Race and Rosario

[Craig Arko]

Is passive aggressive wisdom, still wisdom?  When we implore others to be nice, isn't our criticism implicit?  (No need to answer, I'm just being difficult.)

You are being difficult. I say this lovingly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone in this thread making that case against Sano. There will always be a few there, but I cannot help but wonder how much of that perception is being driven by a Strib hatchet job a couple years back vs. flat out racism as you imply. Perception is a nasty beast to defeat.

 

I think it's possible to think Sano is lazy and not be a racist. I would also note that by making that accusation, you make the same logical mistakes they are, as you do not know their motive, gender, or ethnic background for that matter. I think we could all learn a thing or two from this conversation. 

 

As I recall, that Strib hatchet job was fairly well received.  I don't recall 100% condemnation of the article.  Every Reusse article has had vocal proponents in his corner despite next to nothing in the way of evidence for his opinion.  This preseason there was a lengthy thread where people decided to rip Sano for his weight with no evidence to support their opinion.  (And when evidence surfaced, they just moved the goalposts)  

 

Is that enough to declare any one person racist?  No.  Does that make it racist?  Maybe, maybe not. But is it worthy of considering?  I'd say so.  

 

This is a kid that had Tommy John and came back ahead of schedule.  He played through the death of a child.  A kid who overcame a hard ass life that none of us posting here can relate to.  Maybe he deserves some praise along with all the vitriol.  And maybe why we're so eager to embrace that hatchet job and reluctant to dole out praise leads us back to why this conversation started.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well, a number of things.  First, at least twice in this thread I've said one should avoid labeling anyone a racist in this conversation and we should talk about the conversation as racist, not those conversing.  (Unless they make it explicit themselves of course)  So most of your post is mischaracterizing. Which is surprising since part of what you quoted even says that.  

 

Secondly - this paragraph is really faulty logic.  I'll try and show it with a simple example.  It is a matter of fact that black men are incarcerated, for the same crimes, at a much harsher rate.  So, under your logic, if I were to say "the general trend of incarceration is racist" I am therefore accusing everyone in the incarceration process - police, lawyers, judges - as racists.  And you could think of far less controversial examples.  "The Twins' offense is not very good this year" does not equate to "every hitter on the Twins is not very good".

 

I don't know if the racist slant towards Sano is due to explicit or implicit biases.  It is probably a wide range from none, to implicit and unknown, to implicit and somewhat aware, to explicitly aware depending upon the individual.  I won't presume to know what's in someone's heart.  Nor will I do so.  

 

But I will assert the conversation itself has a racist slant when we revere Kent Hrbek but concoct ways to bash Sano.  When we say we can just "look" at a guy and know what's in his heart.  How we can call him lazy even though he came back from Tommy John ahead of schedule, played through the death of a child, and has a miraculous life story.  How we can call him "fat" and "obese" and "300 pounds" before a picture of him even surfaces and then quickly slink into a corner when the pictures prove that narrative false.

 

I don't know what's in your heart Chief, I've known you long enough to think you probably aren't a racist.  But if you are actively refusing to see how some of the tone towards Miguel is unfair and that it might be implicitly or explicitly racially motivated....well, I'd encourage you to look again.  It doesn't make you racist to criticize him, but it might be possible others who are do not have such noble patterns in their thought as you.

God, yes, this. A statement about culture/society/institution is not a statement about anyone as a person.

 

Or, maybe honestly, it is... because if someone equalizes the two as one and the same, they're feeding the beast that makes all these unfortunate societal conclusions. Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly via their defense of it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And really, are we such special snowflakes that asking people to consider if they might have implicit biases is some how offensive and accusatory? Honestly, there's no greater proof of privilege than finding offense in the mere questioning of implicit attitudes.

And this is really the crux of my earlier arguments in this thread.

 

Liberals are "special snowflakes" for asking a question (which was literally the point of this entire thread, no accusations were thrown at anyone) but everyone else is perfectly reasonable for showing sheer outrage at the question.

 

No one has called anyone else a racist in this thread; a question was posed. If you reflect upon that question and decide you're not making a decision based on race, move on with your day. It's that simple. In my opinion, the original post felt like a request for reflection and discussion, nothing more.

 

At that point, who's the snowflake? The person who asked a question about our societal viewpoint or the person who is outraged by the question itself?

