"That soap dispenser is racist" -- excludes people of color (and often excludes me, as do auto-sinks--for being, um, undertan).

http://www.metronews.ca/views/metro-views/2017/09/06/i-always-suspected-machines-hated-me-now-i-know-they-do-mochama.html

Irma!™

Yep.

The soap dispenser thing suggests that nobody really cares about racism per se. Does anyone argue that the engineer of the photo- or heat-detecting circuit for a soap dispenser seriously intended distinguish between white hands and black hands in operation? It's ridiculous.

It's more that it's a tremendous amount of fun for lesser minds to accuse someone (or, in this case, someTHING) of racism. The accusation wears the clothes of courage from earlier generations. Calling people names that way betokens moral seriousness for people who are not often taken seriously. This woman never seriously expects to confront that circuit designer personally... And if she did, she'd be unequipped to present her argument in either engineering or interpersonal terms.

Write things for money: Present the conventional wisdom & obvious truths, but offer them as "heretical" corrections to "myth"... Most people weren't paying attention, and they'll believe whatever you say.

Bush? Actual dim & unpersuasive!

Clinton? Ethically clumsy!

Reagan? ESPECIALLY good at the public relations part of the job!

Troll level: eleventy!

https://twitter.com/tedfrank/status/906536971719376901

The accusation wears the clothes of courage from earlier generations.

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/664089892599631872

Twitter is weirdly dynamic.

Late on Saturday afternoon, it was like the most compelling, thoroughly-researched, spiritually-vested series of magazines I've ever imagined.

Today, Sunday September 10, 2017, is a much more exciting day in America... On paper, so to speak.

But Twitter is nearly somnabulent.

Does anyone argue that the engineer of the photo- or heat-detecting circuit for a soap dispenser seriously intended distinguish between white hands and black hands in operation?
_____________________________________

No, but it's likely the writer's point was that, assuming the designers were white, they didn't CARE enough to make sure that the machines would react properly to people of all colors. Or, it was laziness and arrogance on the designers' part. Neglect is just plain wrong and unethical, whether you want to call it passive racism or not. Had one of the designers been black, chances are he/she would have found out this potential flaw and corrected it. But even the lack of black designers should not be an excuse for white designers to screw up that way.

Other examples were given by journalist Lena Williams in her 2000 book "It's the Little Things." Circa page 220, she talks of how it can be pretty difficult to find clothes in mainstream stores that fit black women. It shouldn't be too hard for fashion designers to remember that there ARE often differences that you don't see between two white women of the same height and weight.

It reminds me of a middle-aged male guest who once unplugged my landline when I wasn't looking so he could charge his own phone, even though there were several other outlets he could have chosen. I couldn't receive any messages, of course. I asked him later why he didn't check to see where the cord led to (it had a charger ON it, of course, so it was obviously not a regular plug) or ASK me if it was OK to unplug it. He said "I didn't think it was anything important."

In other words, laziness and arrogance.

> they didn't CARE enough

So these complaints in matters of industrial design should be dismissed out of hand, whatever the capitalization. These guys are paid to soap up people's hands. If they made mistake, it doesn't reflect on them such that it's worth the trouble of risking customer and client resentment. This urgency to take of fence is ludicrous. Who knows how that machine would respond in higher humidity or brighter light or a colder temperature... certainly not the complainant.

...and my predictions are starting to come true...

"President Donald Trump’s closest allies are planning a slate of primary challenges against Republican senators...

"The effort is being led by Steve Bannon, Trump’s bomb-throwing former chief strategist, who is launching an all-out war against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment. Bannon has begun holding private meetings with insurgent challengers, vowing his support. He’s coordinating with conservative mega-donor Robert Mercer, who is prepared to pour millions of dollars into attacks on GOP incumbents. Bannon has also installed a confidant at an outside group that is expected to target Republican lawmakers and push the Trump agenda."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/10/bannon-gop-primaries-mcconnell-trump-242522

California Democrat insists that the last thing you want when a crazed gunman enters your child's school and starts shooting is a teacher shooting back in defense.

Because screw those kids, I guess.

"launching an all-out war against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment"

Good. Rattle those gerrymandering insider-trading corrupt old tools. Rattle 'em good.

