Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 131 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 02:11 Post subject: Civility rules in the Political Advocacy Fora
Despite being a once and future Backintyme author, intensely interested in the topics discussed here, I've been almost entirely absent from the whole site because of the incivility in the political advocacy fora. When faced with repeated stereotyping, hostile remarks about "the Left" and "liberals," I feel hopeless about anything constructive being accomplished. Sure as hell don't want to argue with people who hate me from the get-go for being "one of THEM." And I'm not even a Democrat, or all that liberal, just an Independent Obama voter! Were I a conservative, there are probably statements here that would make me feel the same way-- stereotyping, hostile remarks about "the right" or "conservatives" are no more in keeping with the goal of understanding than when they are directed at liberals.
If we forbid insulting generalizations about entire ethnic categories of people, why allow that kind of thing when the categories are political? If there are civility rules in the other fora, why exempt the political advocacy fora when they are the most prominently displayed at the top of the page?
Or, if we are going to have two zones, one with greater civility requirements and more seriousness than the other, why not put the more civil and serious fora at the top of the page instead of the bottom?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 14:10 Post subject: Re: Civility rules in the Political Advocacy Fora
kpauljohnson wrote:
Despite being a once and future Backintyme author, intensely interested in the topics discussed here, I've been almost entirely absent from the whole site because of the incivility in the political advocacy fora. When faced with repeated stereotyping, hostile remarks about "the Left" and "liberals," I feel hopeless about anything constructive being accomplished.Sure as hell don't want to argue with people who hate me from the get-go for being "one of THEM." And I'm not even a Democrat, or all that liberal, just an Independent Obama voter! Were I a conservative, there are probably statements here that would make me feel the same way-- stereotyping, hostile remarks about "the right" or "conservatives" are no more in keeping with the goal of understanding than when they are directed at liberals.
If we forbid insulting generalizations about entire ethnic categories of people, why allow that kind of thing when the categories are political? If there are civility rules in the other fora, why exempt the political advocacy fora when they are the most prominently displayed at the top of the page?
Or, if we are going to have two zones, one with greater civility requirements and more seriousness than the other, why not put the more civil and serious fora at the top of the page instead of the bottom?
I take it this is aimed at me.....
Where exactly is there in-civility?? Politics in the "real world" certainly are not civil. Where is there hostile remarks made about the "left" and "liberals"??? Made by me personally, or quoted from a column that I have posted. Who hates you from the get go??? Me??? How would you come to that conclusion when you have really never really conversed in that forum.
What I have done is displayed articles and information on what is taking place in our poliical climate. It's all not nicey nice unfortunately. Have I insulted people?? If I have, please show me. I have been insulted, and while I have let people know they have insulted me, I let it go as I have somewhat of a thick skin (usually).
Hey what anybody wants to say about the "right", I may get "angry", but I will try and counter their points. Heated discussions are almost a guarantee. That's ok because that's the way it is on school boards, local councils all the way up to Congress, that's life. As long as there are no personal attacks. At least that's the way I see it.
I have always been told that to be in politics or to discuss it, you need a thick skin, and do not take it personally because somewhere down the line you will always encounter opinions, and facts you do not like. From there, it is how you deal with them.
There are plenty of other forums for you to participate in. If the Political Advocacy is too "hectic", simply don't participate in it. I will not be offended. Of course, you are welcome to post any points to counter those whom you have a disagreement with. It could end up in a heated discussion, but to say the person "hates" you, I think would not be justified, unless they attacked you personally or sent you a nasty PM. Things I would never do.
If we forbid insulting generalizations about entire ethnic categories of people, why allow that kind of thing when the categories are political? If there are civility rules in the other fora, why exempt the political advocacy fora when they are the most prominently displayed at the top of the page?
Or, if we are going to have two zones, one with greater civility requirements and more seriousness than the other, why not put the more civil and serious fora at the top of the page instead of the bottom?