[USAFChief]

 

And this is really the crux of my earlier arguments in this thread.

 

Liberals are "special snowflakes" for asking a question (which was literally the point of this entire thread, no accusations were thrown at anyone) but everyone else is perfectly reasonable for showing sheer outrage at the question.

 

No one has called anyone else a racist in this thread; a question was posed. If you reflect upon that question and decide you're not making a decision based on race, move on with your day. It's that simple. In my opinion, the original post felt like a request for reflection and discussion, nothing more.

 

At that point, who's the snowflake? The person who asked a question about our societal viewpoint or the person who is outraged by the question itself?

No one has called anyone else a racist?

 

Then what, pray tell, is the question being asked?

 

If you think people on this board are racist, then have the courage to come out and say so. Otherwise, please stop with the sideways allegations. 

[USAFChief]

 

 

(And the whole "I criticize Mauer too" angle uses the same logic that "I have Black friend" narrative does. The comparison makes me cringe, and again, focuses too much on the notion that any one person is being accused of anything, when people are going out of there way to say it's not the case.) And yes, all lives matters.

"I wonder if the Mauer love so evident around here is because he is white, and most of the posters here are white males."

 

Explain to me, Pseudo, how the statement above is materially different than the OP in this thread.

 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No one has called anyone else a racist?

 

Then what, pray tell, is the question being asked?

 

If you think people on this board are racist, then have the courage to come out and say so. Otherwise, please stop with the sideways allegations. 

Explain to me how it's possible to talk about race. Truly, I'm curious how you think it's possible if people aren't allowed to question anything about race, even in a roundabout and generalized way.

 

I don't get why you continue to equate "are some people judging Rosario/Sano based on racial stereotypes" with "all people are judging Rosario/Sano based on racial stereotypes".

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm going to hit this entire post pretty hard and suggest you reread my entire post.

 

First, I said that of course we can be critical of players. I never said we couldn't criticize someone of a different race or ethnicity from ourselves. So please don't jump off on one point out of context to say something that I didn't say.

 

Second, the part you quoted came within this context: we don't know for sure with anyone when criticisms become personal what is the underlying reasoning. It could be nothing, but it could be something.

 

Followed by, I can wonder, and I do. I question myself as much as anyone else on quite a lot of things, and I think that's what everyone should be doing. The most I can do is be criticial that someone is being disrespectful ... on either side of this ... and I was also clear on that. None of us knows why things are said or not said. And because I might wonder why is not an accusation. This is exactly the problem ... so now we can't even question anything at all? Then nothing changes.

 

wondering is fine. It's the accusing (whether directly or by implication) that I think people get tired off.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

wondering is fine. It's the accusing (whether directly or by implication) that I think people get tired off.

Imagine how it must feel from the other side. We get offended, they get arrested.

[Craig Arko]

 

Imagine how it must feel from the other side. We get offended, they get arrested.

Or executed without trial.

[ashbury]

Or executed without trial.

I don't think most deaths you are referring to are pre-meditated the way an execution is. They come about largely through fear. Maybe that's a distinction you don't think is important, but the mental image of thuggish cops marching through neighborhoods looking for someone to kill doesn't jibe with the videos that I've seen of black citizens being shot. I do think the distinction is important because if we go at a non-existent root cause then we don't solve any problems.

 

This is quite a tangent from not appreciating Eddie Rosario's on-field stylings, I'll grant.

[Craig Arko]

 

I don't think most deaths you are referring to are pre-meditated the way an execution is. They come about largely through fear. Maybe that's a distinction you don't think is important, but the mental image of thuggish cops marching through neighborhoods looking for someone to kill doesn't jibe with the videos that I've seen of black citizens being shot. I do think the distinction is important because if we go at a non-existent root cause then we don't solve any problems.

 

This is quite a tangent from not appreciating Eddie Rosario's on-field stylings, I'll grant.

Tough to put ourselves in the shoes of those who aren't given the same benefits of the doubt that we are. Watching videos isn't quite the same as being there on the ground.

 

I'd ask the folks who are on the ground what they think about the root cause is before dismissing it. I wish I had more of an opportunity to do so. The best I've got is to read what is written about the situations.

[PseudoSABR]

 

"I wonder if the Mauer love so evident around here is because he is white, and most of the posters here are white males."

