Rob Roy/Talk

This is a page for discussion of the content of the original page. This page was created because there was a dispute or argument about the content of the page (Rob Roy). Hashing out our differences here will allow for a more productive dialogue and won't clutter the original page.

The following section just doesn't make sense to me:

"Rob has made occasional seemingly racist comments in public, saying that "Chipotle is only half a shade browner than Taco Bell" and referring to Picnic Day as "White Family Day" (people "[WWW]genetically predisposed to be oppressive"). These are counterbalanced, however, by actions which would seem to give him a positive balance of political correctness, such as introducing an ASUCD resolution against the military (which we all know wasn't about homosexuality as much as it was about race), harassing Sodexho for it's business practices (which we all know isn't about worker's rights as much as it is about racism), and additionally, some of his friends are on L.E.A.D.. "

Rob does make seemingly racist comments, but the examples don't make sense..the military resolution was about equal rights (not race), having friends on an asucd political slate doesn't make him not a racist (I'm not saying he is — in fact I know he's not — it's just a weird example to put there) —PhilipNeustrom

* Oh come on, every knows I'm not a racist. Sometimes I say sarcastic things that above all are critical of my own race. But I don't think this deserves its own Talk page. Chipotle is owned by McDonald's. Taco Bell is owned by Pepsi, but Chipotle appears to be more "authentic." There are several Culture Days but no White Family Day so I made the joke that it is picnic day because most alums of UC Davis and inhabitants of Davis are white (this is of course, because of a history of racial disparity in the US in that white people, having inherited the country's wealth, have better access to universities and are more likely to be able to afford to buy homes in the city of Davis). It is not a racist remark, but rather a scathing comedic remark that takes into account an unfortunate historical reality. And yes I made a joke about Germans and English having a history of being oppressive - because they do have that history (ie. WW2 and the sun never setting on the English Empire). A Talk Page is getting a little too politically correct. I'm not going to pull that dumb, "but I have black friends" line. Everyone knows I'm not a racist. This page is ridiculous. All my statements were jokes that would only be offensive to the most thin-skinned white people. And in the modern rules of comedy you are allowed to make fun of your own race. Everyone knows that. - RobRoy

• The reason for having this page is that the material was removed and then put back, perhaps in an even more confusing manner. —PhilipNeustrom
  

Maybe you know Roy isn't a racist, & maybe I know Roy isn't a racist, but he's a public official aspiring for a public position, and the countervailing perception of his public statements should not be deleted. If a public official you didn't personally like made seemingly weaksauce comments, I think you'd all feel they should be noted. Now I'm certainly not arguing that the entry should misleadingly imply he's going around spouting racist things, I think we should follow established wiki practices and counterbalance it with evidence to the contrary, & cushion it into the larger context of who he is. To flatly delete it because its not who you believe Roy to be is setting a severe double standard for your friends however. -KrisFricke

If Wiki is meant to be an informational source, that means people coming to it and reading entries should get a good glimpse into what they are looking for. Some posted comments are not a good reflection of the way things actually are. Removing the ridiculousness doesn't have anything to do with how friendly I am with Rob, it has to do with trying to instill integrity into the Wiki.

Take, for example someone who was believed to wear communist-like clothing. What you're arguing is that if someone perceives the wearing of communist-like clothing as being communist that it would be OK for that person to write upon that person's wiki page (or in the Aggie) things about that person being a communist. Assuming that there was good reason behind whatever article of clothing being mistaken for an endorsement of communism, it would not make sense to keep the original charge that the person is a communist on the wiki page. This is because doing so may give people not in full knowledge of the context the wrong impression- something that would be a VERY bad thing particularly in the case that this person is high profile and running for a political office. (hopefully this all made sense, I just wrote 2 term papers, a scholarship essay and read a book in the last 48 hours.) -TL

PS: can we delete this page now?!?

