By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I never much liked Paula Deen’s cooking. Filled with butter and gravies and things like Krispy Creme Donuts for hamburger buns, Paula seemed too culinarily eccentric … to foodie excessive … too health oblivious even for a southern cook in 1813 much less 2013. Her story though, like her southern twang, had a certain charm to it: single mother of two left penniless makes ends meet by selling food-to-go out of her home kitchen and works her butt off until she reached the top of the sundae’s cherry with three shows on the Food Network and some spin off shows for her two sons.
That all ended Friday as a deposition of Ms. Deen was released. In that dep (in a case Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen et al. involving a claim of racial and sexual discrimination by an employee of her restaurant, Uncle Bubba’s), Ms. Deen admitted to using the no-no of racial epithets in the past — the distant past, like 50 years ago. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of Paula’s deposition to see just what I mean:
Q
Okay. Have you ever used the N word yourself?
A
Yes, of course.
Q
Okay. In what context?
A
Well, it was probably when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head.
Q
Okay. And what did you say?
A
Well, I don’t remember, but the gun was dancing all around my temple.
Q
Okay.
A
I didn’t — I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.
Q
Okay. Well, did you use the N word to him as he pointed a gun in your head at your face?
A
Absolutely not.
Q
Well, then, when did you use it?
A
Probably in telling my husband.
Q
Okay. Have you used it since then?
A
I’m sure I have, but it’s been a very long time.
Q
Can you remember the context in which you have used the N word?
A
No.
Q
Has it occurred with sufficient frequency that you cannot recall all of the various context in which you’ve used it?
A
No, no.
Q
Well, then tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N word?
A
I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.
Q
Like a joke?
A
No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t — I don’t know.
Q
Okay.
A
But that’s just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the ’60s in the south. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior.
Q
Okay
Realizing perhaps too late, the Deen Food Empire (books, utensils, cutlery, you name it) sprung into action. First a very public apology for sins past, then a new revised one on YouTube, the town square of our age, where Paula looking quite shaken literally begs for forgiveness. PC gods served? You tell me:
On cable TV shows up and down the msnbc roster, Deen was decried as racist, uncaring, and calls for her banishment from polite society became overwhelming. So much so that the Food Network pulled the shows and consigned Deen to places we reserve for the likes of George Wallace and Sheriff Bull Connor. But is that fair?
Deen grew up in place far away –temporally and culturally — from most of her critics and, as one who grew up in the same locales, I can tell you that her sin was a popular one in the South in the 60’s . Everybody who wasn’t white and rich had a name: wops, pollaks, heebs, rednecks, pope lovers, crackers, and yes those christened with the “N” word. And each group used the words liberally to each other and even among each other. I never saw a fight over the name calling but there were some close calls.
Surely it wasn’t a very hospitable place for African-Americans who bore the brunt of discrimination, but neither was it a hospitable place if you were poor, or Catholic, or ethnic, or anything other than wealthy, white and Protestant. That didn’t mean people weren’t civil to one another. By and large they were, but there was a palpable feeling of place and hierarchy that was enforced with a rigid caste system administered by state and local governments. That sat pretty well with the white elite who ran things back then.
But you should know those in power considered folks like Paula Deen no better that the “n*iggers” they brought in to do their cooking and cleaning and to raise their kids. Those “people” were there and free only by fiat of the government in Wershington and, by god, if that was the case they were going to be useful, or so it was thought.
The South changed and evolved in the ’60s and ’70s with the Civil Rights Movement as Dr. King’s words touched hearts both white and black and brightened them all. For those who wouldn’t listen, scenes of pregnant women blasted with water cannons and vicious police dogs attacking kids was surely enough. White people who drove pickups and worked in plants and farms started to realize that the folks who lived across the railroad tracks and who drove older pickup trucks and worked in plants and farms weren’t really much different from themselves and they had the same lack of control over their lives. The wedges of words that the ruling élite had no interest in curtailing melted away and it is clearly true that the advent of political correctness shown a glaring light on those southern dinosaurs who couldn’t or wouldn’t change.
Which brings us back to Paula Deen. Paula likely grew up in one of those same southern small towns like I did. She also likely made a distinction between “black people” (as they were called then ), who worked hard and raised their families as best they could under grinding poverty, and “n*ggers” who were seen as lazy, irresponsible, thuggish and no account. She likely came to learn that names reflect stereotypes and they can be and are often wrong; that people don’t fit nicely into boxes; and that, as Edmund Burke so wisely reminds us, you can’t draw up an indictment against a whole people.
