Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 12 May 2007 00:01 Post subject: Sagascend's Issues
Sagascend:
Quote:
I don't know DragonHorse, you seem to be on quite a roll today with the former and latter. If there is medication to cull that type of behavior get a prescription by all means.
Seriously, it's tiresome. This is not your personal blogsphere. It is a discussion group with many participants, personalities and agendas to balance in the interest of group civility. Whatever notable contributions you make are virtually cancelled out by your tone and combative approach.
And yes, every moderator and Frank will eventually crack down on posters who can't seem to help themselves and tap dance along or cross the line. If you call that aggression I have to say that the word choice is also interesting.
Listen obviously I have rubbed you the wrong way. I'm going to be real with you, and not to be offensive or reactionary but to let you know where I'm coming from if you don't know.
First off, if I have broken any rule on this board please state which ones and if I am indeed in error I will admit so and apologize as I always have.
I don't feel that I am at all combative, as in I come on a thread or start threads specifically to attack individuals. What I don't like it being misrepresented and misquoted. I don't consider that offensive, but defensive. If you don't like my "tone" whatever that is I can't help you in that I don't approach people in a nasty way unless I feel I am being disrespected first. If I am I will correct the person regardless of who they are without biting my tongue. I also admit people who constantly repeat the same illogical ridiculous nonsense, when they don't even know anything about what they are talking about (because they are foreign or whatever) is annoying.
Quote:
No but if you ever called any gay men I know out of their name they would happily rearrange your face. I would be careful about presuming that gay men don't have the requisite testostorone levels to get aggressive when someone gets out of line when they are minding their own business, unless you simply enjoy physical confrontation.
You may not need therapy but it is interesting that merely being in the presence of a gay person would spark such a reaction. Very interesting indeed.
First off, I have found you very aggressive since before I even posted on this site, when I was lurking. It usually seems to happen when you hear something you don't like, that is between you and Frank as you are a mod that is your privileged, but I honestly feel you are quite bias to political positions you do not like.
What in the world is this about. I did not say I go around calling people "f@ggots" I said I "used the word". I never said anything about attacking gay people or confronting people minding their own business, etc. I was referring more to politically correct language than homosexuals in general.
You could have simply asked what I meant. A simple question, and I would have clarified it instead of warning me I will get beat down if I go around insulting homosexuals or whatever.
Sorry I'm not a liberal and not a fan of homosexuality, or political correctness, and I was making light of it.
I never said nor do I support violence against homosexuals or verbally assaulting them unprovoked. That being said, based on my interpretation of the latest science I believe it to be a birth defect (at least in men) that will become a non issue in my lifetime as people are able to test for it.
I do not support gay marriage or adoption. I do support some limited gay union, because I feel it somewhat humane to do so. I do not like homosexual men "gaying" in front of me or in public spaces, what they do at home is their business.
That is my honest opinion and not hyperbole, and it won't be changed because it is not politically correct and a few people might be offended I even dare think such a thing. That very opinion will upset some people who are gay, but I know a gay girl who knows my opinion and is not upset at all, point is everyone has different levels of sensitivity and different abilities to talk abstractly about various issues without getting emotionally involved or ridiculous.
As we saw with a certain persons meltdown over illegal immigration a couple of weeks ago. A person I never attacked personally, a person who refused completely to listen to any logical reasoning or data that I provided.
I noticed recently that Caribj got suspended for comparing Latin America to American in colorism and racism and then advocating that Latin America could do some things to help afo-decendant people. That is my understanding. Patience, a Canadian comes here all the time and makes ridiculous statements about Americans and what she perceives as our racism, our intolerance, how bad our policies are and she gets a pass. What? Is she not foreign and comparing America to Canada?
I can pretty much talk about any issue with a very high rate of abstraction until people start directly insulting me or misrepresenting what I have said, when it is obvious or when they could easily ask a question to clear things up. I do not like that whatsoever.
You did that very thing today. So did Dchapman today (who I typically like very much), Melanie does it all the time (but for whatever reason I like her and she doesn't really bother me), Lmartin definitely does it on a regular basis. Patience from time to time as well, but that's cool.
However assigning positions to people when they are not stated is against the rules but they are not called on it. I also do not tend to run to the moderators I let it slide or correct them. I'm just not that litigious.
If you feel this is aggressive to clarify what I have said, and become irritated after I have clarified it once and the person keeps repeating it I find that troublesome and I call bias, because I can see you are very selective about who you take positions with.