 

Explain to me, Pseudo, how the statement above is materially different than the OP in this thread.

Aside from being absurd and that racial bias often doesn't emerge as a preference (as opposed to an absence of criticism), it's not materially different.   I think it's fine to wonder about what appears to be disproportionate treatment of players, and to ask the question about what might explain that uneven treatment. 

 

My point in what you quoted was that your criticism of Mauer has no bearing on the collective treatment of players of color. Again, I assume your criticisms of any player aren't racist because you've always appear to base your opinions on observable facts not on generalities; that said, I do think your stance throughout this thread has shown some snow-flake-white privilege in being offended/asking for evidence/demanding people to name to name names. I mean is it so hard to imagine that some people's (DEFINITELY NOT YOURS) criticism might be tainted by implicit biases that become more significant when viewed in the aggregate?  

[ashbury]

I'd ask the folks who are on the ground what they think about the root cause is before dismissing it. I wish I had more of an opportunity to do so. The best I've got is to read what is written about the situations.

Their opinion is important, but perhaps not definitive either.

 

I may have told this story before, but a boss of mine was killed in a bicycling accident while visiting on business in our little town in the Sierra. He was black, and his widow was convinced "the Klan got him," and that the sheriff's office was in on at least a coverup when the county took several weeks to conduct their investigation rather than the overnight results you see on teevee shows. It made for some awkward times on top of a tragic situation.

 

When the narrative is execution, rather than fear, that is what you will hear re-transmitted. It doesn't add independent confirmation of anything.

[Craig Arko]

 

Their opinion is important, but perhaps not definitive either.

 

I may have told this story before, but a boss of mine was killed in a bicycling accident while visiting on business in our little town in the Sierra. He was black, and his widow was convinced "the Klan got him," and that the sheriff's office was in on at least a coverup when the county took several weeks to conduct their investigation rather than the overnight results you see on teevee shows. It made for some awkward times on top of a tragic situation.

 

When the narrative is execution, rather than fear, that is what you will hear re-transmitted. It doesn't add independent confirmation of anything.

I'm glad your one case is definitive about all others.

 

In the meantime, this seems like a possibly useful initiative.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/dc-police-to-learn-black-history-trnd/index.html

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

wondering is fine. It's the accusing (whether directly or by implication) that I think people get tired off.

How can an accusation be implicit? Because if it is, wouldn't simply wondering about it on some level imply that some wrong doing by someone is happening? So then wondering wouldn't be fine, because it would imply an accusation? 

 

(I think part of the substance of an accusation is that it is direct and isn't made through implication).

[Craig Arko]

 

How can an accusation be implicit?  Because if it is, wouldn't simply wondering about it on some level imply that some wrong doing by someone is happening?  So then wondering wouldn't be fine, because it would imply an accusation? 

 

(I think part of the substance of an accusation is that it is direct and isn't made through implication).

Indeed, the only accusation(s) I recall making was regarding the sexism exhibited in the game threads. That act has been cleaned up a lot and I commend the efforts of everyone who's been more thoughtful about what they publish.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Their opinion is important, but perhaps not definitive either.

 

I may have told this story before, but a boss of mine was killed in a bicycling accident while visiting on business in our little town in the Sierra. He was black, and his widow was convinced "the Klan got him," and that the sheriff's office was in on at least a coverup when the county took several weeks to conduct their investigation rather than the overnight results you see on teevee shows. It made for some awkward times on top of a tragic situation.

 

When the narrative is execution, rather than fear, that is what you will hear re-transmitted. It doesn't add independent confirmation of anything.

 

For the record, I understand what you're saying and I think it's valuable to point out.  It's important to hear those close to situations and their feelings and observations.  It's also important to remember that the pursuit of truth requires more than just witness accounts.

 

We should want truth and dialogue in the conversation along with the emotion.  Otherwise, like so many other movements these days, when the emotion is done being vented the problems still remain.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The posts that I had problems with stated that Sano was lazy/didn't have a good work ethic. People responded why they didn't think Sano was lazy (hard work to rehab TJ surgery, quick to majors, improvement over "down" year, to all-star, etc). Then posters asked why the OP said he thought Sano was lazy and it was because he was smiling during batting practice and getting by on his natural talent, I believe he also said something to the effect that he wasn't able to work hard like Jim Thome did. 

