I would like to say a special THANKS to MP (mulattoprince) for validating my case about "group promotion" posts.
Examples:
MP wrote:
The Frank Sweet made that statement after a serious heated flame war (debate) between blacks, mulattoes, and F sweet had to get involved if I am not mistaken. He is referring I think to those black posters who were being irrational in their opinions. They kept arguing and arguing and came across as very combative. A debate would break out often between blacks and mulattoes and this would degenerate down to the most a very combative and hostile level. It was after one these flame wars that Frank poster the thread that you read when he said American Americans may be incapable of mature debate. He was basically talking about those black posters (commenters) he had encounters whom were fighting on the thread with mulattoes. Then one of the posters insinuated (said) that this site is bias meaning anti black. Frank Sweet had warned many of the black posters before about their behavior, he had also had warned certain mulattoes before too.
He statement was made after one of these flame wars between blacks and mulattoes. His statement was directed at mainly certain black posters who were being irrational.
This one is a doosey:
MP wrote:
But the reality is, that it is the blacks on average who trigger most of the flame wars, and whom are responsible for many new rules being created to reprimand posters (commenters).
It is almost like can't follow the laws of a society or community, why should one be expected to follow the rules of a forum?
MP, don't worry about substantiating any of this.
And....SCENE!!! ROFL!!! Dean thanks for saving me the effort. Other - the answer to your question is YES, this diatribe is against the rules. I try to deal with this type of nonsense by requesting evidence that I am pretty sure people don't have for this kind of mouthing off (usually stated as wrong or unsubstantiated opinions). My record on cracking down on this in my forum is there for everyone to see. I don't care WHO does it, if I think that an opinion stated as fact will light a spark my intent is to address it. Sometimes a similarly vigilant posters beats me to it, sometimes they point out what I have missed.
Now I will say that there is some residual nonsensical posting in my forum, but I believe that most members ignore this stuff anyway. Eventually that will get dealt with as well.
It happens every time, doesn't it? People - THIS is exactly what we are trying to avoid. THAT, and a shared perception among the moderators that this recent rash of pro-Mulatto flaming is why Dean made this decision.
Other - the answer to your question is YES, this diatribe is against the rules.
Thanks for the clarification. I just hope his behavior doesn't cause non-mulattos to question if mulattos "can't follow the laws of a society or community, why should one be expected to follow the rules of a forum?"
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Sun 28 Oct 2007 02:23 Post subject:
OTHER:
Quote:
P.S. Is Sankofa really going to be banned just because he had a race-based reason for posting to inform? I mean, he/she (sorry, Sankofa, I'm not sure which) was already being informed, since he/she said he had been reading posts. So, is it a ban-able offense to join to inform people based on a specific reason? I'm so confused. Perhaps I need to study the rules of this board further before I continue to post...
Trust me when I say this. Sankofa's reason for joining was simply a pretext for banning him - a totally contrived justification at that. Trying to understand the decision logically is like trying understand why God allows bad things to happen to good people. Don't bother. Just pray that lightening doesn't strike you next.
Trust me when I say this. Sankofa's reason for joining was simply a pretext for banning him - a totally contrived justification at that. Trying to understand the decision logically is like trying understand why God allows bad things to happen to good people. Don't bother. Just pray that lightening doesn't strike you next.
The last time that HST delierately posted off-topic multiple times, after having been warned multiple times, I wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Even in a thread about people posting off-topic, you and HST flout the rules and deliberately posted off-topic, not just once but repeatedly. I have grown weary of having to split off your off-topic posts, only to have you post off-topic again after the split, and then having to contend with your complaining about it, as if you had never read the rules. The only choices that I seriously considered were whether to delete your deliberately off-topic posts or to just go ahead and expel both of you from this site once and for all. I will no longer listen to your and HST's complaints. Read and follow the rules or go away. I have lost patience with you both.
My patience is now exhausted. HST is hereby expelled permanently.
Trust me when I say this. Sankofa's reason for joining was simply a pretext for banning him - a totally contrived justification at that. Trying to understand the decision logically is like trying understand why God allows bad things to happen to good people. Don't bother. Just pray that lightening doesn't strike you next.
The last time that HST delierately posted off-topic multiple times, after having been warned multiple times, I wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Even in a thread about people posting off-topic, you and HST flout the rules and deliberately posted off-topic, not just once but repeatedly. I have grown weary of having to split off your off-topic posts, only to have you post off-topic again after the split, and then having to contend with your complaining about it, as if you had never read the rules. The only choices that I seriously considered were whether to delete your deliberately off-topic posts or to just go ahead and expel both of you from this site once and for all. I will no longer listen to your and HST's complaints. Read and follow the rules or go away. I have lost patience with you both.