Who knows how that machine would respond in higher humidity or brighter light or a colder temperature... certainly not the complainant. ~ Crid at September 10, 2017 4:54 PM

Life imitates art. Better Off Ted did an episode in which the fictional company's new motion detectors could not "see" black people.

Whether a belief is racist depends on whether you support Trump or Clinton:

"I asked a representative sample of 2,600 Americans and 1,600 Britons the following: "A White American [Briton] who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group's share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don't know."

Almost all white Clinton voters with advanced degrees believe the person in question is racist. But among white Trump voters without degrees just 5.5 percent concur, while 94.5 percent say this is racial self-interest, which is not racist."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-09-08/immigration-and-white-identity-west

> Whether a belief is racist depends
> on whether you support Trump or
> Clinton

Nope

> ...and my predictions are
> starting to come true...

Probably not, but they'd be pathetic in any case.

Still not buying the premise of a soap dispenser that only works with some skin colors.

And black women aren't weirdly shaped, though one can imagine stores that don't cater to certain sizes of *any* color.

Seriously, the world seems full of people who want to be butthurt. I don't understand this. Parents who teach their kids to think this way are criminal.

I looked up some patents for the paper towel dispensers. They are motion detectors (which is why you have to wave your hand in front of them). Almost anything that moves and is large enough should work. If anything, a black hand should work slightly better because it provides more of a contrast against the background room light.

And black women aren't weirdly shaped
_________________________________________

It's not a matter of "weird" just "different." Do you really not know what I mean?

In Newsweek, in 1995, there was an article about the different levels of satisfaction when it comes to how black teen girls see their own bodies vs. white girls' self-perspective. (Yes, it's mainly about weight, but not completely.)

Quote:

"...And even girls who fit the white ideal aren't necessarily comfortable there. Supermodel Tyra Banks recalls how, in high school in Los Angeles, she was the envy of her white girlfriends. "They would tell me, 'Oh, Tyra, you look so good'." says Banks. "But I was like, 'I want a booty and thighs like my black girlfriends'."

Btw, I found a little of what I referred to re Williams' book - it's on page 221, above what I highlighted. It refers to clothes for black tennis players.

https://books.google.com/books?id=y2jhd0BWoQ0C&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=%22White+women,+on+the+other+hand,+complain+that+as+they+grow+older%22&source=bl&ots=5ePwClidDe&sig=pP-scxJ5m0we22fHTP3QYvmYGdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP-rmArp3WAhVn94MKHUy1C2kQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22White%20women%2C%20on%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20complain%20that%20as%20they%20grow%20older%22&f=false

I suspect she talks more about clothes elsewhere, but I can't look right now.

The table of contents is:

1. Little Things in Public Places p. 13
2. Little Things in the School p. 51
3. Little Things in the Home p. 69
4. Little Things in the Workplace p. 105
5. Little Things in Social Settings p. 139
6. Little Things in the Mass Media p. 159
7. The White Take p. 185
8. It's Not Just a Black/White Thing p. 243
Conclusion p. 259

> Do you really not know
> what I mean?

No, I really don't.

Furthermore and more importantly-- To the extent you're not bullshitting, your suggestion is racist, and betrays pathetically demented (and perhaps fearful) beliefs about black people. They have no statistically consistent "differences" that would affect the tailoring of clothes, any more than the provision of flatwear, eyeglasses, automotive design or typeface kerning. To imagine yourself compassionate for smugly affirming their (entirely imaginary) special needs is grotesquely pathetic.

And entirely unnecessary... Per Google, there are 18,572,265 black women in the United States, a consumer pool no clothier would ignore if trivial retooling would command market share.

Mostly, I think it's freaky that you have to regard blacks as some distinct sector of humanity for which you can affirm compassion rather than fellowship.

But perhaps most grievous, given the nature of this discussion, is your encouragement of affirming racism merely because some shop doesn't have the preferred size in stock.

Why for the love of Christ would you encourage that in a population which is already at risk for miscommunication with fellow Americans?

Do you teach your own children to think that way?

Be very, very fucking careful before deploying sarcasm next time you're unable to describe precise patterns of distinction.

The scent of a scammer:

> Do you really not know
> what I mean?

