^PP. I meant to bold the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

+100

Darmond is a harmless doofus who craves attention. Larson is a socially sophisticated mean girl who craves attention. Larson should do better.

PP who wrote the above "Let's see..." post. I wrote it right after I read the NYTimes article and it was based solely on what I read in NY.times. I was already team Dawn then, but now that I have seen tons of additional details, clarifications and the timeline, I regret that I even said what I said about Dawn. She might not be fluent in the latest cultural codes, but that's about it.

What you said is understandable, based only on the NYT. That's what is awful about that article. I think many people feel they were gaslit by the NYT.

[quote=Anonymous]On racism: I don't think it is accurate to say that Dorland experienced racism here. If you define racism as the combination of institutional power with bigoted beliefs based on race to harm, regardless of whether you believe white people can experience racism, I don't think Dorland experienced it. Now, I think there is possibly an interesting theoretical question about Gay and Ng and their use of their power, because they do have significant power and Gay at least seems to be open about displaying bigotry towards white women in particular (not men, which is another twist), but I don't see any real evidence of racism against Dawn in this scenario. In other words, I reject the theoretical narrative that POC cannot be racist, because POC with institutional power and bigoted beliefs that they act on to harm members of one race based on that power falls into the definition of racism, to my mind. However, because of the racist structure of white supremacy, I think racism against whites happens far less frequently. I'm not saying it can't happen, because I do think that POCs with institutional power can and do use race in bigoted ways, but that it happens much less often because of the larger and more overwhelming structures of white supremacy.
[b]
What happened in this situation instead is a grossly cynical misappropriation of the language of anti-racism to justify deeply classist and sexist behavior. [/b]Keep in mind that some of the worst actors here are white. Castellani, Murphy, Hennick, Scharer, Marzano-Lesnevich, most of the other Chunky Monkeys, and later Kolker and Rosner: they are all white. In fact, although Ng, Larson, and (later) Gay are POC, if you lay what happened to Dorland solely at their feet, that itself is a racist act, because some of the worst and most toxic people in this were white. Making what happened to Dorland into a racist act excuses the terrible behavior of the white people involved.

I've seen commentary elsewhere and there was some earlier in this thread about how a lot of contemporary DEI discourse is actually used in the service of preventing the solidarity of working class members. I think that's what is happening here: in-group members with significant power (Grub Street executives, literary establishment figures like Rosner, blue check authors like Gay, etc.) are weaponizing the language of anti-racism in the service of keeping a lower-class member from accessing power. Dorland's race in this view is just a mechanism for UMC and UC people with power to exercise deep classism. [/quote]

Touche!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

+100

Darmond is a harmless doofus who craves attention. Larson is a socially sophisticated mean girl who craves attention. Larson should do better.

PP who wrote the above "Let's see..." post. I wrote it right after I read the NYTimes article and it was based solely on what I read in NY.times. I was already team Dawn then, but now that I have seen tons of additional details, clarifications and the timeline, I regret that I even said what I said about Dawn. She might not be fluent in the latest cultural codes, but that's about it.

Anonymous wrote:On racism: I don't think it is accurate to say that Dorland experienced racism here. If you define racism as the combination of institutional power with bigoted beliefs based on race to harm, regardless of whether you believe white people can experience racism, I don't think Dorland experienced it. Now, I think there is possibly an interesting theoretical question about Gay and Ng and their use of their power, because they do have significant power and Gay at least seems to be open about displaying bigotry towards white women in particular (not men, which is another twist), but I don't see any real evidence of racism against Dawn in this scenario. In other words, I reject the theoretical narrative that POC cannot be racist, because POC with institutional power and bigoted beliefs that they act on to harm members of one race based on that power falls into the definition of racism, to my mind. However, because of the racist structure of white supremacy, I think racism against whites happens far less frequently. I'm not saying it can't happen, because I do think that POCs with institutional power can and do use race in bigoted ways, but that it happens much less often because of the larger and more overwhelming structures of white supremacy.

What happened in this situation instead is a grossly cynical misappropriation of the language of anti-racism to justify deeply classist and sexist behavior. Keep in mind that some of the worst actors here are white. Castellani, Murphy, Hennick, Scharer, Marzano-Lesnevich, most of the other Chunky Monkeys, and later Kolker and Rosner: they are all white. In fact, although Ng, Larson, and (later) Gay are POC, if you lay what happened to Dorland solely at their feet, that itself is a racist act, because some of the worst and most toxic people in this were white. Making what happened to Dorland into a racist act excuses the terrible behavior of the white people involved.