My patience is now exhausted. HST is hereby expelled permanently.
WHOA! What just happened here!? Now my mind is reeling!!! If High School Teacher's response to me was off-topic, then my post must have been off-topic. Was it? Because my post was a question to you about something you posted to Sankofa. I was curious about the possible banning of Sankofa.
What's really going on, Frank? Did Sankofa get banned? Did High School Teacher get banned? High School Teacher answered my question to you about Sankofa's possible banning. I don't know the history of Sankofa and High School Teacher, but I know that my question about whether one can get banned for joining with a SPECIFIC desire of WHAT to inform people on has still not been answered and I know that High School Teacher could not POSSIBLY have been off-topic, when his post was on EXACTLY what we were all talking about. Oh my. I think, perhaps, I do not belong here.
What just happened here? … If High School Teacher's response to me was off-topic, then my post must have been off-topic. Was it? Because my post was a question to you about something you posted to Sankofa. I was curious about the possible banning of Sankofa. What's really going on, Frank? Did Sankofa get banned? Did High School Teacher get banned?
Yes, I expelled both HST and Sankofa in separate incidents for separate reasons. Yes, your post asking about Sankofa’s expulsion was off-topic. You started the thread to discuss Dean's policy changes in the "Improving U.S. Society" forum. My expulsion of Sankofa and HST for different reasons had nothing to do with Dean's policy changes.
Both expulsions were entirely my decisions without immediate input from other moderators. Hence, it seems unlikely to me that the general membership is interested in my reasoning.
If you wish to discuss Sankofa's expulsion or HST's expulsion with me personally, I suggest that you start a PM thread to this effect.
On the other hand, if you wish to get input from the other moderators on this topic, we already have two threads in the Management Conference Room on the subjects, so you should append your questions to those two threads.
Finally, if you feel that my decisions regarding Sankofa and HST are in fact of interest to the general membership, then feel free to start a new thread in this forum with an appropriate title (perhaps, "The expulsion of Sankofa and HST," or some such title).
Returning to the topic at hand, I think that Dean is on the right track. I hereby propose a rules change targeting the flame-wars that erupt periodically in the two political advocacy forums.
proposed new rule wrote:
2.7 Do not generalize to a U.S. "racial" or ethnic group in the political advocacy forums. (Generalization is allowed in the comparative studies or technical and scholarly forums, where moral judgment is forbidden.)
[The following expansion would go into the commentary.] Example 1: You may narrate personal experiences of bigotry or mistreatment, and you may name the group membership of the perpetrators. But you may NOT generalize by opining that a group shares collective guilt for members' evil acts. Example 2: You may narrate personal experiences of compassion or wisdom, and you may name the group membership of the role models. But you may NOT generalize by opining that any group shares collective honor for members' good acts. Example 3: You may express pride in your personal achievements. But you may NOT express pride in your membership in any U.S. "racial" or ethnic group. Example 4: You may write: "John Smith is stupid, cruel, and bad-smelling." But you may NOT write: "It is my personal opinion, based upon my own personal experiences, that White [or Black] folks are [any adjective at all]."
My intent above is to stop today's imbalance, where some members express pride in "multiracial" or "mulatto" self-identity (which is seen as denigrating Blacks), and this encourages others to express pride in "Black" self-identity by openly denigrating non-Blacks. The proposed rule has some drawbacks, but I think that we can live with them.
First, the rule will stop all expressions of "racial" or ethnic pride. But such expressions do little to advance the site mission (to inform and to become informed about U.S. racialism), and many sites available on the internet accommodate such posturing already.
Second, the rule forces "racial" or ethnic generalizations into the comparative studies or technical and scholarly forums. But these forums should be able to handle any consequent workload increase because they are already more strictly policed to prevent moral judgment and unsubstantiated opinions.
Third, and most problematic, it makes it hard to discuss just who in U.S. society supports involuntary forced ethnic identity (the ODR). After all, Americans' enforcement of the ODR is central to this site's mission. The proposed rule would allow arguments that academics (like Gates, Williams, Piper, etc.) and liberals (add your own list of names) lead in the ODR' moral enforcement, since neither "academics" nor "liberals" are ethnic groups.
