As you are unwilling to tell me if you are a White person, I will not be engaging in any further dialog with you. As a non-white person, it is critical for me to know whether or not I am speaking with a White person.
As you are unwilling to tell me if you are a White person, I will not be engaging in any further dialog with you. As a non-white person, it is critical for me to know whether or not I am speaking with a White person.
Gus, you are treading on dangerous ground. Before posting another word anywhere on this site, please read The Rules, especially rules 2.5 and 2.6. If you cannot abide by those rules, I will be forced to ask you to leave.
As you are unwilling to tell me if you are a White person, I will not be engaging in any further dialog with you. As a non-white person, it is critical for me to know whether or not I am speaking with a White person.
I think that I did answer your question. I said:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
I am neither "white" nor any other color, or else that I am all colors because I feel a sense of kinship and solidarity with all of humanity.
If by "white" you are meaning to inquire about my genetic ancestry, then it may please you to know that my recent genetic ancestry is not exclusively European. If that is what you mean by "white" then I suggest that you read (or re-read) Matthew Jacobson's book. I would also have to recommend Frank's book The Legal History of the Color Line. Ancestry is not the sole determinant of what constitutes "whiteness" or "blackness."
Out of curiosity, why would my thoughts on these matters be any more so or less so relevant if I were in any sense "white?"
If you feel I have been disrespectful to the forum or am not abiding by the rules of this site, please, let me know. I will leave if my conduct is a problem.
I read the THE RULES. I paid particular attention to 2.5 and 2.6.
2.5 - 2.5 The “racial” or ethnic self-identity of other members is off-limits.
2.5.1 Do not discuss another member’s ethnicity or “race” without their permission.
2.5.2 Do not “racially” or ethnically label a member against their wishes.
I believe I asked if the person who posts as erasmusinfinity about his racial classification. I did not discuss his ethnicity or race. I have not labeled any member of this site except myself.
I do not believe I have broken any rules. If i have committed an infraction, please, help me understand what I did incorrect. The rules do not say that you cannot inquire about a person's racial classification - unless I am reading them incorrectly, which could be the case.
I don't know what "treading on dangerous ground" means. If I have broken a rule, please, tell me exactly what I did that was incorrect and the specific rule I violated.
I read the THE RULES. I paid particular attention to 2.5 and 2.6. I believe I asked if the person who posts as erasmusinfinity about his racial classification. I did not discuss his ethnicity or race. I have not labeled any member of this site except myself. I do not believe I have broken any rules. If i have committed an infraction, please, help me understand what I did incorrect. The rules do not say that you cannot inquire about a person's racial classification - unless I am reading them incorrectly, which could be the case.
Strictly speaking, your original question, "It would be helpful if you could let me know if you are a White person." was not a rules violation. The problem was in your response to the answer.
Some members self-identify with an ethnopolitical group and are eager to say so. Others change their self-identity depending on circumstances. Still others choose to avoid identity politics altogether. And still others honestly do not know how they would be perceived by Americans, because they are natives of Turkey, Pakistan, India, or Latin America.
The answer you received was, "Depending on the context of discussion, I would either consider that I am neither "white" nor any other color, or else that I am all colors because I feel a sense of kinship and solidarity with all of humanity." This indicated that your respondent either chooses to avoid identity politics altogether or switches self-identities depending on cirmcumstances.
If you had showed respect for the person's choice and backed off at that point I would not have warned you. Instead, you wrote, "As you are unwilling to tell me if you are a White person, I will not be engaging in any further dialog with you."
That statement had at least three things wrong with it. First, it was an implied criticism of the respondent's ethnopolitcial self-identity (or lack of it). Second, it was a dismissive refusal to accept a serious answer on ethnopolitical grounds. Third, it seemed to imply that ethnopolitical self-identity is biologically predetermined, and so expresses the very same pathological belief that this site was founded to study.
Nevertheless, you are correct that rule 2.5 (regarding expression of members' personal ethnopolitical self-identities) is not as clear as it might be. Thank you so much for pointing this out. I have modified the rule to better reflect the tone and ambience that this site strives to mantain. Rule 2.5 now states:
The Rules wrote:
2.5 Do not bring up any member’s personal ethnic self-identity. This site’s goal is to study U.S. racialism, not to embrace nor advocate any particular ethnopolitical self-identity. Neither your own personal self-identity nor that of any other member is pertinent to intellectual study of U.S. racialism.