 

Essentially, when there have been some questionable posts, I think most of us have given people the benefit of the doubt and asked them to explain why they did things a certain way. No one has jumped at anyone and said "that's racist!" Ted, the author of the Rosario thread that started this, did a good job of explaining his thinking. But some haven't been able to give good reasons and I think we've seen a lot of that in the Sano thread. I do think that there is a difference between someone saying "hey, Sano is lazy and getting by on natural talent b/c he's smiling at batting practice" and someone else saying, "ugh, those are all unsupported accusations and several of them touch on ugly racial stereotypes." 

I've been a fairly staunch "Sano defender," and I completely agree that all the claims regarding work ethic, offseason workouts, weight, ect are completely unfounded. For me it's more about the lack of evidence and not a perceived racial undertone that I find infuriating. The thing is though, those posters don't owe me an explanation regarding their posts. Ted shouldn't have had to explain why his article, which pointed out mistakes Rosario did in fact make, wasn't racist. We aren't the arbiters of truth in these cases. It's one thing to disagree with somebody's take and explain why we feel that way, it's something entirely different to label that individual or their post tinged with racism and then force them to explain/defend him or herself lest the label stick. Honestly I don't think there really is much of a difference between insinuating a poster's comments are racially motivated and flat out calling them out for racism. One is a more gentle way of saying the other. 

 

You brought up the quote about whether Buxton was smart enough to hit big league pitching and I completely agree, when I saw that I cringed a bit. It's hard to read that post and not think it's racially motivated. However, I also don't believe it's a big stretch to think it might just be a more casual fan who has watched a top prospect, with all the physical tools in the world, struggle to live up to the offensive hype for 3 seasons, and now wonders if Buxton will ever "figure it out." 

 

I hate the criticism of Sano's weight. The guy is 6'4" and built like a horse. He's going to be a big dude yet so many feel he needs to check in at some arbitrary weight in order to perform. It's nonsense IMO. The Twins hold a lot of responsibility for feeding local media these weight stories, but the fact is they asked him to hit some bull*** weight and he didn't do it. I think the story was completely overblown and the Twins absolutely hung him out to dry by playing him out of position in RF and then complaining about his weight. That said, he had an entire offseason to get to a weight that was easily within reach and he didn't do it. Would it have helped him in RF? No. Should he have had to hit that weight? Probably not. In the grand scheme it's insignificant, but I don't think we can deny that it opened the door for criticism regarding weight/training methods/work ethic. 

 

Obviously this isn't an endorsement of these viewpoints but I do think others can come to those conclusions, however misguided, without necessarily being racist. Hell, if nothing else you can get a good laugh at the irony of those calling Sano lazy while arriving at that critique in arguably the most intellectually lazy way possible. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Obviously this isn't an endorsement of these viewpoints but I do think others can come to those conclusions, however misguided, without necessarily being racist. 

 

Yes.  You can reach those conclusions without being racist or without a racial component, known or unknown to you.  You can criticize Sano and Rosario and have nothing racist or racial in your argument.  Bookmark that.  Highlight it.  Tattoo it to the conversation.  It should no longer be necessary to repeat.  

 

However, (and this is what we're talking about) you might also reach those conclusions because you're racist or your thinking has a known or unknown racial component.  All anyone is doing in this thread is suggesting that the frequency with which non-white players have baseless (as you acknowledge) criticisms leveled against them might suggest a racial component.  

 

Considering there is a significant undercurrent of Latin criticism in baseball, I think it's worthy to consider.  Frankly, the bulk of your post is aimed at a vein of this conversation that is a strawman.  A strawman all too common and unfortunate.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yes.  You can reach those conclusions without being racist or without a racial component, known or unknown to you.  You can criticize Sano and Rosario and have nothing racist or racial in your argument.  Bookmark that.  Highlight it.  Tattoo it to the conversation.  It should no longer be necessary to repeat.  

 

However, (and this is what we're talking about) you might also reach those conclusions because you're racist or your thinking has a known or unknown racial component.  All anyone is doing in this thread is suggesting that the frequency with which non-white players have baseless (as you acknowledge) criticisms leveled against them might suggest a racial component.  

 

Considering there is a significant undercurrent of Latin criticism in baseball, I think it's worthy to consider.  Frankly, the bulk of your post is aimed at a vein of this conversation that is a strawman.  A strawman all too common and unfortunate.