But the argument that more African Americans support the ODR than any other ethnicity would be forbidden without some hard data. (FYI, this is A.D.'s thesis, which she usually follows with likely causes for this support usually involving envy or self-shame. And it also relates to my own thesis, that African-American political leaders have publicly supported the ODR since its invention in the 1830s.) In essence, the rule would make such arguments harder to express.
Posted: Mon 29 Oct 2007 15:03 Post subject: Re: my take...
Monica wrote:
I read where Fsweet said (and I'm paraphrasing) that African americans may be incapable of mature debate.
MP mulattoprince wrote:
Frank Sweet made that statement after a serious heated flame war (debate) between blacks, mulattoes, and F sweet had to get involved if I am not mistaken.
It is embrassing to be falsely accused by Monica of something that I never wrote, and could not have written, given my well-known fanaticism about verifiable facts. It is even more embarassing to be defended by MP on the grounds that I was angry.
My statement, to which Monica apparently refers was
fwsweet wrote:
Part of the problem may be that African-American activists are less accustomed to mature debate. As has been noted by many observers, African-American political and academic leadership tends to portray dissent by African Americans as "racial" treason. And so, many who would otherwise be interested in the subject refrain from participating for fear of being labeled. This abandons the field to zealots who violate the rules more often and so attract more punishment. At least, this seems to be the consensus among those who have tried to discuss U.S. racialism on other online forums.
The entire context of the above statement is available at http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=3205. As anyone can see, my statement was about activists, and specifically about those activists who accuse African American moderates of racial treason, thus driving them away from intellectual discourse in order to dominate the forum themselves.
That MP should reify Monica's falsifcation by defending something that I could never have written is reprehensible, but MP is already suspended until 11/2/2007.
That Monica should create the original falsification, by changing my statement about intellectual thugs into a statement about African Americans, and by changing my statement about their lack of exposure to intellectual discourse into a statement about innate ability is both horrifying and unacceptable. Monica's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, 4 November 2007.
Third, and most problematic, it makes it hard to discuss just who in U.S. society supports involuntary forced ethnic identity (the ODR). After all, Americans' enforcement of the ODR is central to this site's mission. The proposed rule would allow arguments that academics (like Gates, Williams, Piper, etc.) and liberals (add your own list of names) lead in the ODR' moral enforcement, since neither "academics" nor "liberals" are ethnic groups.
It shouldn't be a surprise that I'd support this rule change. This next statement may come as a surprise: I actually see this drawback as a clear benefit to furthering our understanding of the ODR and how/why it is enforced. I think it's time to separate the organized political opposition of Black politicians/academics and some non-Black liberals that early multiracial activists had from the emotional (and frankly, ignorant) perspectives that Americans from all backgrounds have about the ODR, racialism and the concept of race itself. I believe that we might be mistaking the virulent responses from various Blacks to the multiracial movement and towards many mixed race people with SSA ancestry for the general enforcement of the ODR. There is literally another side to this equation. If the ODR was enforced to protect the "purity" of whiteness, it stands to reason that there would be no discernable emotional response from Whites because the legitimacy of whiteness as a construct is not challenged by the multiracial label, nor is there any perceived threat of "defection" from whiteness by Whites with SSA ancestry. That lack of response does not indicate to me that the ODR isn't accepted or enforced by non-Black Americans, just that the multiracial label does not bring up the need to police the borders of whiteness. Not yet at least.
fwsweet wrote:
But the argument that more African Americans support the ODR than any other ethnicity would be forbidden without some hard data. (FYI, this is A.D.'s thesis, which she usually follows with likely causes for this support usually involving envy or self-shame. And it also relates to my own thesis, that African-American political leaders have publicly supported the ODR since its invention in the 1830s.) In essence, the rule would make such arguments harder to express.
It should be forbidden, IMO, or at least expressed with much less certainty than it has been. It's one of the reasons I asked the question in a recent thread - What does it mean to support the ODR? Since most of us seem to agree that the political leaders that represent (or claim to represent) African Americans often do not do so authentically or legimately, is it farfetched to assume that we simply do not know how most African Americans feel about the ODR and have been concluding that we do via proxy (and maybe some hate mail in the case of A.D.)?
is it farfetched to assume that we simply do not know how most African Americans feel about the ODR and have been concluding that we do via proxy (and maybe some hate mail in the case of A.D.)?
In my saner moments, I agree.
In my more speculative moments, I judge by the fact that no White-looking site member has ever complained that Whites demand that he/she self-identify as Black. While many site members have complained that Blacks do precisely this. The IV hate-mail showed the same pattern. Consequently, I cannot help but suspect that advocacy/support/belief in the ODR is more prevalent amongs Blacks than among Whites.