Again, thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity.
In this light, I would be grateful if you could take a look at rule 1.1 and offer your thoughts:
The Rules wrote:
1.1 Understand the site’s one goal. — The site has but one goal: to study U.S. racialism (the belief that ethnopolitical self-identities are biologically predetermined). The site forbids expression of ethnopolitical solidarity. The site is hostile to African-American solidarity. It is hostile to White solidarity, Creole solidarity, Italian-American solidarity, Irish-American solidarity, Asian-American solidarity, “Mulatto” solidarity, Latino solidarity, Jewish solidarity, Muslim solidarity, and every other form of identity politics. The mission of this site is to explore the causes and consequences of U.S. ethnopolitical self-identities, especially those attributed to biological inevitability. The site does not support any particular self-identity. The site is not a support group for any ethnopolitical community. It neither supports nor opposes affirmative action. It neither supports nor opposes government demands for the collection of “racial” data. It does not strive to reduce “racism.” It does not strive to improve U.S. “race” relations. It is not a place to vent your grievances. Other sites have broader goals. Do not complain that the site’s goal is too narrow.
I'm still having difficulties understanding a few things.
You indicated three things I did wrong. One was an "implied criticism of the respondent". I don't know what an implied criticism is. Could you explain what you mean when you say implied criticism? And could you tell me who determines when someone has made an "implied criticism". This seems like it could be vague, subjective and problematic in a discussion of Racism. I would appreciate clarity around this.
Second, you indicated that I did not accept his answer. The respondent said what he said in answering my question. I did not feel he answered my original question. If you don't think someone has answered your question, does that mean you did not accept their response?
I said that I would not engage in further dialog with him. Is that against the rules of this site? Am I not free to choose to not have communication with a member of this site?
You indicated that thing third thing I did wrong was that I "seemed to imply that ethnopolitical self-identity is biologically predetermined, and so expresses the very same pathological belief that this site was founded to study. " This is the exact same issue I raised with the first thing you allege that I did incorrect. Who determines when a response "seems" or "implies" something?
It's difficult for me to take these allegations seriously seeing as they don't boil down to anything I did explicitly. They're mostly challenging assumptions about what I "seemed" to be saying or "implied". Your assumptions could be completely incorrect.
And now the rules have been modified so as that my previous conduct is now prohibited... You all are something.
Since the rules had to be amended, it would imply that I in fact did nothing incorrect. Perhaps you all didn't like or agree with my views, but in no way did I violate the policies of this site as they were written at that time. It would seem an acknowledgment and concession of this point may be in order.
My thought on Rule 1.1 point is that they say what they say. To my knowledge, I have not violated any aspect of rule 1.1. If I have, please, indicate the exact post where I explicitly breached any portion of this particular rule or any other policies of this site.
Could you explain what you mean when you say implied criticism?
You refused to continue talking with the other poster because he would not say whether he was White, thereby implying criticism of the person's refusing to choose.
Gus T Renegade wrote:
could you tell me who determines when someone has made an "implied criticism"?
In this context (courtesy in this web site), I determine it. Other moderators can also do so.
Gus T Renegade wrote:
If you don't think someone has answered your question, does that mean you did not accept their response?
Yes. At issue is not what you thought but that you reacted; by becoming petulant and discourteous because the person refused to answer an unsolicited personal question that was none of your business. Even in ordinary life, everyone has the right to refuse to answer an unsolicited personal question. This should not drive you to petulance.
Gus T Renegade wrote:
I said that I would not engage in further dialog with him. Is that against the rules of this site?
No. What was discourteous was your making your engagement conditional on his choosing an ethnopolitical self-identity.
Gus T Renegade wrote:
Am I not free to choose to not have communication with a member of this site?
Yes. But you are not free to criticize another member for refusing to choose an ethnopolitical self-identity.
Gus T Renegade wrote:
Who determines when a response "seems" or "implies" something?
I do. This is my website. I have also authorized the other moderators to do so.
Gus, are you asking these things because you want to know how to stay out of trouble in this site, or do you just want to argue with me?
If the former, the rule is simple, "2.5 Do not bring up any member’s personal ethnic self-identity, not even your own. ... Neither your own personal self-identity nor that of any other member is pertinent to intellectual study of U.S. racialism." Follow that directive from now on and you should be okay.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