Paula evolved and the South evolved. But the question remains for Paula and those like her: When is the sentence for violating political correctness over? When can you freely admit a mistake made decades ago without fear of reprisal? Not the criminal kind administered by the state, but the reprisal from the overlords of decorum who sit in ivory towers or corporate boardrooms and wax philosophic on all manner of society’s ills and largely for their own benefit ? When will a society committed to free expression allow itself to deal honestly with its past and say publicly a two-syllable word that most find offensive?
In my view, you don’t need a word that no one can utter. You don’t need to continually explain and apologize for sins made years ago in a culture far, far away if you’ve done it once and sincerely. And perhaps most importantly, you don’t need to feel society’s wrath for simply telling the truth about that society.
Paula Deen is no hero, but she is certainly no villain for growing up as she did and living as she did. When we master that fact perhaps we can overcome the racism that divides us even as we accept that our differences spring largely from things over which we have little control, and that we can come together in spite of ourselves if we forgive as freely and as often as we decry.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Gene: How error tolerant is consciousness?
Well, I have published on systematic error reduction, in fact. But the concept of ‘error’ implies a concept of a unique correct outcome or answer to compare a result against, which in turn implies some method of measuring or computing both the right answer, and computing a degree of deviation from the right answer.
So the question becomes how do we measure a consciousness? Or the deviation between two conssciousnesses? It would be like finding a percentage difference between your consciousness this morning and your consciousness tomorrow morning, a difficult problem to wrap one’s consciousness around.
Bron,
The good news is we like you.
The bad news is you’ve got “derpy Objectivism”.
Will a shot of penicillin cure that?
😀
Mike,
If you’re going to abandon the rules of logic and argument you can’t then turn around and accuse others of using poor reason and logic.
The goal of argumentation is to win the assent of the audience. You acknowledged this fact already when you were keeping keeping score as to who agreed with you. Now you contradict yourself just because you don’t feel like being criticized like you criticize others.
It bears repeating:
You are the last person here who should lecture anyone on the use of logic.
After reading your post “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action” I must reiterate the following:
“My critique of your argument … [has] to do with your meandering from one feeling to the next and presenting it as if it were an argument. Your over reliance on feelings and your almost exhibitionist urge to rely on personal anecdotes to justify said feelings, as opposed to furthering the argument which you left dangling in mid air, is quite annoying in a Grandpa Simpson kind of way. (“so I tied an onion to my belt; which was the style at the time.” etc.)
Arguing is reason giving.
Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
When you make a claim and then attempt to support that claim by telling us how you feel or providing anecdotes to explain why you feel that way, you’re not making an argument. You’re not attempting to win the assent of your audience, you’re actually looking to win the assent of yourself; since the rest of us don’t go through life based on how Mike Spindell feels.”
Your article “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action” is proof of what I said above.
Jesus H. Christ, you’re so wrapped up in your feelings that you couldn’t even get the categories straight.”
Allow me to illustrate:
When you posted that piece on Obama’s hypocrisy, you placed it in the following categories: Congress , Constitutional Law , Courts , Criminal law , Environment , International , Justice , Lawyering , Media , Politics , Science , Society , Supreme Court.
Tell me Mike, what “constitutional law” issue did you raise in your article raise and how does it deal with Obama’s hypocrisy?
Answer; NONE. In fact, you didn’t even mention the constitution. Apparently, you FELT it related to constitutional law; despite your article providing no reference to the topic whatsoever.
How does your article discuss anything about “Environment”?
How does your article discuss anything about “International” issues?
How does your article discuss anything about “Lawyering” issues?
How does your article discuss anything about “Media” issues?
How does your article discuss anything about “Supreme Court” issues.
Answer: IT DOESN’T
An 8th grade composition student wouldn’t have made such a mess of categorizing his article.
Apparently you feel that your feelings are so important that they encompass more subjects than you could possibly list; even if you don’t even discuss them.
Let’s continue. You wrote:
“This is only a small portion of why our President is a hypocrite on this subject. The figures I am about to use and the arguments I will make can be backed up by evidence, which will be provided as links at the end of this piece. My hubris, if you will, is this is an issue that I know so well that I don’t have to make my case by quoting others.”