Good questions. We have discussed the incivility of the two flame-war forums several times. My most recent explanation, in response to a suggestion that we allow moral judgment everywhere, was posted here.
fwsweet wrote:
We limit moral judgment to the two political advocacy forums in order to keep flame-wars under control. The problem is that moral judgments cannot be argued rationally. No matter how loudly posters cloak their consciences in rationalizations, each person's stance stems from his or her inner core and cannot be changed by reasoning. (See the recent debate between two moderators on homosexual marriage in California, for example.) Your thesis in the case that triggered this thread regarded poverty and lack of social mobility in Latin America. Now, I might strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with policies that cause starvation and ignorance. I might feel that the planet is overpopulated, and so the sooner the poor perish, the better off everyone else will be. What would be the educational benefit of a debate between us? Because differences in moral compass are not subject to intellectual persuasion, they turn into flame-wars, which repulse scholarly visitors and so detract from the site's mission. As the other moderators can attest, I am constantly on the verge of closing down the two political advocacy forums because of their flame-wars. I tolerate them ungracefully because it can be informative to see just how differently people see "right" and "wrong." I would entertain arguments that moral judgment (right vs. wrong) arguments should be banned entirely. But allowing them to spread beyond the two flame-wars forums would, in my view, detract from the site mission.
Although I personally find "liberal vs. conservative" debates distasteful, I do not shut down the flame-war forums entirely because some of the brightest, most articulate members here (including DragonHorse, Dean, Caribj, Creole Gal, and erasmusinfinity) seem to get such a kick out of hammering each other. Lobby popcorn sales go up each time that a "liberal vs. conservative" battle begins.
Regarding the relative positioning of the forums on the main index page, the current ranking puts the most heavily posted-to forums at the top. I would be more than happy to move the flame-war forums down. In fact, most online discussion groups put site management and operations forums at the top, and I have been considering making this change anyway.
Nevertheless, I am open to comments, questions, observations, and suggestions regarding the two flame-war forums.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 14:25 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Regarding the relative positioning of the forums on the main index page, the current ranking puts the most heavily posted-to forums at the top. I would be more than happy to move the flame-war forums down. In fact, most online discussion groups put site management and operations forums at the top, and I have been considering making this change anyway.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 14:53 Post subject:
Quote:
Although I personally find "liberal vs. conservative" debates distasteful, I do not shut down the flame-war forums entirely because some of the brightest, most articulate members here (including DragonHorse, Dean, Caribj, Creole Gal, and erasmusinfinity) seem to get such a kick out of hammering each other. Lobby popcorn sales go up each time that a "liberal vs. conservative" battle begins.
Hey, I hold no animosity towards any of the mentioned above. We may have very heated discussions though. I have an aunt (moms sister), and uncle (Jewish), whom I am very close to. They happen to be radical left wingers (at least IMO). They were also among the original hippies. I have got into screaming matches with my aunt, but when it's over, we laugh and put it behind us. My brother is different, he gets down right hostile and insulting.
But the "left"/"right" battles as much as I wish did not have to take place, they always will. It's the nature of the beast.
Apropos of nothing, my personal dislike is due to the "left" versus "right" oversimplification. There are two problems with the false dichotomy. First, the labels are arbitrary. Objective measurement would locate both Hitler and Stalin at the same extreme (of wanting complete state control--in a "good cause," of course). Second, and more important, is that the same person can be far-left on some issues, far-right on others, and apathetic or moderate on still others. I know that I am.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 19:07 Post subject:
I have been in many arguments in the political forum, none of them have resulted in a suspension, the other forums have been the problem. Seriously, I do not dislike anyone I tend to argue with. Sometimes they have good points and make me consider a point of view I ordinarily would not. I think I understand that these are not evil people, so I can accept they think differently even if I feel they are wrong. Politics is about how power is shared in society and we can see that throughout most of history power does not conceded willingly. There has been violence, argument, shouting down opponents, etc. Could things be better in society in general or on this board? Yes, but I tend to like things the way they are. I agree with Frank, that moralizing is far too subjective and therefore not constructive for a forum such as this. It would just lead to even more intense fighting. I have seen this on many other sites. There could be people who come here who would expect Frank to base his morals on Sharia law or on a certain type of secular philosophy. Think of the trouble this would cause. It is best to use some basic common respect (i.e. refrain from name calling)and try to apply logic to a situation and accept that everyone will not agree with your logic.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 18 Sep 2009 19:27 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I have been in many arguments in the political forum, none of them have resulted in a suspension, the other forums have been the problem. Seriously, I do not dislike anyone I tend to argue with. Sometimes they have good points and make me consider a point of view I ordinarily would not. I think I understand that these are not evil people, so I can accept they think differently even if I feel they are wrong. Politics is about how power is shared in society and we can see that throughout most of history power does not conceded willingly. There has been violence, argument, shouting down opponents, etc. Could things be better in society in general or on this board? Yes, but I tend to like things the way they are. I agree with Frank, that moralizing is far too subjective and therefore not constructive for a forum such as this. It would just lead to even more intense fighting. I have seen this on many other sites. There could be people who come here who would expect Frank to base his morals on Sharia law or on a certain type of secular philosophy. Think of the trouble this would cause. It is best to use some basic common respect (i.e. refrain from name calling)and try to apply logic to a situation and accept that everyone will not agree with your logic.
