Just like "beating the yellow light before it turns red", the ability of disagreeing without being disagreeable, is truly an art form. I'm curious as to how serious you'd wish for the debate format to be?
Wow, DucorpsToo, I'd bet your discussions on this board are amazing!
Although I do like the rigor and intent behind the structure that you provided an example of, I think the effect of implementing a similar approach across the board here would be to discourage participation from all but the most dedicated members. It may also not be appropriate for all fora/discussions.
Having said that, maybe a cool idea would be to set aside a thread or forum for specific, more structured point/counterpoint argument-based discussions on our hot topics. Frank has already initiated a version of this with the Black Rage and White Privilege thread.
Having said that, maybe a cool idea would be to set aside a thread or forum for specific, more structured point/counterpoint argument-based discussions on our hot topics. Frank has already initiated a version of this with the Black Rage and White Privilege thread.
Not really. Debates are structured back-and-forth polemics. Participants argue opposite sides of an issue, one pro, the other con. Expository discussions in contrast are oriented around everyone working together to uncover insight into a phenomenon by sharing their diverse knowledge and experiences.
A debate has a winner and the goal is to win. An expository discussion is more like the question-and-answer session after you present a formal paper at a conference. There is no winner and the goal is for everyone to have a better understanding of the subject by hearing others' contributions.
Both forms of discourse are important, of course, but they do differ.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 363 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Wed 16 May 2007 01:11 Post subject:
Quote:
This first experience has made me lean towards AD’s contention that there is something uniquely brittle about the ideology of Black ethnic identity. It is not that it reacts with rage to White racism. That makes sense. It is that it reacts with unthinking rage to multiracialism by English-speaking Americans with Black ancestry.
The way I saw it was that Dragon Horse reacted with rage, not necessarily unthinking, to a multiracialism by an English-speaking Amrerican with black ancestry that is specifically premesed on the worthlessness of a black identity, and grounded on stereotypes about black people and black culture. This is not my site and I am not a moderator, and I am neither black nor do I have anything against a multiracial identily, but let me say after reading the back and forth I felt much sypathy for DH and was fairly shocked at the decision to suspend him. Maybe it was TMK's tone as much as what he was saying. I don't know.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 16 May 2007 02:36 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
* Should we have a rule allowing political advocacy but only if it does not verbally attack entire groups? -- I would agree with this if the members wanted it. In this particular case, however, no one has been more vigorous in attacking multiracialism than DH. (Why not consider yourself Black, since Blacks come in all colors? Why call yourself anything other than Black since this will not save the planet? Denying your Blackness is genetic self-hatred. – indeed it was this last accusation, repeated after warning that got DH suspended). Again, I suspect that DH was implying that we should forbid criticism of Blacks but allow criticism of other groups.
Why do you constantly do this.
Are you intent on lying to hear what you want to hear?
The first time you did this it was on the illegal alien thread saying that I resort to sarcasm when I can not make logical statements and then said my statement was illogical. It was not, I explained it prefectly, and you backed down. The point was that you should not have made a idiotic statement like that to begin with as admin of this site, that shows obvious bias. Why don't you just ask for clarification if you don't "understand" because the issue was you not "understanding".
First off you are dead wrong and obviously have not read what I said to Lmartin, if you did you would not make such a post.
In fact you would have banned him for constantly attributing various things to me that I did not say or even imply.
Which I corrected over and over again which I thought was against the rules. He was not even warned.
YOu are 100% wrong about my opinion and the fact that you are 100% wrong leads me to believe you purposefully remain ignorant of it, because it is pretty clear.
I said, pretty clearly many times on this site that I do not have any problem (in fact support) people being able to say they are biracial or mulitracial.
For instance, if someone comes up to them and says "oh you are black" and they say "no I am not, I'm biracial, my dad is black and my mom is white, or if they just say ...no what I am is not your business".
No issues what so ever, never had an issue and never will have an issue.
What I had an issue with is creating a new box on the census. I have no issue with checking multiple boxes, which obviously implies multirace, which is the definition (multiple races). There are very specific reasons I outlined for this position. It has nothing to do with me being against "multiracialism/biracialism" in and of itself, I don't see it as an either/or, you must be for anything or against everything.
As far as that Mulattokid...my issue with him was not him saying he is mulatto or multiracial. I have never raised that issue with him or anyone else on this board.
He said that "black American was ridiculous" is that not making a value judgement, is that not against the rules?????