First of all, the story is not about you and your hubris. You promised the reader to discuss Obama’s hypocrisy regarding the war on drugs. Don’t tell us; just do it.
Further, how lazy can you as a writer presenting an argument be? I can find the evidence for my claims in the links below? What kind of writing or argument is that? The whole point of the exercise is for the writer to digest the evidence and make the case for the reader. Who the hell are you to claim you know the issue so well that you don’t have to back up your claims with reasons within your writing to make your case? Show me one other blogger who thinks that much of himself that he/she just ignores the basic
rules of composition and argumentation.
And what happens when you care more about expressing your feelings, in a meandering fashion, than crafting a well structured argument and article?
You get drivel.
You began by promising your reader to show how Obama is a hypocrite regarding the war on drugs. After two long paragraphs that don’t introduce anything, we come to this:
“To me hypocrites are people who assert positions and carries out actions that they know are false and ineffective, possibly in this case quite harmful.”
Why are you an important part of the definition of hypocrite? Why is this always about you?
We know what a hypocrite is. Don’t waste our time.
You continue: “President Obama is a hypocrite because he must know that marijuana is a relatively benign substance, which studies have shown is much less destructive than alcohol, since he has smoked weed and no doubt drunk alcohol. His friends all got high and few if any of them suffered bad consequences or were unable to become productive members of society. The evidence is overwhelming,”
Really? Seeing that you’re holding those claims as proof of his hypocrisy, as you promised in your title, where’s your evidence to support them?? Oh, I forgot, we’re just supposed to take you at your word; because the rules of argumentation don’t apply to you.
And then we get this:
“Since as you can tell the tone of my writing this is scathing I must admit to why I have a personal bias.”
Forgetting that’s not even a proper sentence, why do I need an explanation for the tone of your writing? How does it help your argument that Obama is a hypocrite when it comes to the war on drugs?
Recall that I said “Your over reliance on feelings and your almost exhibitionist urge to rely on personal anecdotes to justify said feelings, as opposed to furthering the argument which you left dangling in mid air, is quite annoying”
Could you tell me how the next two lengthy paragraphs in your article do anything to support your argument? What does Obama’s hypocrisy regarding the war on drugs have to do with anecdotes about your personal experience with drugs or your musings about your generation’s experience with drugs?
Answer: Nothing.
You then left the reader with a bunch of quotes and links as if it were a homework assignment to put it all together for you. In essence, you asked the reader to write the article for you since you were too lazy to lay out the argument yourself. Whatever that argument was that you were “feeling” at the time.
Like I said Mike, everything I alleged at the beginning of this post was proven by that article of yours.
Nal,
“When it comes to Bayesian Reasoning:
absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.”
Praise be to De Morgan, for allowing us to NOT inputs — but only if we remember to NOT the output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan
I hate to take this off topic, as my eyes have been glazed over, but since the topic of Bayesian probability arose, I thought you Logicians might enjoy this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-haters-derp-isnt-going-away-2013-6#ixzz2XjywMdej
Really. No snark. It just seems relevant.
Here’s a excerpt:
But now we have a rigorous definition of derp, thanks to Prof. Noah Smith. It turns out that derp is actually a Bayesian probability concept:
Bayesian probability basically says that “probability” is, to some degree, subjective. It’s your best guess for how likely something is. But to be Bayesian, your “best guess” must take the observable evidence into account. Updating your beliefs by looking at the outside world is called “Bayesian inference”. Your initial guess about the probability is called your “prior belief”, or just your “prior” for short. Your final guess, after you look at the evidence, is called your “posterior.” The observable evidence is what changes your prior into your posterior.
How much does the evidence change your belief? That depends on three things. It depends on A) how different the evidence is from your prior, B) how strong the evidence is, and C) how strong your prior is…
When those people keep broadcasting their priors to the world again and again after every new piece of evidence comes out, it gets very annoying. After every article comes out about a new solar technology breakthrough, or a new cost drop, they’ll just repeat “Solar will never be cost-competitive.” That is unhelpful and uninformative, since they’re just restating their priors over and over. Thus, it is annoying. Guys, we know what you think already.