Which I have observed and even research a little on this site, it is not my imagination that you overreacted and pop and attitude with those who disagree with you, and if they keep disagreeing you set up a situation where you can ban them if they don't provide whatever evidence you want. You are the only moderator who tends to do that on this site that I have seen since I have been here ,and it is always a situation where you personally are involved not as a third party but as a direct participant and I find this an abuse of power.
In reality it doesn't matter much, because this is a website, and I don't have to post here, I do so for entertainment, because I find it interesting, etc. I do debate, that is my style because that is my background since college (debate team), I do not go out of my way to be mean or nasty to anyone and I do try to make light of situations or levity, not to demean or hurt people but just to not be so serious, but even that offends people here, some people anyway. Then because I "hurt someone's feelings" a grown adult usually, often a man, who I feel should act like a man and not like a 12 year old girl, I am the bad guy. I really find it funny. Numerous people on this site have said things I find objectionable and racist, but I typically don't cry over it, because to me it is what it is. If it is not personally directed at me, I let it go, because I do believe in pluralism. I might engage in debate over the topic, but you have never seen me go @pe s#1t on this site because melanie say something negative about black folks (which she does regally).
Frank commented a few times that many people view this board as anti-black or bias against blacks.
I actually disagree, I don't think it is a "black" thing. I just think that black people who are not moderators state an opinion, and are not even overtly breaking the rule (anymore than various other people who do quite a bit) are called on it more often, due to the inability of the moderators to be unbiased. If someone breaks the rules but they are not speaking against illegal immigration, saying that Latin America might be more racist or colorist than America, supporting multiracial catagories, no true race, and other arguments that is cool, they get a pass.
If they don't go that route the rules are strickly inforced because they "upset" someone's sensabilities...I saw that quite clearly on the illegal immigrant threads and most recently on this Multiracial box thing.
If I'm banned for saying this, its all good...like I said I try to show respect but I don't bite my tongue when I feel something is wrong.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sat 12 May 2007 00:28 Post subject:
Dragon Horse,
I don't think I insulted you. If I did, I surely did not intened to. I was just trying to point out that you cannot discount someone elses experiences based on your own. People used to do that with me all the time. This is why I am sensitive to this.
If you had come out and stated:
Quote:
Based on my experiences in bookstores, I have not seen Black authors of various topics relegated to the "Black section".....
I would not have even responded, the thread perhaps would have died out. But instead you said Sowell was flat out wrong. Therein was the problem.
I think you are a valuable contributor here, as I think Jaime is. But you guys just have to chill a little, that's all. JMO.
I like strong discussions and I don't mind when someone disagrees with me. This doesn't mean we have to be enemies. I'm just saying this in general.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 12 May 2007 00:43 Post subject:
Dchapman:
I agree, and I have no issues against you, honestly I think it was all a misunderstand and that is why I apologized because after thinking about it, it did not seem to be in your character to act that way.
You are right we don't need to be enemies, but I do feel, and I don't consider myself paranoid, that I have been attacked more than anyone else in a personal way, and it is not because I attack people personally. It is because of the fact they don't like my views, regardless of how I say it.
I will say though going back to what Frank said about complaints of anti black bias:
I honestly don't believe the majority of people (or even 95% of people on this site are racist against black people).
I think what we see is the inherent bias everyone has.
The black people on this site or black decendant people (not assigning race to anyone) are not very sensative to people being aggressive or critical toward black people in general. What I mean is, people will come down hard on over racism, no doubt, I have seen this. What I mean is borderline issues people are not sensative toward, because I believe many people on this site who are black are conservative or they are so liberal they just let anything go short of overt racism.
However, let someone speak the same way about Latino/Hispanics/Latin America and all hell will break lose. People are hypersensative, and it is not just Jaime, and I believe because we have a lot of Hispanics participants on this board (which is cool) but they are far more sensative than the black ones toward attacks or strong critism of their group.
This is an example of selective outrage, and I see a lot of selection in what is offensive in this manner, not just on the Latino issues.
That is my take on what is going on, I don't think it is a black issue, it is a bias issue.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sat 12 May 2007 01:02 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
You are right we don't need to be enemies, but I do feel, and I don't consider myself paranoid, that I have been attacked more than anyone else in a personal way, and it is not because I attack people personally. It is because of the fact they don't like my views, regardless of how I say it.