You're quoting one sentence from a post that was 4 paragraphs in length. The point I made was that if we're asking for fair and honest conversation we can't have a dynamic where a group of posters takes it upon themselves to "call out," posts and insinuate they're racist, thus forcing the author(s) of said posts to explain themselves to a level deemed satisfactory by those who took issue regarding what was said. It's the equivalent of "I've deemed you a sinner, now bow to receive your forgiveness." 

 

I understand that you're talking about setting aside the notion that racism might not be at play. The problem is that for some setting that fact aside means acknowledging that it exists and momentarily overlooking it to examine a single aspect while for others it's a pass to ignore it altogether. It's this latter group that feels all too comfortable stamping labels on words or actions; often where they might they not belong. Allowing for that type of dynamic to stand does nothing to actually promote dialogue.  

 

Ultimately what we're talking about is the ability to have a productive conversation regarding race. At least to me that seems to be a large part of what this thread has become, and I certainly feel that my response in pertinent to that topic. Call it a strawman if you'd like, but I believe that the idea of "set aside A to truly see B," may not be possible if A and B are inextricably linked, and if it is utilized, it's taken advantage of by some. 

[Mike Sixel]

One more.... If the past had been about Sano or Buxton, and not a guy that makes simple mistakes over and over, it might have received a different response, at least from me.

 

But, when someone does have issues, and is questioned, and then we are asked if that comes from racism.... Well, that will get a different response.

[TheLeviathan]

 

One more.... If the past had been about Sano or Buxton, and not a guy that makes simple mistakes over and over, it might have received a different response, at least from me.

But, when someone does have issues, and is questioned, and then we are asked if that comes from racism.... Well, that will get a different response.

 

I would agree, the initial example wasn't the best.  And that does matter, it gets the conversation off on the wrong foot.

 

To me, Sano is the better example.  Or Ian Kinsler's bone-headed comments. Or others that have happened in baseball over the last few years.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Call it a strawman if you'd like, but I believe that the idea of "set aside A to truly see B," may not be possible if A and B are inextricably linked, and if it is utilized, it's taken advantage of by some.

 

Unfortunately, it is a strawman.  That strawman began on the first page of the thread and has persisted despite ad naseum attempts to refute it.  

 

They are only linked insofar as those in the conversation refuse to separate them for whatever personal reasons they have.   We can comment on things generally without it being an indictment of everyone.  

 

I will use the analogy again: I can feel our criminal justice system needs reform to provide better racial justice.  That does not mean everyone in that system is a racist or even actively contributing to racial injustice.  Nevertheless, reform is needed.  I'm sure you can come up with a host of your own examples.  Pick whichever one works for you and hopefully it helps you realize that continuing on this tangent is fallacious and distracting.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've kind of danced around this question but I'll just ask it outright:

 

If we're not allowed to suggest racial prejudice exists and applies to people around us or those we follow, how do we have this conversation?

 

Seriously, I'm really interested in knowing how this conversation has any chance of proceeding when even the slightest implication that people (without pointing out individuals) might have racial bias is met with hostility.

[Mike Sixel]

Suggest it all you want, but be aware you are actually suggesting it, which means you are asking if people are racist.... Which kind of implies you think they are. And maybe they are, but be ready to get pushback from those being lumped in, when if they have a legit argument.

 

Also, try bringing it up when it isn't legit to criticize someone..

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Suggest it all you want, but be aware you are actually suggesting it, which means you are asking if people are racist.... Which kind of implies you think they are. And maybe they are, but be ready to get pushback from those being lumped in, when if they have a legit argument.

Also, try bringing it up when it isn't legit to criticize someone..

Okay, I'll just say it:

 

I'm racist.

 

I admit it. My biases are something I work on regularly and have improved on drastically over time, but there are still some deep-rooted biases buried in there I have yet to overcome.

 

As white society, we need to take some responsibility for building this construct that hurts so many people. Maybe our individual contributions are tiny but if we reject the notion we're part of this system in any way, shape, or form, these problems won't be fixed until white people are outnumbered in sheer voting population. Because if we're not contributing to this problem, how does it still exist? Do we just blame our parents and move on? Well, what happens when our kids see the same problem? Do they just blame us and move on?

