Posted: Fri 22 Feb 2008 15:37 Post subject: Saga's suspension of my posting priviledges has no merit.
She is the one arguing on a fatih basis and refused to present a clear example till you cornered her into it. And then when I challenged her new assertion. She suspends me because she asked me to prove a negative. You and I know well you can't prove a negative. She has claimed there is a specifically White priviledge and gave an example of of Black on White bias. I stated if she had any example of that bias not existing when Black and Asians were put in the same situation, then she gave me 24 hours to provide evidence of a study that showed Asians received the same priviledges. In other words she tried to flip the burden on me. And the fact is I showed both by sub prime lending and you did by the Missiissipi case that Asians did enjoy preferences over Blacks. Her suspension is petty because I engaged her on her pet bias: White Priviledge.
I requested evidence of studies that showed specific White only priviledge, she did not provide it. Now she is singing the different tume that White priviledge is not having to identify by race. I gave examples where they did. White Guilt is a perfect example of them identifying by race. So her suspension has no merit whatsoever.
1. Salsassin should have taken any concerns up in Site Management, as I requested that he do on two occassions BEFORE his suspension occurred. He, like any other poster, has a right to outside mediation by Frank and the moderators when a poster, Frank or moderator takes a stance that might seem biased/unreasonable/against the rules. Salsassin's failure to exercise his rights PRIOR to suspension is truly unfortunate, but it is no indication of bias on my part.
2. Salsassin was suspended for defying a moderator (4.7 Never, Ever Defy A Moderator). I asked Salsassin to provide evidence for the claim that White privilege doesn't exist because some Whites have economic/social disadvanatages and non-Whites are "burdened." When I asked for this evidence and requested that Salssasin not continue to post in the thread until complying, he posted at least 2 more messages, one of which stated very clearly that he had no intention of complying with my request.
Here's a redux of the exchange that led to the suspension:
sagascend wrote:
At this point, you need to provide evidence supporting your contention that White privilege doesn't exist because some Whites and so-called minority groups, Blacks in particular, are "burdened." You'd have to demonstrated that there is no "racial" difference when similarly situated groups are compared. I have already provided evidence that there is a racial difference when similarly situated groups are compared, even when identical credentials are presented in blind presentations.
sagascend wrote:
Jaime: The conversation has to stop until you answers my questions and request for evidence. I am not going to respond to repeated requests for information that I have provided. If there are issues with that stance please take it up in Site Management and Frank/mods/others can weigh in.
Aside from that I will most certainly address the rest of your post - but not until my request for evidence has been responded to. Thanks.
Salsassin wrote:
The feeling is mutual.
sagascend wrote:
It might be, but my requests stand. Please address them within 24 hours or you risk suspension. Please take up any issues in Site Management. Thanks.
1. Salsassin should have taken any concerns up in Site Management, as I requested that he do on two occassions BEFORE his suspension occurred. He, like any other poster, has a right to outside mediation by Frank and the moderators when a poster, Frank or moderator takes a stance that might seem biased/unreasonable/against the rules. Salsassin's failure to exercise his rights PRIOR to suspension is truly unfortunate, but it is no indication of bias on my part.
Frank was involved in the discussion and supported my quandaries. Therefore a second mediation was not needed. You asked for proof after I requested proof of the opposite.
Quote:
2. Salsassin was suspended for defying a moderator (4.7 Never, Ever Defy A Moderator). I asked Salsassin to provide evidence for the claim that White privilege doesn't exist because some Whites have economic/social disadvanatages and non-Whites are "burdened." When I asked for this evidence and requested that Salssasin not continue to post in the thread until complying, he posted at least 2 more messages, one of which stated very clearly that he had no intention of complying with my request.
Because you had refused to answer specific questions Which Frank called attention to as well. So fair call.