The problem, as Maya accurately points out, is that we really have no data on how ordinary rank-and-file folks feel about this. This site's membership is a wretched sample. Judging by our demographics, our membership is very untypical: overwhelmingly female, Black, young, and very well-educated. And nobody can seriously suggest that letters-to-the-editor are a good sample, since they exclude the vast majority of people who simply don't give a damn about the issue.
Maya is right, as usual. It takes great self-control to remind myself that my own principles demand that I refrain from reaching conclusions without data. Fortunately, the moderators keep me honest.
Posted: Tue 30 Oct 2007 00:05 Post subject: ALL Stereotypes are STUPID!
fwsweet wrote:
proposed new rule wrote:
2.7 Do not generalize to a U.S. "racial" or ethnic group in the political advocacy forums. (Generalization is allowed in the comparative studies or technical and scholarly forums, where moral judgment is forbidden.)
[The following expansion would go into the commentary.] Example 1: You may narrate personal experiences of bigotry or mistreatment, and you may name the group membership of the perpetrators. But you may NOT generalize by opining that a group shares collective guilt for members' evil acts. Example 2: You may narrate personal experiences of compassion or wisdom, and you may name the group membership of the role models. But you may NOT generalize by opining that any group shares collective honor for members' good acts.
I am all for curbing generalizations. I loathe stereotypes and, on this point, I will generalize - I hate ALL stereotypes!
fwsweet wrote:
Example 3: You may express pride in your personal achievements. But you may NOT express pride in your membership in any U.S. "racial" or ethnic group.
Hmmm, that would be a bummer. Would this also curb a member's tendency to discuss advantages, enjoyable traditions, positive interactions, etc. based on their race? I mean, is it just the "proud to be ______" that would be eliminated or ALL references to the upsides that a person perceives about their own "race"?
Posted: Tue 30 Oct 2007 00:42 Post subject: Accusation of "hate mail"
sagascend wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Third, and most problematic, it makes it hard to discuss just who in U.S. society supports involuntary forced ethnic identity (the ODR). After all, Americans' enforcement of the ODR is central to this site's mission. The proposed rule would allow arguments that academics (like Gates, Williams, Piper, etc.) and liberals (add your own list of names) lead in the ODR' moral enforcement, since neither "academics" nor "liberals" are ethnic groups.
It shouldn't be a surprise that I'd support this rule change. This next statement may come as a surprise: I actually see this drawback as a clear benefit to furthering our understanding of the ODR and how/why it is enforced. I think it's time to separate the organized political opposition of Black politicians/academics and some non-Black liberals that early multiracial activists had from the emotional (and frankly, ignorant) perspectives that Americans from all backgrounds have about the ODR, racialism and the concept of race itself. I believe that we might be mistaking the virulent responses from various Blacks to the multiracial movement and towards many mixed race people with SSA ancestry for the general enforcement of the ODR. There is literally another side to this equation. If the ODR was enforced to protect the "purity" of whiteness, it stands to reason that there would be no discernable emotional response from Whites because the legitimacy of whiteness as a construct is not challenged by the multiracial label, nor is there any perceived threat of "defection" from whiteness by Whites with SSA ancestry. That lack of response does not indicate to me that the ODR isn't accepted or enforced by non-Black Americans, just that the multiracial label does not bring up the need to police the borders of whiteness. Not yet at least.
fwsweet wrote:
But the argument that more African Americans support the ODR than any other ethnicity would be forbidden without some hard data. (FYI, this is A.D.'s thesis, which she usually follows with likely causes for this support usually involving envy or self-shame. And it also relates to my own thesis, that African-American political leaders have publicly supported the ODR since its invention in the 1830s.) In essence, the rule would make such arguments harder to express.
It should be forbidden, IMO, or at least expressed with much less certainty than it has been. It's one of the reasons I asked the question in a recent thread - What does it mean to support the ODR? Since most of us seem to agree that the political leaders that represent (or claim to represent) African Americans often do not do so authentically or legimately, is it farfetched to assume that we simply do not know how most African Americans feel about the ODR and have been concluding that we do via proxy (and maybe some hate mail in the case of A.D.)?
By what evidence does Maya accuse me of sending "hate mail"? I've never sent any "hate mail" in my life, but I've sure been on the receiving end!
