - is sufficient to get us individually and collectively past this barrier to social evolution.

Public introspection takes courage. That is what I respect and what prompted my engagement.

Yup. 

 Externally, well that nearly goes without saying. Broken noses, bar fights, and radio station firings typically follow on the unfiltered expression of one's real emotional content. Thus the civilizing summons to respect others masks..., no matter how awkwardly disingenuous and artificial those masks are observed to be.

My last excursion to Blogcritics was a clear example of that...in the end, a guy declared me unreasonable because I wouldn't let everyone keep their preconceptions intact.

One of the underlying assumptions of the Work is that personality is a maze of lies in which one can become stuck.

Phrasing is kinda harsh but I get your meaning.

One can gain thorough knowledge of the maze or one can look outside the maze. Which is Work? Just curious...

Basically feeling the comment, though.

My last excursion to Blogcritics was a clear example of that...in the end, a guy declared me unreasonable because I wouldn't let everyone keep their preconceptions intact.

"Denial of evasion" undoubtedly presses a delicate corn every now and again...,

One can gain thorough knowledge of the maze or one can look outside the maze. Which is Work? Just curious...

Both.., and a third - the aim of Work is to destroy the maze in order to be reborn in the unimaginably exposed state of objective conscience, that state in which we Feel what we think - Think what we feel. Undoing a bunch of carefully cultivated and ritually repeated neurological cowpaths ain't easy. When compared and contrasted with the lofty metaphysical goals of most *faiths* or even *disciplines*, it seems almost prosaic?

It's only upon careful consideration of what this seemingly prosaic task entails - as a practical doing - that the inherent difficulty of the thing is clearly disclosed.

Work is of necessity a group undertaking. Setting a project or task in which group effort is aligned around accomplishing an external or material aim - causes people to interact with the inevitable friction that such interaction entails. However, if everyone is true to the aim - that interactive process can be leveraged to exploit the psychological beam in one's own eye and speck in the other mans eye configuration of our personalities. Your co-Workers can better and more easily help you discern the topology of your own personality maze and vice versa.

It's a jailbreak P6, which can't be contemplated without the realization of ones own imprisonment, and, can't be undertaken without a high degree of confidence in one's would-be fellow escapees..,

I sincerely thank those who have worked, written, such that others might gain insight on this thread.

Sometimes it's the time to reflect, and that's what I intend to do.

One last parting agreement with cnulan:

2. Few things are more cognitively daunting or unpleasant {which is precisely why so few people do it}

It's rather like inspecting an intestine to see how it works, eh?