Joined: 05 Mar 2006 {Posts: 33 } Location: Colorado
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 12:57 Post subject: Favoritism
Powell Wrote:
I thought the show reinforces stereotypes. Each family is presented as the representatives of their respective "races." I was amazed when Rose tearfully told her black friends that "whites" don't know "where they came from" but blacks do. She is trying to attribute to blacks all the virtues she finds lacking in her own family.
Brian and Renee ARE too sensitive to perceived racial slights. Moreover, even the patrons of the "white" bar who were denounced as racist by Brian and Renee were not totally wrong. Yes, black neighborhoods in general have more crime. Yes, there have been credible academic studies of the negative black youth culture that denounces conventional success as "acting white." It is easier to kill the messenger than to address the problem.
After the lecture Brian and Renee gave the white kids about the use of the "n" word, Renee put down her son Nick (for purchasing a $150 watch without permission) by calling him a "Negro." "Do you have a job, NEGRO?!!
Sweetsister Wrote:
No, the truth is that POOR neighborhoods (not just "Black" neighborhoods)in general have more crime.
mjw82704 wrote:
Good point.
sweetsister wrote:
Thanks. You sound like you GET it, my friend.
fwsweet wrote:
This is simply not accurate. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty alone cannot explain the self-destructive rate of Black crime. For one thing, Hispanic urban populations throughout the nation are poorer than Black ghettos and yet have less crime. Migrant farm workers here in Florida are much, much poorer and yet have much less crime. This is not to say that poverty is a good thing, but the counterfactual beliefs expressed above seem to be based more on group loyalties than on the facts. If sweetsister, mjw82704, and/or anyone else want to discuss the U.S. social problem of the extraordinary rate of Black crime, its evidence, its causes, or its suggested cures, I would be happy to suggest some peer-reviewed scholarly readings. But I would also recommend splitting this topic off to the "Improving U.S. Society" forum, since the topic is only peripherally related to TV.
This discussion is under the Popular Culture /Black.White
I’m not sure why Sweetsister and I were chastised for discussing the poverty issue, when Powell brought it up and nothing was said to her for discussing it? I am thankful to fwsweet for his numbers input and would like to follow-up with sources on that issue. I feel if he did not like it being discussed under that topic then he should have said something to Powell as well, regardless if he agreed with her or not she was off the subject matter as well. What do you think?
F. Sweet wasn't chastising you. He was challenging or clarifying your statement which challenged and clarified A.D Powell’s contention about crime in black neighborhoods. He buttressed his statements by offering a list of peer-reviewed articles about the topic at hand.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 13:58 Post subject: Re: Favoritism
mjw82704 wrote:
Sweetsister Wrote:
No, the truth is that POOR neighborhoods (not just "Black" neighborhoods)in general have more crime.
mjw82704 wrote:
Good point.
sweetsister wrote:
Thanks. You sound like you GET it, my friend.
fwsweet wrote:
This is simply not accurate. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty alone cannot explain the self-destructive rate of Black crime. For one thing, Hispanic urban populations throughout the nation are poorer than Black ghettos and yet have less crime. Migrant farm workers here in Florida are much, much poorer and yet have much less crime. This is not to say that poverty is a good thing, but the counterfactual beliefs expressed above seem to be based more on group loyalties than on the facts. If sweetsister, mjw82704, and/or anyone else want to discuss the U.S. social problem of the extraordinary rate of Black crime, its evidence, its causes, or its suggested cures, I would be happy to suggest some peer-reviewed scholarly readings. But I would also recommend splitting this topic off to the "Improving U.S. Society" forum, since the topic is only peripherally related to TV.
This discussion is under the Popular Culture /Black.White
I’m not sure why Sweetsister and I were chastised for discussing the poverty issue, when Powell brought it up and nothing was said to her for discussing it? I am thankful to fwsweet for his numbers input and would like to follow-up with sources on that issue. I feel if he did not like it being discussed under that topic then he should have said something to Powell as well, regardless if he agreed with her or not she was off the subject matter as well. What do you think?
Frank was simply suggesting to everyone, not just mjw82704 and sweetsister, that the discussion be continued in the "Improving U.S. Society" forum, since it didn't really belong in the forum it was in.