I've seen commentary elsewhere and there was some earlier in this thread about how a lot of contemporary DEI discourse is actually used in the service of preventing the solidarity of working class members. I think that's what is happening here: in-group members with significant power (Grub Street executives, literary establishment figures like Rosner, blue check authors like Gay, etc.) are weaponizing the language of anti-racism in the service of keeping a lower-class member from accessing power. Dorland's race in this view is just a mechanism for UMC and UC people with power to exercise deep classism.

Brava. Agree on all points.

On racism: I don't think it is accurate to say that Dorland experienced racism here. If you define racism as the combination of institutional power with bigoted beliefs based on race to harm, regardless of whether you believe white people can experience racism, I don't think Dorland experienced it. Now, I think there is possibly an interesting theoretical question about Gay and Ng and their use of their power, because they do have significant power and Gay at least seems to be open about displaying bigotry towards white women in particular (not men, which is another twist), but I don't see any real evidence of racism against Dawn in this scenario. In other words, I reject the theoretical narrative that POC cannot be racist, because POC with institutional power and bigoted beliefs that they act on to harm members of one race based on that power falls into the definition of racism, to my mind. However, because of the racist structure of white supremacy, I think racism against whites happens far less frequently. I'm not saying it can't happen, because I do think that POCs with institutional power can and do use race in bigoted ways, but that it happens much less often because of the larger and more overwhelming structures of white supremacy.

What happened in this situation instead is a grossly cynical misappropriation of the language of anti-racism to justify deeply classist and sexist behavior. Keep in mind that some of the worst actors here are white. Castellani, Murphy, Hennick, Scharer, Marzano-Lesnevich, most of the other Chunky Monkeys, and later Kolker and Rosner: they are all white. In fact, although Ng, Larson, and (later) Gay are POC, if you lay what happened to Dorland solely at their feet, that itself is a racist act, because some of the worst and most toxic people in this were white. Making what happened to Dorland into a racist act excuses the terrible behavior of the white people involved.

I've seen commentary elsewhere and there was some earlier in this thread about how a lot of contemporary DEI discourse is actually used in the service of preventing the solidarity of working class members. I think that's what is happening here: in-group members with significant power (Grub Street executives, literary establishment figures like Rosner, blue check authors like Gay, etc.) are weaponizing the language of anti-racism in the service of keeping a lower-class member from accessing power. Dorland's race in this view is just a mechanism for UMC and UC people with power to exercise deep classism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP of above post. I meant to say racism against white women (or men) should be discussed - but put my parentheses in the wrong place which changed the meaning of my sentence. This typo is worth correcting because I don’t think the racism is there in the same way as being racist against white men. There’s less power dynamic there (which is not to say it’s ok to make bigoted or racially charged comments). It’s just that I don’t see this nearly as much. White women are the brunt more often.

I'm a white woman and I just want to say I disagree with this. I don't think white women (or men) can experience racism and I don't think there's anything in this story that can be called racism (and I'm firmly on the side of Dorland who I think was badly treated and misrepresented).

Instead, I think what happens is that people in positions of power will use the language and culture of anti-racist activist in order to abuse their power. I have seen it with white men who revel in being able to call white women Karens -- it's just misogyny, but they are excited to have a social justice-approved tool to enact misogyny against white women. I am suspicious of any white person who uses the phrase "Karen" (and it's always a middle aged or older white woman, it's interesting how young and beautiful white women are never Karens let's think about why) to discredit a white woman they don't like. I don't feel the same when POC use it (usually) because I do think that historically white women have used their special status to enact violence against POC and as a white woman I think we need to be aware of and reckon with that.

But this situation is unique because the POC in this story are in a position of real power and authority and I think they are abusing the Karen concept, and the ideas of white saviourism and white womens tears, to abuse their power. It's interesting because I don't think this is that common, but it is happening here. Again, I don't think this is racism -- I actually think what Larson, Ng, and to a lesser extent Gay and some others on Twitter, are doing is damaging to the anti-racist movement because it's a misuse of anti-racist language to try and hurt someone who has not done something racist, who has not engaged in white saviourism, and who is not using "white womens tears" to hurt anyone. I think they are being incredibly short sighted.

But again, there's no such thing as anti-white racism. It's just a misappropriation of social justice ideas.