You can promote multiracialism, I have no issue with that. The issue is you don't have to do it at the expense of another group.
I have spoke about black people on this site, but I have never on this site put down whites as a race. I have spoken against illegal immigration and illegal aliens (most of whom are Hispanics) but I have never trashed all Hispanics on this site. I have never trashed multiracial people on this site when speaking about blacks. Why? It is not necessary.
If you really, after reading this think that this is an issue of someone advocating their racial/ethnic/or absence of group then something is wrong....really wrong.
The only people I know who can think that advocating for their group has to include trashing people, making historically incorrect statements for the purpose of disparaging others (there would be no other reason) is Stormfront.com.
The way I saw it was that Dragon Horse reacted with rage, not necessarily unthinking, to a multiracialism by an English-speaking Amrerican with black ancestry that is specifically premesed on the worthlessness of a black identity, and grounded on stereotypes about black people and black culture.
This is true. TheMulattoKid's in-your-face, aggressive advocacy of multiracialism and his opposition to and ridiculing of Black identity are shocking. Few mixed people have the courage to defy a Black person who repeatedly accuses them of self-hatred for not identifying as Black. Also, I agree that TheMulattoKid's premise that Black identity is worthless (for anyone with a realistic choice of avoiding it) is offensive to you. (It is not offensive to me, by the way. Personally, I think that Americans take "Black" self-identity much too seriously. On the other hand, DH's explicitly accusing TheMulattoKid of cowardice because he chooses not to subject himself to the racism consequent to being seen as Black in the U.S. is unspeakably offensive to me. But what offends you or me is not the point.)
The point is that, as far as I can tell, and as far as anyone has been able to point out, TheMulattoKid violated no rules. On the other hand, DH's repeated ad hominem attribution of motives to another member was explicitly against the rules, especially since he was warned to stop in the bluntest possible terms. See http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?p=23552#23552 for details.
If you have a specific suggestion to make regarding the rules, I am all ears.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 16 May 2007 03:49; edited 5 times in total
Why do you constantly do this. ... The only people I know who can think that advocating for their group has to include trashing people, making historically incorrect statements for the purpose of disparaging others (there would be no other reason) is Stormfront.com.
Second and final warning. If you post once more here without making a specific site management suggestion, your posting privilege will will be cut off here as well.
Well, some rules are necessary, of course, but I agree with your main point.
How about this. Maya often deals with incipient spirals by identifying generalizations. If someone says, "my Italian relatives like pasta," she lets it go. But if someone says, "all Italians like pasta," she often jumps in.
What if other moderators used her approach? What if the moderators simply discourage White/Black generalizations? In other words, (1) "Imus is a lout," produces response (2) "Sharpton is a lout," which produces (3) "More Whites than Blacks are louts," at which point the moderator jumps in. The moderator's goal is not to debate the accuracy of statement 3. The goal is to stop the spiral by cutting it off at the first Black/White generalization. (I would not bother with conservative/liberal generalizations because I don't get letters complaining about liberal/conservative bias.)
I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I like this idea.
Discussion of public figures (past, present, celebrity, etc) should be excluded from rules violations. Par for the course....
Posters self-identity choice(s) should be free from debate.
DH did violate at least one rule mentioned, but he reacted wrong, in anger, and over what some young kid said about Blacks. Being petulant and metaphorically 'taking your ball back and leaving' is not the way to win 'friends and influenced others'......
MK should have been required to produce evidence on his 'negative views on Blacks' or state it was his own personal biased opinion.
MK did indeed post erronous/flaming info on AAs, however, he should have been warned and/or forced to document. I believe he did in subsequent posts (after the fact ), but [IGNORE] always works for me.
MK should have been required to produce evidence on his 'negative views on Blacks' or state it was his own personal biased opinion.
MK did indeed post erronous/flaming info on AAs, however, he should have been warned and/or forced to document. I believe he did in subsequent posts (after the fact ), but [IGNORE] always works for me.
Agreed. The question is why wasnt he? This is why this site is perceived this way.
Be specific. Show the message number where TheMulattoKid violated a rule, and the paragraph number of the rule violated. You might want to check out this message, where I answered something similar from Dragon Horse. Lacking this specificity, your complaint is too vague to act upon. For more on this point, please read The Rules, paragraph A.7.
You are not going to get a different answer by posting the same site-policy question over and over in different threads. Please stop now. You are already under suspension in the content forums. If you post the same question here again, I shall revoke your privilege to post in this forum as well.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Being petulant and metaphorically 