Regarding the poverty issue, no one was chastised simply for discussing it. A.D. Powell made a statement of fact, something that, as Frank pointed out, is easily verified by consulting peer-reviewed studies, whereas the statement "[...]the truth is that POOR neighborhoods (not just "Black" neighborhoods) in general have more crime" is not.
This topic (favoritism) also reflects what one member recently called, "the main point of view on the discussion board," or, as sweetsister once put it, "the religious, social and political motivations behind this site."
A different aspect of this issue is discussed among management now and then. It is separate from whether this site shows bias or favoritism. It is the social role of this site. Why was it founded? Why is it maintained? Why has it grown from zero to nearly 250 registered members in a little over one year? Why does it receive about 900 visits from about 600 different user computers every day?
The answer, in my view, is that we provide a forum for scholarly debate/discussion of issues related to U.S. racialism that is unique in two ways. First, we discourage mere political advocacy. Second, we demand with near-fanatical intensity that members back up factual claims with peer-reviewed sources.
We discourage mere political advocacy. To my mind, this site has always been under pressure to become a support group for one faction or another. Some members would prefer that we lean towards one side or the other of the U.S. color line. Some want to see the site as a support group for interracially married couples. Some seek a support group for parents of biracial children. Some want advice on answering children's questions of regarding identity choice. Many (virtually all of our founding members) wanted the site to advocate the acceptance of a "multiracial" self-identity by government bureaucracies. Even more members (myself included) want to abolish all government enforcement of the "race" notion.
The thing is, guys, that there are hundreds of support groups out there for those issues and many others. I encourage people to join such sites and I hope that all the moderators encourage this as well. Many of our staunchest contributors manage such sites. This is great! Some of our best moderators are active moderators in such other sites. This is even greater!
I resist pressure to turn this site into a support group because, in all honesty, I think we would do a wretched job of it. I certainly lack the skills, and I suspect that my influence would cripple anyone else's efforts to turn ODR into a support group. I believe that other sites do a better job at providing advocacy and emotional support than we ever could.
On the other hand, we demand with near-fanatical intensity that members back up factual claims with peer-reviewed sources. In this we are unique. I think that we do this better than any other site discussing U.S. racialism. The result is that hundreds of our daily visitors come from college domain names, and many of them are following professor's class instructions. Medical schools, law schools, genetics departments, anthropology departments all send their students here--we have received visits from over 360 different colleges and universities in the past 30 days alone.
Someone recently suggested that, although factual accuracy is important, sensitivity to social feelings is also important. I disagree. Factual accuracy is the only reason that this site exists. To paraphrase a famous football coach, factual accuracy is not the most important thing--it is the only thing. Another person suggested that a member should not be publicly accused of ignorance merely because they are obviously uninformed as to the facts. Again, I disagree. There is no shame in being ignorant, as long as it is not a deliberate choice. We are all ignorant in some things and knowledgeable in others. Finally, someone suggested that moderators should be even-handed in awarding debate points--letting one person win one time but then letting the opponent win the next time. To put it mildly, this notion flies in the face of everything in which I believe. There are no winners here. There are no losers. We are all teachers. We are all learners. Personalities do not count. Facts backed up by peer-reviewed sources are the only things that count.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 04 Apr 2006 16:20; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 {Posts: 33 } Location: Colorado
Posted: Mon 03 Apr 2006 17:13 Post subject:
Okay thank you for the feedback. The part of this forum that I am starting to like the most is that I can get feedback from many people not just one. Thank you for that Frank. If more than one person tells me the same thing then I feel like it is more balanced.
I am very interested in numbers as well. I do get concerned with where these numbers come from and how accurate they are? That is the part where I say that people should be looked at as well. I have worked on studies in the past and know that numbers are only as accurate as the people who work on them “Ethics” is very important. So I hope that there are several studies for me to read on the subjects being discussed and stated as truth. But that goes under a whole new topic as I have learned.
Okay thank you for the feedback. The part of this forum that I am starting to like the most is that I can get feedback from many people not just one. Thank you for that Frank. If more than one person tells me the same thing then I feel like it is more balanced.
I am very interested in numbers as well. I do get concerned with where these numbers come from and how accurate they are? That is the part where I say that people should be looked at as well. I have worked on studies in the past and know that numbers are only as accurate as the people who work on them “Ethics” is very important. So I hope that there are several studies for me to read on the subjects being discussed and stated as truth. But that goes under a whole new topic as I have learned.