Please, if you feel you have been attacked in an ad hominem way, bring this to my attention. I tend to let a lot go, what I may think is not personal, someone else will think it is.
I can't understand why folks (I mean people in general, notjust here) cannot have a discussion where when it gets heated, has to get personal.
I had an elderly cousin pass away a month ago. His son who grew up with my father, is very black identified. We had a series of discussions where it got very heated, yelling, etc. But after it was all over, it was back to normal, no hard feelings. That's the way I am. My brother who has a Japanese wife is not so much Black identified, but pissed off at the world. We cannot have a discussion be cause when it gets heated, he is very insulting.
Sagascend and I have gotten into it, but it never turned personal. That's the kind of shop I like to have: strong, heated discussions, without it turning personal.
I would really like to see you both try and work out your differences, maybe you will not "like" each other, but come to some sort of mutual respect where you can both state your opinions without each one feeling they have been slighted in some way.
People who know me in "real life" know that I can be a peace maker, though my reputation is the opposite in some quarters....LOL!!!
Anyway, no hard feelings......water under the bridge, we move on!!!!
However, let someone speak the same way about Latino/Hispanics/Latin America and all hell will break lose. People are hypersensative, and it is not just Jaime, and I believe because we have a lot of Hispanics participants on this board (which is cool) but they are far more sensative than the black ones toward attacks or strong critism of their group. This is an example of selective outrage, and I see a lot of selection in what is offensive in this manner, not just on the Latino issues.
You are in error on one point and misunderstand the other.
You are in error to think that "we have a lot of Hispanic participants on this board." Presently we have only two: Salsassin (Peruvian ) and me (Puerto Rican). Garciaparra might possibly be Mexican-American, but it is hard to say since he does not speak Spanish. I cannot imagine what makes you think that Salsassin and I (and possibly Garciaparra) are less strictly monitored, since all but one of the Hispanics are currently on suspension. (I am the only Hispanic not on suspension.)
You misunderstand my prohibition against bashing other nations. I have no problem with anyone bashing U.S. Hispanics in the context of racialized U.S. politics. Bash away with my blessing.
What I forbid is this website being used as a platform to bash other nations' citizens, governments, or traditions. This prohibition is not based on any ethical stance or moral squeamishness. It is, quite simply, because I do not find it interesting. I want this website to be used for "Discussion of U.S. Racialism" (just like it says at the the top of every page) and nothing else. If we suddenly got an influx of new members whose sole interest was debating abortion, 15th century madrigals, or Shakespeare, I would stop that too, and for the same reason.
DH - Dean hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. The issue is not your opinion or political perspective, but how you present it. He and I have agreed to disagree on a number of issues and are in vehement agreement on others. Such is life in a democracy, and such is respectful debate between people who have opposing views but maintain civility.
I don't dislike you and value your contributions. In fact, I often agree with you when you are being reasonable, presenting evidence to back up your claims, and not being rude to posters who have done nothing to raise your ire (like Patience). If I don't agree with you, well, at least you made a good argument that I would not seek to find fault with. The problem is that, in the interest of being "real" and speaking your piece, the quality of your arguments has an inverse relationship with that tactic. You will discern a clear pattern in my responses. I don't like generalizations based on personal perspectives or because someone has political/social axes to grind. Formulating such arguments is the epitome of ignorance, IMO. I don't like it when a poster comes down on another with personal attacks or ridicule when that person did nothing to provoke such behavior. I don't like what a call "shadowboxing," which is using a poster as a stand-in to bash an entire group or presume that a poster represents a group s/he has defended or supported. Sometimes I will argue a position that is counter to what I personally believe just because a poster has done one of the previous things. Usually, if the person is an emotional debator they will accuse me of something (being gay is usually the culprit...please get a life ) because they have nothing substantive to say and feel cornered, usually because the original argument was poorly stated, illogical or personal opinion masked as fact and I have called them on that.
Everyone, including me, can get snarky with someone who starts something unnecessarily. Some people either have a chip on their shoulder about an issue or just believe that they can say whatever they want to about Blacks/Whites/gays/Christians/Muslims or whoever because they expect that moderators or other posters agree and back them up. This is akin to the locker room talk among men about women and "faggots," the White-bashing that goes on among "minorities," the Black-bashing that goes on among non-Blacks, the male-bashing that goes on between women, so on and so forth. This is NOT the site where people should expect to get "high fives" for out-group bashing. Usually these people encounter a poster or moderator who will set them straight tactfully or at least well within the bounds of the rules.