I have to disagree with this. I get that racism only becomes a problem when there is a power dynamic going on so your point is well taken to that extent. However, "racism" as a word is broader than this and is appropriately used to describe a situation where antagonism is directed against a person due to their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. So, saying "there's no such thing as anti-white racism" is incorrect, but I think you are really saying that anti-white racism doesn't matter because whites have the power. I think it does matter.

First, demonizing any group is at best not constructive but at worst creates a dangerous cycle where any group with a victim card can act with impunity. Frankly, this is why the world feels constrained to ignore the inhumanity of Israel towards the Palestinians. We've decided that we can only very quietly suggest that Israel please stop -- because Israel has a well-deserved fully engraved victim card. (To be clear, I am not being facetious in describing Israel this way. Their suffering in the holocaust was truly horrific but even truly horrific suffering does not license one to disregard another group's humanity.) And when a POC group gangs up on a white woman, they get a pass because it would be misappropriation to suggest injustice?

But, second, not all whites have power. This was a group of semi-POC feeling fully licensed to punch down on "poor white trash" on precisely your reasoning -- because there is no such thing as punching down on a white woman. Except when there is.

But they didn't punch down on Dorland because she was white. And in fact most of the people "punching down" were white -- check out the members of the writing group Larson was in as well as the leadership at Grubstreet. Mostly white people. Larson herself is white passing.

The punched down at Dawn because they didn't like her or because they could or because they are just garbage people. And then they used racism as an excuse. But they were not being racist. Dawn has not experienced racism here. She's experienced harassment and bullying. But not racism.

I'll have to think about your Israel/Palestine example. That's interesting. But I disagree as applied to this specific situation. I think one of the problems with Bad Art Friend is that people want it to be about racism and it's not. It's about power dynamics and people acting badly but not about racism. Not everything is about racism.

While the group had several white members, they clearly define themselves as diverse. And Larson, in particular, looks white but focuses strongly on the non-white part of her identity. But let’s speculate a bit on the mysterious “why” here. Why did the group single out Dorland?
I think we can assume that the group didn’t think this was about Dorland being white, and certainly would never have said this even in the proverbial locker room. But then, the locker room version of discrimination against minorities or women is also not going to be so simple. It will always be coded behind the characteristics of the group not the group itself. “It’s not that he’s black. I’m fine with that but he’s so uppity.” “She talks too much.” “He’s a thug.” “She’s so pushy.” This is why Title VII cases are so difficult to prove.

In Dorland’s case, she was “annoying,” “narcissistic,” and, of course, a “Karen.” So, while I don’t think Dorland was singled out because she was white, the combination of being white, growing up poor, and having no other special identity to grant her passage sealed her fate. Put another way, had she not been white, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion. Her being white made her more annoying and allowed the group to feel justified in its actions.

My point: There is always such a thing as disliking or targeting someone based on racial characteristics and that thing is called “racism.” Targeting someone for belonging to a race that is privileged on a larger scale may be viewed as unimportant right now but that is a different conversation – and not one I am trying to belittle here. Rather, I just don’t think it is helpful to redefine “racism” to exclude certain races. (Don’t get me started on the dangerous redefining of “literally.” )

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to the PP around page 80 who provided the timeline. I will admit to being on Team Larsen before I came to this thread.

I am furious at the NYT. Can someone please write a letter to the NYT about this?

That's the infuriating thing about the article. The use of virulent sexist and classist tropes to turn what actually is a fairly straightforward factual situation into a wildly inaccurate and demeaning catfight between two women is a horrifying misuse of the editorial power of the NYT. I'm obviously never buying anything by Kolker again, as I'd never trust the truth of his narrative, but I'm not sure I can ever trust the NYT again. I looked up the cost of subscriptions to the WSJ this morning, God help me, because when I opened my NYT app to read this morning, I realized I didn't trust a single story. What good does the subscription do me?

Thank you to the PP around page 80 who provided the timeline. I will admit to being on Team Larsen before I came to this thread.

I am furious at the NYT. Can someone please write a letter to the NYT about this?

Is it not racism when a powerful group of POC bully and exclude this woman because she's white? If she was a POC, would they not just ignore her and exclude her based on her annoying traits? It seems like they revel in hating her because she's not one of them. I'm not saying that should be what people focus on. I think this story is far more about plagiarism and groupthink, but I don't think Dorland would've been exploited and treated this way if she were Asian.

thanks to all the PPs for your input on racism. Much appreciated.