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 30 Oct 2007 01:09 Post subject: Re: Accusation of "hate mail"
Powell wrote:
sagascend wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Third, and most problematic, it makes it hard to discuss just who in U.S. society supports involuntary forced ethnic identity (the ODR). After all, Americans' enforcement of the ODR is central to this site's mission. The proposed rule would allow arguments that academics (like Gates, Williams, Piper, etc.) and liberals (add your own list of names) lead in the ODR' moral enforcement, since neither "academics" nor "liberals" are ethnic groups.
It shouldn't be a surprise that I'd support this rule change. This next statement may come as a surprise: I actually see this drawback as a clear benefit to furthering our understanding of the ODR and how/why it is enforced. I think it's time to separate the organized political opposition of Black politicians/academics and some non-Black liberals that early multiracial activists had from the emotional (and frankly, ignorant) perspectives that Americans from all backgrounds have about the ODR, racialism and the concept of race itself. I believe that we might be mistaking the virulent responses from various Blacks to the multiracial movement and towards many mixed race people with SSA ancestry for the general enforcement of the ODR. There is literally another side to this equation. If the ODR was enforced to protect the "purity" of whiteness, it stands to reason that there would be no discernable emotional response from Whites because the legitimacy of whiteness as a construct is not challenged by the multiracial label, nor is there any perceived threat of "defection" from whiteness by Whites with SSA ancestry. That lack of response does not indicate to me that the ODR isn't accepted or enforced by non-Black Americans, just that the multiracial label does not bring up the need to police the borders of whiteness. Not yet at least.
fwsweet wrote:
But the argument that more African Americans support the ODR than any other ethnicity would be forbidden without some hard data. (FYI, this is A.D.'s thesis, which she usually follows with likely causes for this support usually involving envy or self-shame. And it also relates to my own thesis, that African-American political leaders have publicly supported the ODR since its invention in the 1830s.) In essence, the rule would make such arguments harder to express.
It should be forbidden, IMO, or at least expressed with much less certainty than it has been. It's one of the reasons I asked the question in a recent thread - What does it mean to support the ODR? Since most of us seem to agree that the political leaders that represent (or claim to represent) African Americans often do not do so authentically or legimately, is it farfetched to assume that we simply do not know how most African Americans feel about the ODR and have been concluding that we do via proxy (and maybe some hate mail in the case of A.D.)?
By what evidence does Maya accuse me of sending "hate mail"? I've never sent any "hate mail" in my life, but I've sure been on the receiving end!
I am certain that Maya was referring to hate mail A. D. received, and not sent.
Posted: Tue 30 Oct 2007 18:11 Post subject: Re: ALL Stereotypes are STUPID!
OTHER wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Example 3: You may express pride in your personal achievements. But you may NOT express pride in your membership in any U.S. "racial" or ethnic group.
Hmmm, that would be a bummer. Would this also curb a member's tendency to discuss advantages, enjoyable traditions, positive interactions, etc. based on their race? I mean, is it just the "proud to be ______" that would be eliminated or ALL references to the upsides that a person perceives about their own "race"?
The problem is, do we want to allow, "I love being white because we whites rule the world. We are smarter, prettier, handsomer, more masculine, more feminine, more honest, more compassionate, and we do not smell bad like all those non-whites."? If not, I cannot see allowing the same thing with different labels.
Posted: Tue 30 Oct 2007 21:46 Post subject: Re: ALL Stereotypes are STUPID!
fwsweet wrote:
OTHER wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Example 3: You may express pride in your personal achievements. But you may NOT express pride in your membership in any U.S. "racial" or ethnic group.
Hmmm, that would be a bummer. Would this also curb a member's tendency to discuss advantages, enjoyable traditions, positive interactions, etc. based on their race? I mean, is it just the "proud to be ______" that would be eliminated or ALL references to the upsides that a person perceives about their own "race"?
The problem is, do we want to allow, "I love being white because we whites rule the world. We are smarter, prettier, handsomer, more masculine, more feminine, more honest, more compassionate, and we do not smell bad like all those non-whites."? If not, I cannot see allowing the same thing with different labels.
Aw, man, I would LOVE to have a conversation with someone like that! I definitely see what you're saying and I'm sure the moderators will carefully judge those kinds of statements - someone saying I love being Italian because most of the women in my family can cook versus I love being Korean because all Koreans are better looking than other groups of people.
Posted: Wed 31 Oct 2007 03:17 Post subject: Re: ALL Stereotypes are STUPID!
OTHER wrote:
... I'm sure the moderators will carefully judge those kinds of statements ...
Ultimately, that is what it boils down to. The rules are there to give the moderators the ammunition that they need. It is up to each moderator to decide how to use that ammunition.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