I think that you know I love to argue!!! I think that you know that I know sometimes you like to be devils advocate...at least I think you do!!!
The only way to get suspended in the Political Forum is perhaps an out right lie or personal attack. Other than that, it's free.
Trust me, this forum is civil compared to most politically oriented forums on the internet. Heavy heated discussions are not for everybody.
Well, unless someone objects, I shall go ahead and swap the positions of the "Political Advocacy" and the "Site Operation" forums, moving the former to the bottom and the latter to the top. In the meantime, I ask those members who enjoy the rough-and-tumble of political debate to please tone it down. You are scaring visitors.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 131 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Sat 19 Sep 2009 12:08 Post subject: Re: Civility rules in the Political Advocacy Fora
"I take it this is aimed at me".....Actually you intervened in my defense when I was greeted with a shitstorm of abuse immediately upon my arrival from one individual who targeted me as an Evil White Liberal. You played no part in making me mostly avoid the site and feel reluctant to invite friends, relatives, MHA colleagues, to check it out and participate.
But when I came back and saw recent conversations, it was your rhetoric that underscored how deeply unwelcome I feel in the forum. That's subjective and I don't want to impose my values on anyone, but most anyone I know would find it a toxic atmosphere. But moving it to the bottom of the site certainly removes the sense that I'd be inviting my liberal friends, relatives, and Melungeon friends into a threatening, bullying atmosphere just to come in here.
"Where exactly is there in-civility?? Politics in the "real world" certainly are not civil. Where is there hostile remarks made about the "left" and "liberals"??? Made by me personally, or quoted from a column that I have posted. Who hates you from the get go??? Me??? How would you come to that conclusion when you have really never really conversed in that forum. "
Call me oversensitive, but two question marks are uncivil. Three more are evidence that you're outraged and angry. Three more makes me feel like a mountain of citations of recent offensive remarks will make you angrier and more defensive. I come to that conclusion because you furiously impugn information sources I mostly rely on, and exalt those I consider worthless. I trust Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow; you call them insulting names. Then you praise to he skies Savage, like Limbaugh, etc. and also impugn the broadcast networks, newspapers, etc. I don't want to call them names in retaliation; I want to leave the site when I see right vs. left hate. That's like preemptively setting things up for a namecalling fit about any evidence I might cite in favor of my conclusions. No thanks.
"There are plenty of other forums for you to participate in. If the Political Advocacy is too "hectic", simply don't participate in it. I will not be offended. Of course, you are welcome to post any points to counter those whom you have a disagreement with. It could end up in a heated discussion, but to say the person "hates" you, I think would not be justified, unless they attacked you personally or sent you a nasty PM. Things I would never do.[/quote]"
The rearrangement of the site satisfies my sense that the angry political argument that used to be in the lobby has now been moved into a meeting room. However, I still consider "Improving American Society " quite inappropriate for the forum name, since the #1 thing we need to improve it right now is a less polarized, less angry political conversation. The left/right dichotomy is as destructive and misleading as the black/white and north/south dichotomies in national discourse. I'm a mixed guy in the middle states in a mixed neighborhood in a biracial family and neither Democrat nor Republican-- and all this accelerating polarized fury SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME.
I have asked Frank about creating a separate forum for triracial, Maroon, etc. topics. That would be a refuge from the more polarized stuff elsewhere in the site. You'd be very much welcome there should we create it.
Posted: Sat 19 Sep 2009 12:57 Post subject: Re: Civility rules in the Political Advocacy Fora
kpauljohnson wrote:
I still consider "Improving American Society " quite inappropriate for the forum name, since the #1 thing we need to improve it right now is a less polarized, less angry political conversation.
Okay. How about changing the name to, "Polarized, Angry, Political Conversation"? Just kidding.