Thank you,
Melissa
Good job, Melissa! You are keeping an open mind. Perhaps it would be best if you did not rely only on the articles provided on this site for your research---check out other sites, Google your interests, etc. There are many other resources for the factual information you seek. Some people on this site DO have an agenda. But some of its members are also concerned with being ethical, polite, honest and accurate. Some are not. Handle with care and good luck.
This topic (favoritism) also reflects what one member recently called, "the main point of view on the discussion board," or, as sweetsister once put it, "the religious, social and political motivations behind this site."
A different aspect of this issue is discussed among management now and then. It is separate from whether this site shows bias or favoritism. It is the social role of this site. Why was it founded? Why is it maintained? Why has it grown from zero to nearly 250 registered members in a little over one year? Why does it receive about 900 visits from about 600 different user computers every day?
The answer, in my view, is that we provide a forum for scholarly debate/discussion of issues related to U.S. racialism that is unique in two ways. First, we discourage mere political advocacy. Second, we demand with near-fanatical intensity that members back up factual claims with peer-reviewed sources.
We discourage mere political advocacy. To my mind, this site has always been under pressure to become a support group for one faction or another. Some members would prefer that we lean towards one side or the other of the U.S. color line. Some want to see the site as a support group for interracially married couples. Some seek a support group for parents of biracial children. Some want advice on answering children's questions of regarding identity choice. Many (virtually all of our founding members) wanted the site to advocate the acceptance of a "multiracial" self-identity by government bureaucracies. Even more members (myself included) want to abolish all government enforcement of the "race" notion.
The thing is, guys, that there are hundreds of support groups out there for those issues and many others. I encourage people to join such sites and I hope that all the moderators encourage this as well. Many of our staunchest contributors manage such sites. This is great! Some of our best moderators are active moderators in such other sites. This is even greater!
I resist pressure to turn this site into a support group because, in all honesty, I think we would do a wretched job of it. I certainly lack the skills, and I suspect that my influence would cripple anyone else's efforts to turn ODR into a support group. I believe that other sites do a better job at providing advocacy and emotional support than we ever could.
On the other hand, we demand with near-fanatical intensity that members back up factual claims with peer-reviewed sources. In this we are unique. I think that we do this better than any other site discussing U.S. racialism. The result is that hundreds of our daily visitors come from college computers, and many of them are following professor's class instructions. Medical schools, law schools, genetics departments, anthropology departments all send their students here--we have received visits from over 360 different colleges and universities in the past 30 days alone.
Someone recently suggested that, although factual accuracy is important, sensitivity to social feelings is also important. I disagree. Factual accuracy is the only reason that this site exists. To paraphrase a famous football coach, factual accuracy is not the most important thing--it is the only thing. Another person suggested that a member should not be publicly accused of ignorance merely because they are obviously uninformed as to the facts. Again, I disagree. There is no shame in being ignorant, as long as it is not a deliberate choice. We are all ignorant in some things and knowledgeable in others. Finally, someone suggested that moderators should be even-handed in awarding debate points--letting one person win one time but then letting the opponent win the next time. To put it mildly, this notion flies in the face of everything in which I believe. There are no winners here. There are no losers. We are all teachers. We are all learners. Personalities do not count. Facts backed up by peer-reviewed sources are the only things that count.
Yes, we are ALL teachers and learners. But I hope one day you will realize that "sensitivity to social feelings" is integral to ANY discussion/debate. Not political-correctness, but SENSITIVITY. It's not necessary to verbally-eviscerate someone in order to make your point. "Personalities" may not be of paramount importance here, but we're still human. We all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. No "gathering of the minds" can be productive without a nod to civility.
Posted: Tue 04 Apr 2006 00:20 Post subject: Re: Favoritism
mjw82704 wrote:
Powell Wrote:
I thought the show reinforces stereotypes. Each family is presented as the representatives of their respective "races." I was amazed when Rose tearfully told her black friends that "whites" don't know "where they came from" but blacks do. She is trying to attribute to blacks all the virtues she finds lacking in her own family.