Mostly, Lenona, I want you to put it in a sentence or two, because I think that would be cackling good laughter for the rest of us, as well as all my black friends, and certainly for all YOUR black friends:When you say that "there ARE often differences that you don't see between two white women of the same height and weight" when discussing the builds of black women, what are you talking about? Describe particularly the proportions that compel you to ask: "Do you really not know what I mean?"

Don't be lazy. Don't be arrogant.

Apparently, YOU'RE too lazy to click on the Lena Williams link. (I would NEVER have thought of the clothing troubles she listed if it weren't for that book - but then, I have little interest in clothes anyway, and definitely not tight-fitting ones. But all too often, at the workplace, loose-fitting clothing is either hazardous or not formal enough.)

Hint: It's a stereotype (but not a myth) that white women don't have much in the way of hips. Leaving aside obese women of all colors, of course.

Apparently, YOU'RE too lazy to click on the Lena Williams link. (I would NEVER have thought of the clothing troubles she listed if it weren't for that book - but then, I have little interest in clothes anyway, and definitely not tight-fitting ones. But all too often, at the workplace, loose-fitting clothing is either hazardous or not formal enough.)

Hint: It's a stereotype (but not a myth) that white women don't have much in the way of hips. Leaving aside obese women of all colors, of course.

I think the bigger question isn't, did Crid read the link, it's why in the hell would anyone here give this person's opinion any more weight than they give their own? You act like posting a link is the big BOOM moment in your argument and it's not. Some food for thought, not every weird thing you link to on the Internet has the weight of truth or finality about it.

I have been harboring a suspicion about you for some time that you are house bound or have been institutionalized for a long period of time. (My other guess is that you are adjunct faculty at a community college.) None of your opinions or beliefs ever appear to be grounded in any actual experience. Your experience of the world and the multitudes that inhabit it always appear to come from some blog, article, or advice column (and some pretty low rent ones at that). As if that wasn't bad, or actually sad, enough you hold these opinions out as if they are holy writ and that to cut and paste them here gives them the force and weight of truth. Have you ever noticed how most of the time nobody interacts with you? You're like one of those deranged street corner preachers screaming your "truth" at passers by who can't get away fast enough.

You should take Crid's advice and go out and kiss a boy (or a girl), get a job, start a business, take a risk bc it would be good for you.

> Apparently, YOU'RE too lazy to
> click on the Lena Williams link.

Well, maybe, but c'mon, Lenny... There's no sane way to move from such a silly citation to "Do you really not know what I mean?"

Furthermore, it's goofy that this difference of yours translates, essentially, to 'black women have big butts.'

I don't believe for a second that there's been meaningful research affirming any non-behavioral weight distinction which would demand your tender compassion... Nor that mundane retail couldn't (or even doesn't, if you'll insist) provide an absolutely transparent market solution.

(Sheep Mom speaks only for herself, as do we all.)

I think the bigger question isn't, did Crid read the link, it's why in the hell would anyone here give this person's opinion any more weight than they give their own?
__________________________________________

Because she's a former journalist for a pretty prestigious newspaper, for starters?

More, if you like:

http://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/lena-williams-41

Well, let's get beyond the "starters." Her resume affords no presumption of accuracy: Is there any reason to think she knows more about the sizes of black & white women's butts than anyone else knows?

Have you ever noticed how most of the time nobody interacts with you?
_______________________________________

Well, duh, maybe that's because, as Gail and Allison have complained in the past, this blog has become somewhat dominated by semi-loony hotheads (like lujlp) and conspiracy theorists (thank goodness Amy isn't either one) who get annoyed by anyone who isn't one or who won't play by their rules. Not to mention that cc posts at about the same low rate that I do and doesn't get much interaction either.

What's wrong with providing a little VARIETY around here? I've noticed that in the last year or so, Amy is often the only one who provides variety, in contrast to this blog's commentators. (Last example I remember - when she started the thread on Confederate statues, she and Artemis were the ONLY ones who dared to suggest that they SHOULD be removed from public squares - but placed in museums.) I wouldn't come here if I didn't want to hear opinions different from my own, but again, Amy seems to be getting a bit isolated by the commentators, and Ppen and others don't post as often as I'd like.

Btw, it seems strange to me that the allegedly highly professional people here seem to have so much more time on their hands than I do to write posts here. I have three jobs in all right now, including my volunteer work.