• If you want to note on my wiki page that I have been known to wear communist-like clothing, go right ahead. I would refactor it appropriately. Dan Raff added some crap to my page which frankly I think isn't noteworthy enough to be there and detracts from the coherency of the whole thing, but I refactored it in and kept the basis of what he added, so I can with good conscience say that I apply the same standard to myself. When I refactored Roy's page most recently I did minimal editing; it might be more pleasing to pro-Roy elements to subordinate the racist claims to the counterbalancing evidence. Subordinate it to some statement about how he likes to make saucy jokes even, I don't know — there's a million ways you can make it work without flat out suppressing the alternative view. -KrisFricke
  

• It is funny that you are using Kris wearing communist clothing as a way to illustrate your point considering RobRoy made a comment on Kris' page calling him a "bastard pinco commie" (in a definite joking way, of course). Kris didn't even consider deleting it. That comment may or may not have led various people to think Kris was a communist, who knows. I don't think the information provided gives the wrong impression. Rob is very high profile and running for office; his wit and offbeat humor are part of who he is. I'm sure he'd rather the public not have known about some of the crazy stunts he has pulled in the past, but they do. Everything a person running for political office says or has said in some sort of public forum is going to get out, whether they like it or not. And Rob's right, everyone knows he isn't racist so this is all so silly.- KristyHeidenberger
  

• I brought up Kris' but I could have brought up a bunch of different cases (Kris was the one who was doing the posting so it was all to easy to use him). The parallel doesn't exactly work, as even though Kris is a great guy, he's not quite at the same level of interest traffic as a public figure who is running for city council. Further, I think your counter examples only further my case. Both of you bring up examples of people making clear jokes . Ironically enough, I was the person who posted all that crap about Rob being a sell-out to Sodexho and eating their spaghetti. The difference? I made it clearly a JOKE, as in, it's funny to read it. This case? Not a joke, and I DO NOT think it is very funny. The wiki has to walk the very fine line between being an information source as opposed to as source for libel. If someone were to post categorically wrong information on a page on the wiki, the purpose of the wiki is to edit it and make it correct. Someone's calling out Rob for being a racist, I call that categorically wrong (and I think so does everyone else in this discussion), it should be removed. Period. (If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!) -TL
  

• PS: The one-two couple's punch is kinda cute. I'm jealous- I cant get my girlfriend to touch the wiki with a ten foot pole. j/k
  

• PPS: BRENT, CAN YOU PLEASE STOP SAYING HE'S NOT RACIST BECAUSE HE HAS FRIENDS IN LEAD. I dont think I even have to go in to why, geezus.
  

• I don't see how this relates to anything I've said — he's a public figure who has made public comments of a controversial nature. Regardless of whether you think someone else might "misconstrue" what he said, he made them while a public figure and the public should be allowed to construe them as best they can. By all means I encourage you to aid the public in seeing it in the proper context, but I believe merely suppressing all references to it is abuse of the wiki. And I think you're a bit overeager to declare yourself the "winner" in this discussion, with your constant reversions. -KrisFricke
  

• PS: Did you read the link you posted? Aside from the fact that relating something he actually said cannot be libel, the page you linked to explains: "Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation [lawsuits] in cyberspace."
  

Any suggestions on how to improve the material/wording? —PhilipNeustrom

• Find more concrete examples of him being a non-racist? Honestly, I was trying to think of things to say, but I couldn't do a very good job. Maybe Rob can provide examples or something. —BrentLaabs
  

• 1) I don't need to provide examples of me being a non-racist because I am not a racist nor were my remarks even racist, they were jokes making fun of white people. I'm white. I'm allowed to do that just as Chris Rock makes fun of black stereotypes and Jerry Seinfeld makes fun of Jewish stereotypes. I really don't want to have to list off all my friendly relationships with people that happen to be minorities because I think that is a stupid thing to do. My statements weren't racist. I was merely stating, in a sarcastically and possibly crass way, that there is often times an invisible white face on things like Tex-Mex cuisine or Picnic Day, that no one wants to talk about. You should hear my rant about how the Beatles are just a white face on ethnic music. Anyway... 2) I am not allowed to edit to "Rob Roy" page, only the "RobRoy" page. - RobRoy
  

• 1) Don't you want to make some sort of campaign issue on taking on the racism inherent in Davis? 2) That's a dumb rule in my opinion. We shouldn't give you free rein over it like your userpage, but I think it's fine if you want to add factual material. —BrentLaabs
  

• The only thing I want to do is make Davis better. And I do support the police review board because there have been accusations of racism within the police department - whether it is true or not should be investigated because Davis must worry about the perception of the town. We should uphold a positive image of being a welcoming community, not a limousine liberal nimby community. I love Davis, otherwise I would not want to be a representative so I would work toward tackling any negative perception I hear people have about Davis. After all, as Councilmember Ted Puntillo once said, "Never ask a question unless you know the answer." Well, given that, one could say, "Don't ask the question if you know what the answer is going to be." So then some may worry about the council not wanting to really ask the question of racism in the community. I have heard kids raised in Davis say some frightening things and there has been a history of racist activity through graffiti and whatnot in the community. It must be defeated, not through token plaques and park namings, but getting to the root of the issue and letting people of all walks of life and skin colors feel comfortable in the community. -RobRoy (Oh and Philip made the editing rule, and the only rules that I must absolutely follow on the wiki are the ones made by Mike and Philip - since technically they own the site.)
  