 

Secondly, there's a compassion component in this conversation that bothers me. We all acknowledge that white society has disproportionate control of society and how it operates. We all acknowledge that non-white people generally get the short end of the stick in pretty much every regard.

 

It costs us literally nothing to stop, show a little compassion, shut up for a minute, and listen to a few things that may make us uncomfortable.

 

Because our reality of facing uncomfortable discussion pales to the actual reality of getting dicked over by society and the government on a daily basis.

 

In short, we need to check our egos at the door and think about what we're doing here.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Suggest it all you want, but be aware you are actually suggesting it, which means you are asking if people are racist.... Which kind of implies you think they are. And maybe they are, but be ready to get pushback from those being lumped in, when if they have a legit argument.

I think this is simplification in favor of getting offended or the push back.  In my mind, there's a meaningful distinction from "being racist" and having implicit biases that might be racial informed. The former is far more objectionable, and while the latter may be an uncomfortable proposition, it is totally forgivable given the systemic nature of the phenomenon which we're talking about. I think the nuance and the distinction matters, and it's only when we erase that nuance and distinction that the pushback is at all justifiable.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Unfortunately, it is a strawman.  That strawman began on the first page of the thread and has persisted despite ad naseum attempts to refute it.  

 

They are only linked insofar as those in the conversation refuse to separate them for whatever personal reasons they have.   We can comment on things generally without it being an indictment of everyone.  

 

I will use the analogy again: I can feel our criminal justice system needs reform to provide better racial justice.  That does not mean everyone in that system is a racist or even actively contributing to racial injustice.  Nevertheless, reform is needed.  I'm sure you can come up with a host of your own examples.  Pick whichever one works for you and hopefully it helps you realize that continuing on this tangent is fallacious and distracting.  

What tangent is it that you think I'm on? That's an honest question. 

 

I don't think the linkage is something that should be discounted. IMO it isn't as simple as just letting go. I wasn't speaking specifically about the treatment of latin players in my previous post but we can use it as an example. If we're working with a sample consisting of critiques regarding latin players, how can we make any sort of definitive statement about racially motivated critiques unless we have some idea as to which of those critiques fall into that category. Secondly, how can we differentiate between valid and racial criticism unless we're able to identify which criticism is valid? If the idea is to ignore those nuances, look at all criticisms as a collective, and say "We have a problem," then you're asking for difficulty in attempting a productive discussion.

 

We agree that it's possible to speak in general terms without indicting everyone, but the issue is that these general terms seem to morph into an indictment of everyone. I know white privilege has been beaten to death here, but I think it's a perfect example. We've acknowledged that the term makes sweeping generalizations about a race, and it can't be assigned at the level of an individual, but we're told it's necessary to talk about an issue that can only be quantified in aggregate. The problem is that this term is far too frequently used on an individual level. Of course, when that's pointed out the definition conveniently shrinks back to "not you, but the collective." That's the point I was making about the idea of considering A apart from B being abused; if we're eliminating the notion that responses may not be racially motivated even while acknowledging that's true, we're going to arrive at a point where criticism in general is regarded as racial, and I think that's precisely how this thread came into existence. 

 

This isn't a novel idea. We don't have to look hard to find racial undertones being thrown around where they don't belong. Fairly recently in our lab I had to explain to an undergrad that the fact that this individual's antibody stain was unsuccessful and another undergrad's turned out well, did not mean the protocol I wrote for them was racially biased. I understand that these kids are 20-21 years old, but the point I'm making is that while you may be capable of viewing issues strictly through a racial lenses and then readjusting your filters, others may not have or may choose not to utilize that ability. Does that mean we can't talk in general terms? No. But I don't think ignoring B to talk about A necessarily lends itself to having honest conversation. 

 

Speaking about strawman arguments, I'll point out the notion that some in this thread believe that nobody is allowed to even suggest racial prejudice exists is one. Another one would be the idea that holding both sides equally accountable for civil discourse is the same as one side demanding a conversation be held on their terms. One more would be the idea that contemplating whether it's best include or exclude certain variables from discussion constitutes a strawman.  

[Craig Arko]

Although curiously, people seem more bent on claiming indictment of themselves than actually being indicted.

 

Why is that, do you think? Will sufficient amounts of righteous indignation make the problem go away?