English has no word for “the constant, repetitive reiteration of strong priors”. Yet it is a well-known phenomenon in the world of punditry, debate, and public affairs. On Twitter, we call it “derp”.
Which is to say, a policy commentator is “derpy” when his or her (usually his) prior assumptions about the world are so unwarrantedly strong that he is unswayable by evidence. Derpers have a faith-based approach to policy.
Elaine,
I have no issue with that since I think you (as Tony I recall for certain did) noted that prejudicing proceedings was possible. As to whether or not thinking Deen may be racist based on the tape is prejudice in a harmful or benign way? That’s to each person to decide. Prejudice is what it is but is context dependent. I just wanted people to think about the nature of prejudice in the larger sense when thinking about it rather than just the narrower (and particularly charged) racism.
Gene,
I had no preconception about Paula Deen and racism. In fact, I had admired Deen for what she had accomplished. She seemed, to me, to be an affable woman with a good sense of humor. Her taste in food, however, is not quite the same as mine.
Her deposition didn’t convince me that she was a racist. I did cringe, however, when I watched that 2012 video of her. It made me feel uncomfortable. It was after watching the video that I began to think that she still may harbor some racist feelings. You may call that prejudice. So be it. I call it drawing a conclusion/making an inference based on Deen’s own behavior and what she herself said.
And an ancillary issue, Tony. How error tolerant is consciousness?
Tony,
I’m thinking that given the raw size of the data set it would take to define a consciousness (assuming Penrose is correct), that the chance for error even in a classically based system exploiting quantum effects is going to be huge. There’s no avoiding that complexity breeds error.
Awesome, Elaine. Thanks! I’ll have to try that soon.
Even in light of the Penrose conjecture; we can deterministically make quantum effect tubules (our genes have formed trillions of them).
The brain and mind can be (like our own existing quantum computers, lasers, tunneling field effect transistors, etc) a machine constructed with standard (non-quantum) mechanics and chemistry that exploits quantum effects when powered up.
Gene,
Like most of the things I make/concoct, I don’t have an exact recipe.
Here is a list of the ingredients:
– Whipped cream cheese (8 oz. container)
– Creme fraiche or sour cream (Usually two or three large spoonfuls)
– Sun-dried tomatoes packed in oil
– Fresh basil
– Tabasco sauce
I put the container of cream cheese, some creme fraiche, and several drops of Tabasco sauce in a food processor and process briefly. I pat dry the strips of sun-dried tomato, chop them coarsely and add them to the processor and whir. Then I add the basil, which I snip in with kitchen scissors and process. Then I taste it. I often add more tomatoes and basil until it passes the Goldilocks test.
*will be offended is*
Bad fingers.
And you’re entitled to your opinion, Elaine, but it’s all rhetoric in that regard. Offense is often a reaction to having a preconception challenged, especially when that preconception is a deeply held moral/ethical structure. No one has a right not to be offended. In fact, that you will is a practical unwritten corollary of having Free Speech. I stipulated that I didn’t think any of you were bigots, but that you may be prejudiced is some way(s). As OS so correctly noted, prejudice is simply part of human nature. We all have them. If you’re uncomfortable with that being pointed out in conjunction with getting people to question the nature of prejudice? No offense was meant, but it is entirely yours to take.
Elaine:
I dont know, this was a pretty good thread.
I agree that a conscious would form in the teleported body, but I view it as being a duplicate rather than the original. But to the outside observer it would appear as the same person.
Elaine,
I’ve got a load of basil around here and love sun-dried tomatoes. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
Gene,
I think it went beyond that.
nick spinelli 1, June 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Elaine, Hope you had a nice family reunion. The food, I always need to know the food.
*****
There was all manner of food. I didn’t make as much a usual because of just having moved into my new home, not knowing where all my kitchen pans and utensils are, and because it’s been so hot and humid here.
We had crudites and dips, grilled steak tips, hot dogs, kielbasa, swordfish, hamburgers, Caesar and other salads…and tons of different desserts. I brought some gourmet cupcakes from a nut-free bakery.
https://www.cakes4occasions.com/
I also made a sun-dried tomato dip with basil that my daughter and son-in-law love.
It’s still hot and humid around here today. It looks like this weather pattern will continue through the holiday.
Happy Fourth!
And . . . given the length of this thread, I don’t think it was entirely unsuccessful.