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

+100

Darmond is a harmless doofus who craves attention. Larson is a socially sophisticated mean girl who craves attention. Larson should do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP of above post. I meant to say racism against white women (or men) should be discussed - but put my parentheses in the wrong place which changed the meaning of my sentence. This typo is worth correcting because I don’t think the racism is there in the same way as being racist against white men. There’s less power dynamic there (which is not to say it’s ok to make bigoted or racially charged comments). It’s just that I don’t see this nearly as much. White women are the brunt more often.

I'm a white woman and I just want to say I disagree with this. I don't think white women (or men) can experience racism and I don't think there's anything in this story that can be called racism (and I'm firmly on the side of Dorland who I think was badly treated and misrepresented).

Instead, I think what happens is that people in positions of power will use the language and culture of anti-racist activist in order to abuse their power. I have seen it with white men who revel in being able to call white women Karens -- it's just misogyny, but they are excited to have a social justice-approved tool to enact misogyny against white women. I am suspicious of any white person who uses the phrase "Karen" (and it's always a middle aged or older white woman, it's interesting how young and beautiful white women are never Karens let's think about why) to discredit a white woman they don't like. I don't feel the same when POC use it (usually) because I do think that historically white women have used their special status to enact violence against POC and as a white woman I think we need to be aware of and reckon with that.

But this situation is unique because the POC in this story are in a position of real power and authority and I think they are abusing the Karen concept, and the ideas of white saviourism and white womens tears, to abuse their power. It's interesting because I don't think this is that common, but it is happening here. Again, I don't think this is racism -- I actually think what Larson, Ng, and to a lesser extent Gay and some others on Twitter, are doing is damaging to the anti-racist movement because it's a misuse of anti-racist language to try and hurt someone who has not done something racist, who has not engaged in white saviourism, and who is not using "white womens tears" to hurt anyone. I think they are being incredibly short sighted.

But again, there's no such thing as anti-white racism. It's just a misappropriation of social justice ideas.

I have to disagree with this. I get that racism only becomes a problem when there is a power dynamic going on so your point is well taken to that extent. However, "racism" as a word is broader than this and is appropriately used to describe a situation where antagonism is directed against a person due to their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. So, saying "there's no such thing as anti-white racism" is incorrect, but I think you are really saying that anti-white racism doesn't matter because whites have the power. I think it does matter.

First, demonizing any group is at best not constructive but at worst creates a dangerous cycle where any group with a victim card can act with impunity. Frankly, this is why the world feels constrained to ignore the inhumanity of Israel towards the Palestinians. We've decided that we can only very quietly suggest that Israel please stop -- because Israel has a well-deserved fully engraved victim card. (To be clear, I am not being facetious in describing Israel this way. Their suffering in the holocaust was truly horrific but even truly horrific suffering does not license one to disregard another group's humanity.) And when a POC group gangs up on a white woman, they get a pass because it would be misappropriation to suggest injustice?

But, second, not all whites have power. This was a group of semi-POC feeling fully licensed to punch down on "poor white trash" on precisely your reasoning -- because there is no such thing as punching down on a white woman. Except when there is.

But they didn't punch down on Dorland because she was white. And in fact most of the people "punching down" were white -- check out the members of the writing group Larson was in as well as the leadership at Grubstreet. Mostly white people. Larson herself is white passing.

The punched down at Dawn because they didn't like her or because they could or because they are just garbage people. And then they used racism as an excuse. But they were not being racist. Dawn has not experienced racism here. She's experienced harassment and bullying. But not racism.

I'll have to think about your Israel/Palestine example. That's interesting. But I disagree as applied to this specific situation. I think one of the problems with Bad Art Friend is that people want it to be about racism and it's not. It's about power dynamics and people acting badly but not about racism. Not everything is about racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people really believe that when a white person is discriminated against solely based on their race, that it's not racism?

I'd never argue that it's as "bad" or damaging as when other races are the brunt of this because white people still have some protection generally speaking, but I'm so confused how "discriminating on the basis of race" somehow now includes "unless that race is white" in which case you deserve everything that comes to you.

Because white supremacy is institutionalized. So if a POC decides that they don't want to mess with white people because of their lifelong experience with institutionalized white supremacy, that is not racism or legal discrimination. It's just how an individual POC decides to deal with white supremacy. You can argue with whether it's the most effective or useful way to approach, but it's still not racism.

Now if an institution excluded white people because they were white, that would be different. But they don't! White people can go to historically black colleges, for instance. In my experience, white people can even join affinity groups (like the Black Employees Alliance at a company), and while they may not feel like they fit in, they are still allowed. They just largely choose not to. But I dare you to find an example of institutional exclusion of white people, as opposed to some individual people just deciding they don't want to be friends with, interact with, or date white people.