Very few posters or moderators on this site march in lock-step when it comes to the issues that we debate and discuss. For me personally, I know so many different types of people and mold-breakers of all stripes that I simply don't have a lot of patience for ignorance and bold-faced statements from posters who are not seeking to learn but seeking to opine in their ignorant states. And I see a similar sentiment in operation on the moderator board, though all of us certainly have blind spots because of our own perspectves and experiences.
I wouldn't go apologizing for your views. Believe whatever you like - it's a free country afterall. But uttered (typed) speech is public in nature, and as public speech it is subject to censure, praise, ridicule or any other rhetorical response by an individual or community. Consider how you might react to the following statement, which is a slight change in your words:
Quote:
I did not say I go around calling people "niggers" I said I "used the word"
I wonder if it sounds as ridiculous to you when applied to Blacks as it did to me when applied to gays? Insert any vitrolic slur you like and the meaning remains eye-raising. Again, it is the statement that is problematic.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 12 May 2007 11:07 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
DH - Dean hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. The issue is not your opinion or political perspective, but how you present it. He and I have agreed to disagree on a number of issues and are in vehement agreement on others. Such is life in a democracy, and such is respectful debate between people who have opposing views but maintain civility.
I don't dislike you and value your contributions. In fact, I often agree with you when you are being reasonable, presenting evidence to back up your claims, and not being rude to posters who have done nothing to raise your ire (like Patience). If I don't agree with you, well, at least you made a good argument that I would not seek to find fault with. The problem is that, in the interest of being "real" and speaking your piece, the quality of your arguments has an inverse relationship with that tactic. You will discern a clear pattern in my responses. I don't like generalizations based on personal perspectives or because someone has political/social axes to grind. Formulating such arguments is the epitome of ignorance, IMO. I don't like it when a poster comes down on another with personal attacks or ridicule when that person did nothing to provoke such behavior. I don't like what a call "shadowboxing," which is using a poster as a stand-in to bash an entire group or presume that a poster represents a group s/he has defended or supported. Sometimes I will argue a position that is counter to what I personally believe just because a poster has done one of the previous things. Usually, if the person is an emotional debator they will accuse me of something (being gay is usually the culprit...please get a life ) because they have nothing substantive to say and feel cornered, usually because the original argument was poorly stated, illogical or personal opinion masked as fact and I have called them on that.
Everyone, including me, can get snarky with someone who starts something unnecessarily. Some people either have a chip on their shoulder about an issue or just believe that they can say whatever they want to about Blacks/Whites/gays/Christians/Muslims or whoever because they expect that moderators or other posters agree and back them up. This is akin to the locker room talk among men about women and "faggots," the White-bashing that goes on among "minorities," the Black-bashing that goes on among non-Blacks, the male-bashing that goes on between women, so on and so forth. This is NOT the site where people should expect to get "high fives" for out-group bashing. Usually these people encounter a poster or moderator who will set them straight tactfully or at least well within the bounds of the rules.
Very few posters or moderators on this site march in lock-step when it comes to the issues that we debate and discuss. For me personally, I know so many different types of people and mold-breakers of all stripes that I simply don't have a lot of patience for ignorance and bold-faced statements from posters who are not seeking to learn but seeking to opine in their ignorant states. And I see a similar sentiment in operation on the moderator board, though all of us certainly have blind spots because of our own perspectves and experiences.
I wouldn't go apologizing for your views. Believe whatever you like - it's a free country afterall. But uttered (typed) speech is public in nature, and as public speech it is subject to censure, praise, ridicule or any other rhetorical response by an individual or community. Consider how you might react to the following statement, which is a slight change in your words:
Quote:
I did not say I go around calling people "niggers" I said I "used the word"
I wonder if it sounds as ridiculous to you when applied to Blacks as it did to me when applied to gays? Insert any vitrolic slur you like and the meaning remains eye-raising. Again, it is the statement that is problematic.