Brian and Renee ARE too sensitive to perceived racial slights. Moreover, even the patrons of the "white" bar who were denounced as racist by Brian and Renee were not totally wrong. Yes, black neighborhoods in general have more crime. Yes, there have been credible academic studies of the negative black youth culture that denounces conventional success as "acting white." It is easier to kill the messenger than to address the problem.
After the lecture Brian and Renee gave the white kids about the use of the "n" word, Renee put down her son Nick (for purchasing a $150 watch without permission) by calling him a "Negro." "Do you have a job, NEGRO?!!
Sweetsister Wrote:
No, the truth is that POOR neighborhoods (not just "Black" neighborhoods)in general have more crime.
mjw82704 wrote:
Good point.
sweetsister wrote:
Thanks. You sound like you GET it, my friend.
fwsweet wrote:
This is simply not accurate. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty alone cannot explain the self-destructive rate of Black crime. For one thing, Hispanic urban populations throughout the nation are poorer than Black ghettos and yet have less crime. Migrant farm workers here in Florida are much, much poorer and yet have much less crime. This is not to say that poverty is a good thing, but the counterfactual beliefs expressed above seem to be based more on group loyalties than on the facts. If sweetsister, mjw82704, and/or anyone else want to discuss the U.S. social problem of the extraordinary rate of Black crime, its evidence, its causes, or its suggested cures, I would be happy to suggest some peer-reviewed scholarly readings. But I would also recommend splitting this topic off to the "Improving U.S. Society" forum, since the topic is only peripherally related to TV.
This discussion is under the Popular Culture /Black.White
I’m not sure why Sweetsister and I were chastised for discussing the poverty issue, when Powell brought it up and nothing was said to her for discussing it? I am thankful to fwsweet for his numbers input and would like to follow-up with sources on that issue. I feel if he did not like it being discussed under that topic then he should have said something to Powell as well, regardless if he agreed with her or not she was off the subject matter as well. What do you think?
_________________
GOOD POINT! Powell did bring it up! Frank did not "move our discussion" until I challenged Powell....hmmmmmm....what a puzzlement.
There are many other resources for the factual information you seek.
Please cite these sources if any of them are peer-reviewed. Not here, though. This forum is to discuss policies and such. Substantive points regarding Black crime belong in the thread started for that purpose.
There are many other resources for the factual information you seek.
Please cite these sources if any of them are peer-reviewed. Not here, though. This forum is to discuss policies and such. Substantive points regarding Black crime belong in the thread started for that purpose.
I will as soon as you respond to my previous statement regarding sensitivity on these forums---DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CIVILITY IS INTEGRAL TO PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION/DEBATE? Answer this honestly and then I'll give you some links.
I will as soon as you respond to my previous statement regarding sensitivity on these forums---DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CIVILITY IS INTEGRAL TO PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION/DEBATE? Answer this honestly and then I'll give you some links.
Now you are being deliberately disruptive and defiant. Your posting privileges are hereby suspended until midnight, April 9, 2006.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 05 Apr 2006 01:47 Post subject: Re: Favoritism
sweetsister wrote:
GOOD POINT! Powell did bring it up! Frank did not "move our discussion" until I challenged Powell....hmmmmmm....what a puzzlement.
For what it is worth; I have followed this and the other discussion throughout. I can say that Frank is totally fair. When this forum was still on the Yahoo groups before Frank migrated the forum to the current software, he suspended AD Powell's posting priviledges for a week.
The one thing I like about this forum is the nonsense that goes on in most, if not all others, is not tolerated here. Yes some do have an agenda here, well I think most do, that is our nature. It is just that we each have a different sort of an agenda that we would like to advocate. But the facts are the facts. The problem in todays society, many people are afraid to speak the truth for fear it might be deemed offensive. That will not get us anywhere. For the problems to be fixed, you first must deal with the facts, and that goes for everybody. I'm off my soap box.
Posted: Wed 05 Apr 2006 04:37 Post subject: Re: Favoritism
DChapman wrote:
sweetsister wrote:
GOOD POINT! Powell did bring it up! Frank did not "move our discussion" until I challenged Powell....hmmmmmm....what a puzzlement.
For what it is worth; I have followed this and the other discussion throughout. I can say that Frank is totally fair. When this forum was still on the Yahoo groups before Frank migrated the forum to the current software, he suspended AD Powell's posting priviledges for a week.
That might have been the time me qnd her got in to it and Frank suspended us both.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