Quote:
Here's a redux of the exchange that led to the suspension:
sagascend wrote:
At this point, you need to provide evidence supporting your contention that White privilege doesn't exist because some Whites and so-called minority groups, Blacks in particular, are "burdened." You'd have to demonstrated that there is no "racial" difference when similarly situated groups are compared. I have already provided evidence that there is a racial difference when similarly situated groups are compared, even when identical credentials are presented in blind presentations.
sagascend wrote:
Jaime: The conversation has to stop until you answers my questions and request for evidence. I am not going to respond to repeated requests for information that I have provided. If there are issues with that stance please take it up in Site Management and Frank/mods/others can weigh in.
Aside from that I will most certainly address the rest of your post - but not until my request for evidence has been responded to. Thanks.
Salsassin wrote:
The feeling is mutual.
sagascend wrote:
It might be, but my requests stand. Please address them within 24 hours or you risk suspension. Please take up any issues in Site Management. Thanks.
And you still failed to address my PRIOR post:
Quote:
Again, can you show that it is a WHite priviledge over a Black burden? In other words are Asians put next to Blacks recieving the same considerations? Or are Blacks still discriminated when placed against this control group?
Quote:
Again, if there is an Anti Black bias that means that when you replace a control group that bias should dissapear as well. White man and Black man apply for a job, When White man and Asian man apply for similar job that level of discrepancy should not be there. If it is, then it is not Anti Black bias, but anti non -white bias.
Quote:
You will have to show through evidence that those disadvantaged people are somehow in better positions than ALL other groups in similar economic situations that are seen as non-white. In the sub prime example, Asians actually do better than Whites as far as sub prime lending goes.
Quote:
I still do not see those priviledges specifically associated with Whiteness. So you will have to give concrete examples.
Notice I already gave the sub prime example. Even though Saga claims I gave no example.
Notice my question:
Quote:
As for the names, have you shown that Non-White names that are also seen as non-Black names are equally disadvantaged? Is Carlos Hurtado or Mai Cheng having the same problem with White priviledge in names?
Quote:
You have provided evidence of a Black White inbalance. You have not shown this inbalance to exist between Whites and other groups or that the imbalance does not exist between blacks and other groups
Further addressed by Frank:
Quote:
But that works only if your definition of "White" is something other than "everyone who is not A-A." If you define "White" as "everyone who is not A-A" then your distinction collapses. "The benefits of not being A-A" is semantically identical to "the drawbacks of being A-A."
Do you in fact define "White" as something other than "everyone who is not A-A"? If so, then just how do you delineate that category today? Exactly who, in the United States today, lacks what you consider "White privilege" other than A-As? (And please do not say, "the poor," thus defining Whiteness as wealth.)
Quote:
But you reply that "White Privilege"is not mere White-on-Black racism, but something else entirely. Okay, so then I ask you to define it. And you keep coming back to White-on-Black racism. I hate to say it Maya, but unelss you can objectively define the phenomenon, you seem to be going in circles.
Quote:
All I am asking for is a first-cut at a rough draft of an objective definition. If we cannot even do that, the concept is useless.
Quote:
But that works only if your definition of "White" is something other than "everyone who is not A-A." If you define "White" as "everyone who is not A-A" then your distinction collapses. "The benefits of not being A-A" is semantically identical to "the drawbacks of being A-A."
Note that the onus was on SAGA to provide evidence that NON-WHITE groups did not have similar " priviledges" over Blacks. Something I sopecifically requeested. And Saga responded later:
sagascend wrote:
At this point, you need to provide evidence supporting your contention that White privilege doesn't exist because some Whites and so-called minority groups, Blacks in particular, are "burdened." You'd have to demonstrated that there is no "racial" difference when similarly situated groups are compared. I have already provided evidence that there is a racial difference when similarly situated groups are compared, even when identical credentials are presented in blind presentations.
In other words she just flipped what was requested of her and pushed the burden of proof on me. As Frank has aleardy stated, she did NOT present such evidence, all she presented was evidence of Black and White discrepancies.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