There is no such thing as racism against white people.

No, but if a POC decides they don't want to hire a white person because they think white people are trash, is that racism? Does racism only deal with institutions? I completely understand and acknowledge the breadth and depth of white supremacy in America and the world, but does racism only exist in institutions? I am very open to being corrected here. I thought it could happen individually too. (though I would never argue it's as dangerous, obviously)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am PP of above post. I meant to say racism against white women (or men) should be discussed - but put my parentheses in the wrong place which changed the meaning of my sentence. This typo is worth correcting because I don’t think the racism is there in the same way as being racist against white men. There’s less power dynamic there (which is not to say it’s ok to make bigoted or racially charged comments). It’s just that I don’t see this nearly as much. White women are the brunt more often.

I'm a white woman and I just want to say I disagree with this. I don't think white women (or men) can experience racism and I don't think there's anything in this story that can be called racism (and I'm firmly on the side of Dorland who I think was badly treated and misrepresented).

Instead, I think what happens is that people in positions of power will use the language and culture of anti-racist activist in order to abuse their power. I have seen it with white men who revel in being able to call white women Karens -- it's just misogyny, but they are excited to have a social justice-approved tool to enact misogyny against white women. I am suspicious of any white person who uses the phrase "Karen" (and it's always a middle aged or older white woman, it's interesting how young and beautiful white women are never Karens let's think about why) to discredit a white woman they don't like. I don't feel the same when POC use it (usually) because I do think that historically white women have used their special status to enact violence against POC and as a white woman I think we need to be aware of and reckon with that.

But this situation is unique because the POC in this story are in a position of real power and authority and I think they are abusing the Karen concept, and the ideas of white saviourism and white womens tears, to abuse their power. It's interesting because I don't think this is that common, but it is happening here. Again, I don't think this is racism -- I actually think what Larson, Ng, and to a lesser extent Gay and some others on Twitter, are doing is damaging to the anti-racist movement because it's a misuse of anti-racist language to try and hurt someone who has not done something racist, who has not engaged in white saviourism, and who is not using "white womens tears" to hurt anyone. I think they are being incredibly short sighted.

But again, there's no such thing as anti-white racism. It's just a misappropriation of social justice ideas.

I have to disagree with this. I get that racism only becomes a problem when there is a power dynamic going on so your point is well taken to that extent. However, "racism" as a word is broader than this and is appropriately used to describe a situation where antagonism is directed against a person due to their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. So, saying "there's no such thing as anti-white racism" is incorrect, but I think you are really saying that anti-white racism doesn't matter because whites have the power. I think it does matter.

First, demonizing any group is at best not constructive but at worst creates a dangerous cycle where any group with a victim card can act with impunity. Frankly, this is why the world feels constrained to ignore the inhumanity of Israel towards the Palestinians. We've decided that we can only very quietly suggest that Israel please stop -- because Israel has a well-deserved fully engraved victim card. (To be clear, I am not being facetious in describing Israel this way. Their suffering in the holocaust was truly horrific but even truly horrific suffering does not license one to disregard another group's humanity.) And when a POC group gangs up on a white woman, they get a pass because it would be misappropriation to suggest injustice?

But, second, not all whites have power. This was a group of semi-POC feeling fully licensed to punch down on "poor white trash" on precisely your reasoning -- because there is no such thing as punching down on a white woman. Except when there is.

Anonymous wrote:Do people really believe that when a white person is discriminated against solely based on their race, that it's not racism?

I'd never argue that it's as "bad" or damaging as when other races are the brunt of this because white people still have some protection generally speaking, but I'm so confused how "discriminating on the basis of race" somehow now includes "unless that race is white" in which case you deserve everything that comes to you.

Because white supremacy is institutionalized. So if a POC decides that they don't want to mess with white people because of their lifelong experience with institutionalized white supremacy, that is not racism or legal discrimination. It's just how an individual POC decides to deal with white supremacy. You can argue with whether it's the most effective or useful way to approach, but it's still not racism.

Now if an institution excluded white people because they were white, that would be different. But they don't! White people can go to historically black colleges, for instance. In my experience, white people can even join affinity groups (like the Black Employees Alliance at a company), and while they may not feel like they fit in, they are still allowed. They just largely choose not to. But I dare you to find an example of institutional exclusion of white people, as opposed to some individual people just deciding they don't want to be friends with, interact with, or date white people.

There is no such thing as racism against white people.