I appreciate you responding in a respectful way, I will get back to you later on...all my inlaws are here from Japan. Got here last night. My place is nuts. Speaking of tolerance, I just had to explain to my inlaws why so many Americans are overweight and wear tight clothes. They think it is horrible. Oh they also said my wife and I are fat, I don't tell my wife's weight but she is 5'4" and average for an American. I'm 6'3" and weigh 220. They also said, "wow you got so black"...haha...will be an interesting weak, glad they don't speak English or they will likely piss people off on a regular basis.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 13 May 2007 01:13 Post subject:
sagascend:
I have had time to go over your views. I will say that I am fully aware I'm not perfect and I do have a habit of being defensive and overreacting (online, not in real life). I think I act like this online, because I have posted on unmoderated sites, like blackprof.com where what I have said it usually taken out of context, I've been called names, accused of things that I did not argue or ever say...I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. So I try to back up what I say and I also am very careful about safeguarding it. I also tend to get annoyed when being taken out of context (even in real life), for what reason I don't know, as this has not commonly happened to me off the web.
I think Patience has rubbed me raw, not because of her beliefs per se, but because she is not American and obviously does not know much about the history of American racial dymaics and comes here and makes broad generaliations about what Americans are, what white Americans are, what black Americans are, what we should be doing, and what is right and wrong in our society. I find that a little more than arrogant, it is condescending. I have been to Canada twice in my life, and have friends from there and who live there, it is no racial paradise, in fact I would argue racism is increasing in Canadian society not decreasing for many reasons. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Still I realize that to attack her just because I do not like her views in a condescending way that is based on her personality and not on the point she is trying to make it not just against the site rules, but also wrong.
As far as homosexuals, like I said, I don't "hate" them, or I would not have lived with one. I just have my opinions and feelings about their behavior and I don't think that is going to change. I also do not equate homosexuality to race or disapproving of homosexuality to be equal to racism or discrimination against women, etc. In that I don't think I'm alone or unusual. All discrimination to me is not equal because of its historical context, because of its power to harm the individual, etc. Although i am aware there have been people fired, denied housing, even killed because they were gay...I can also say that this happened to fat people, handicapped people, etc. As far as I know gays have not been enslaved in America, had Jim Crow law created to oppress them, had their land forcefully removed by the U.S. Army, etc. Also there issue is behavioral, and one can argue all day long about if this is innate or not (many people think it is not innate), and if it is innate is it still legitimate (alcoholism and depression can be innate but we don't condom them as good things). Being black, being born to traditionally Jewish family, being Native American, being a female...these things are not in dispute ever and have been an object of overt ridicule not due to actions of the individual but just because they exist. I also believe in cultural norms, I don't believe in "its all good all the time". I believe at some point one has to draw a line and say this is outside of our norms and it is not acceptable here. If we don't do that eventually there will be no line left and we will have hedonistic barbarism (like late ancient Rome and Greece)...right before we have collaspes...that's my opinion.
For my part if I have offended anyone I will apologize as that was never my intention, but I won't apologize for my views as I believe they are legitimate and I am entitled to them. I will also attempt to defuse situations before they get out of hand, I think we can all do that more often.
For my part if I have offended anyone I will apologize as that was never my intention, but I won't apologize for my views as I believe they are legitimate and I am entitled to them. I will also attempt to defuse situations before they get out of hand, I think we can all do that more often.
Thank you for being so honest! It's true that trying to communicate in cyberspace is so much harder than in person because people can be so much more confrontational behind the anonymous safety of a keyboard. You are a braver person than I to even post on BlackVoices or Blackprof. It does get out of control there. People are downright rabid about shutting down other perspectives, and, just like there is no reasoning with a rabid dog, there is no rational discussion with a person hell-bent on chewing your butt first and considering what you are actually saying later (or never). That is definitely not my intent and I apologize if I came across that way.
Perhaps it is this culture of talking heads that we are living in now that, where it is important to bring two people together on opposite sides of an issue to yell at one another and create a circus-like atmosphere. Problems are never solved in this manner. Real issues and opportunities for deeper understanding don't exist and that's a shame. We need more sites and cybergroups like this one. Hell we need more person-to-person dialogue like this, not to mention academic scholarship. It truly changes people for the better. Many times people discover that there are shared interests underlying one's position on an issue, and that they are not as oppositional as appearances would lead one to believe.
As I said earlier, you're a valuable contributor to this group and I look forward to future discussions with you.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) because they have nothing substantive to say and feel cornered, usually because the original argument was poorly stated, illogical or personal opinion masked as fact and I have called them on that.
Speaking of tolerance, I just had to explain to my inlaws why so many Americans are overweight and wear tight clothes. They think it is horrible.