• The purpose of not allowing (rather, encouraging) individuals to edit pages about themselves is so that we don't have a million vanity pages and pages devoid of useful wording. We're most sensitive about ourselves, and if someone comes looking for information about someone who's notable enough to have a biographical page, then I think it should be written from a not-that-person point of view. With biographical pages, it's easy to have the individual in question feel they should control the material on the page. Also, in the case of active wiki users such as Rob, it lets us maintain a certain distance from the material on the page — at the very least, it was not written by Rob. —PhilipNeustrom
  

• How about examples against discrimination in general, instead of just racism? There's probably more and even the existing example (military) could be changed to apply to it. The previous wording, "some believe his actions indicate that he is very much against discrimination and that his statements are not racist" meshes with this approach, too, because that's what we're talking about? Also, the original statement, "Rob has made occasional seemingly racist comments in public" could be changed to say "Rob occasionally makes bold, perhaps outrageous sounding comments in public. [some examples] and the white racism comments with whatever follow-up? —PhilipNeustrom
  

• Yeah I like the "bold, perhaps outrageous sounding comments" introduction (perhaps sneak the word saucy in there too? (= ), and then put the rest in context. -KrisFricke
  

Hello Rob, Welcome to running for Davis City Council. People will say all kinds of things about you and try to throw you off your message. Just stay the course, as you have here. It'll get more and more heated as time goes on. Just hang in there. - SharlaDaly

Does calling all Latin people "Mexicans" count as racist or just complete ignorance? "As they only hire attractive women as servers and Mexicans as cooks." —JeremiahBurney

• Ok, I admit that I was in error on that one. Although, I have never seen a non-latino employee cooking at Crepeville nor have I ever seen anything but female servers at Crepeville (although I heard recently they hired a male). Admittedly, I do not go there often as I prefer Delta of Venus and I think Crepeville only accepting cash is rather suspect. But I was wrong to use the word "Mexican." I used to date a girl from Toluca, Mexico for over two years. The way she talked would probably offend you Jeremiah and it somewhat affected my terminology and I am once again, sorry.

I think that it is difficult to correctly classify people - as an adviser at UCD I've seen Hispanic, Latina/Latino, racial identification by county of birth i.e. Mexican, Guatemalan, etc., racial identification by birth place of ancestors or nationality, i.e. Mexican American, etc. Which is correct if making a broad statement? Is it racist to refer to someone as Chinese, when they might be from a specific province or have some suble heritage that is unknown? Maybe it would be safer to just "decline to state." —SharlaDaly

I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. I say "Asian" and "Latin" or "Hispanic". Again, not entirely correct, but probably more approriate than "Chinese" or "Mexican". That's like calling me Irish just because I'm white. Wait, I am Irish. Never mind. :D Admittting your error takes balls Rob. My respect. —JeremiahBurney

It sounds like Rob's (alleged) comments are anti-racist to me. Or is even the very mention of race by definition a racist statement? Is it even possible for a white (White?) person to make a non-racist comment? Can non-white people be racists? How off-white would a person have to be? Does telling a "racist joke" mark them for the rest of their life (disqualify them for office, get their Ikeas blackballed)? How can a person prove they are not a racist? What if, just what if, Rob's (alleged) comment is true? Would he be a racist for making a true statement? Is it possible that stating a truth qualifies someone for ostracism? Are some statements so taboo ("dare not speak its name") that they are beyond discussion? The implication is that thinking certain thoughts is reprehensible.

I lament that society as a whole, and some people in particular, are so uber-sensitive to their own concept of "correctness" that even mentioning said topic in their mind qualifies one as being in some "deserving-of-scorn" class. This is closely related to the "zero-tolerance" (AKA "zero-thinking") laws. What ever happened to being able to reason and rationally discuss ideas, no matter what they are, in critical non-prejudicial ways? Even "critical" is nowadays misunderstood as being "against" something (so is being "skeptical", but that's another matter). It's ironic (and telling) that those who rail against prejudice are themselves most guilty of it. Just ask them to even correctly define "prejudice".

Rob is in the unenviable position (between a rock and a hard place, they say) of having to "prove" something which is impossible to prove. It's sad that we bash our most promising citizens before they barely get off the ground. This is why we get leaders like Bush. And we deserve it. Perhaps Rob can from this, learn that one does not have to do wrong to be convicted. Now that we've flogged him enough, why don't we throw this trash into the recycle bin forever. —SteveDavison

• Sounds like something a Kraut might say. —JeremiahBurney
  

• Well, at least most of the people on both sides of this dispute think he's not a racist. Kris got me to participate in this little excercise in the interest of truth. The first wording was essentially "he's said some things that sound racist but we all know he isn't", which is a little bit weak. True, but weak. Philip's wording is a lot better. In any case, the City of Davis just now decided that banning the Japs from Davis was a bad idea some sixty years after the fact ... and then made a big deal about how tolerant the city is. If I was on city council I would have attached it as a rider to some obscure bill so the city didn't have to expose the shame of having such a racist law on the books. So really, I think Rob Roy can't be anything but an improvement to City Council. —BrentLaabs

Look, it seems pretty clear that everyone posting here basically agrees that (a) Rob isn't a racist, and (b) the reasons he was called a racist (or at least the reason someone brought the whole thing up) are not particularly good reasons, (c) some people feel that it is important to address this publically. This is a tempest in a teapot. Is there any reason we shouldn't just write his page to reflect that Rob does not shy away from the race issue, that people who know him can't take racism allegations against him seriously, and that while taking racism seriously, Rob is human and occasionally discusses race in a way that might raise some particularly sensitive eyebrows (while noting that he's admitted making careless statements before, and apologised when he felt he had made a mistake). That seems balanced, addresses the issue (since some people still feel that it actually needs to be addressed), and gets rid of the whole silly issue. Personally, if I don't hear any strong objections to this in a few days, I'll just write the blurb on his page to reflect this and be done w/ it. —EricKlein

Does Rob Roy currently work at Ben & Jerry's? Because I thought he was the ex-manager and was touting Free Cone Day as one of his past accomplishments, but I see him working there in the pictures. It doesn't seem right to me that he should take advantage of his current job for political purposes. Even more so because as stated on the Free Cone Day page, it has been an annual Ben & Jerry's promotional event since 1979 and so Rob Roy has little responsibility for it's existence, contrary to the statements on his posters. -NickSchmalenberger

• The photos on Free Cone Day are from 2005
  

• I am pretty sure he does...I saw him there one night a couple weeks ago. -myabrn
  

• Ok, I thought I was the only one a little irritated by the obvious campaign plug. -AllisonEriksen
  

• This has been talked to death on UCDLJ and elsewhere. Accept or reject his apology and move on. -TravisGrathwell
  

• Don't get me wrong, I love livejournal as much as the next guy, but the livejournal blogosphere is not all there is. Obviously some people were completely oblivious to the ongoing debates on livejournal, I think its really shortsighted to tell those who were oblivious to livejournal just to shut up and take note of what happened there. -KrisFricke
  

• I just think it's a pretty narrow issue and any continuing debate here would get real redundant real fast. I hate to see the wiki filled with useless clutter. -TravisGrathwell
  

• Yeah. I had no idea about the livejournal thing either. -NickSchmalenberger
  

• I wasn't trying to start another conversation page, just noting that I had thought it was just a me thing and it isn't. End of story. Plus I don't use LJ, so how in the world would I know that it was a burning issue there? -AE
  

The Aggie also mentioned it in an article and an editorial today. I think we should integrate some information about it into Free Cone Day

Damn! How did I miss this entire entry? I must have been off the wiki on 2006-03-13. I was the one who originally wrote that, and I specifically remember why: because I thought (and still do) that the "more brown" comment was tasteless. I knew it was a joke, so I didn't worry about it. However, if I didn't know him though his sister and via the wiki, I would have questioned his character on the basis of that comment. I think somebody had also just been asking if the Klu Klux Klown was a joke or not. The point of that whole paragraph was "He's not racist, although some of his jokes may come off as such if you don't recognize them as jokes". Sheesh. I should have paid attention... at no point did anyone call him a racist, just the opposite: I intended to say that he specifically was *not* a racist although his colorful comments could be taken (incorrectly) as such. Note my original edit comment: "Lest you get the wrong idea". My apologies to anybody who felt they had to defend him, and specifically to Rob if he thought he was being branded a racist. — JabberWokky