I would be willing to change the title to "Political arguments," or something along those lines. I would be more than willing to discontinue that forum entirely. But I think that forbidding moral judgments in that forum in order to keep discussion intellectual (as we do outside of the two political advocacy forums) would simply shut it down. Political debate is inherently value-laden and emotional.
Although I personally find "liberal vs. conservative" debates distasteful, I do not shut down the flame-war forums entirely because some of the brightest, most articulate members here (including DragonHorse, Dean, Caribj, Creole Gal, and erasmusinfinity) seem to get such a kick out of hammering each other. Lobby popcorn sales go up each time that a "liberal vs. conservative" battle begins.
Although I do not consider myself a partisan, I do have a way of getting hooked into partisan political discussion when it presents itself. Maybe I have forgetten, sometimes, that this is an ODR forum and not an OCD forum. So I hope that any emotion, on my part, has not soured anyone's tastes for my thoughts about race and the study of racialism. I must admit that I am something of a moralist, and that I have a hard time not getting involved in discussions that provoke my moral instincts.
I should also add that I have intellectual respect for "DragonHorse, Dean, Caribj, Creole Gal, and erasmusinfinity" (especially the last one ) and anyone else that I have discussed things with in an argumentative fashion on the political advocacy forum. I only appreciate challenges to my views because that is part of the way that learn.
That being said, I can also empathize with frustrations that there is a heavy emphasis on party political issues that do not relate directly to the topic of racialism in the political advocacy forum. Particularly because I am reluctant to discuss certain racial issues in the other subforums because of the no moralizing and no advocacy rules. Party politics are interesting, but I need to have a place where I can discuss racial issues that allows for some advocacy and expression of emotion.
Lately, I have been trying to follow Gemini's line of thinking...
gemini072 wrote:
Maybe it needs to be stricter in it's focus current events, and political activism that revolve around race ethnicity in U.S. Society since this is what that site is about
...by trying to focus my participation in the political advocacy forum specifically on political advocacy that pertains to racial matters. That is not to say that I mean to decide for others how they ought to use the forum.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 21 Sep 2009 17:47 Post subject:
kpauljohnson wrote:
"I take it this is aimed at me".....Actually you intervened in my defense when I was greeted with a shitstorm of abuse immediately upon my arrival from one individual who targeted me as an Evil White Liberal. You played no part in making me mostly avoid the site and feel reluctant to invite friends, relatives, MHA colleagues, to check it out and participate.
I would do it again if someone attacked you like that even if it was a "political ally" of mine. (Don't have that many here )
kpauljohnson wrote:
Call me oversensitive, but two question marks are uncivil. Three more are evidence that you're outraged and angry. Three more makes me feel like a mountain of citations of recent offensive remarks will make you angrier and more defensive. I come to that conclusion because you furiously impugn information sources I mostly rely on, and exalt those I consider worthless. I trust Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow; you call them insulting names. Then you praise to he skies Savage, like Limbaugh, etc. and also impugn the broadcast networks, newspapers, etc. I don't want to call them names in retaliation; I want to leave the site when I see right vs. left hate. That's like preemptively setting things up for a namecalling fit about any evidence I might cite in favor of my conclusions. No thanks.
Yes I believe you are hypersensitive. Two or three question marks in the business that I am in means nothing, however, THE USAGE OF CAPS does mean something. But I will just use one ? as to not lend into the perception of being uncivil. Perhaps that's the difference between our "cultures" if you will, I don't know. Well if I impugn the sources you rely on, I can come up with evidence as to why I do, usually within a video from "youTube". I am sure you might be able to do the same. I don't know where you're coming up with this "hate" thing. I have seen things like this before when those on the "left" are behind the 8-ball. They cry "unfair", "hostile", just like members of Congress have been doing over the last month in a half or so. "Conservatives" can be bashed willfully and it's to be tolerated, I suppose it just is supposed to be that way. I don't mind, I have somewhat of a thick skin. You can call me a "teabagger", an insult that is prevalent on some of the sources you trust, I'll let you know it's an insult, but brush it off, you can call me almost anything, just don't call me a "racist", "nazi", or "sellout".
I am confident enough in my beliefs and sources that I will put them out here for debate and discussion. If someone wants to rip them apart, go for it. I am confident I will be able to defend my beliefs and sources. I know I will not always be right.
So much was I confident, that I used to post on mostly "Black" oriented forums. I was oftenly brutally attacked personally as well as threatened physically. The attacks even extended to family members wom disagree with me. Yet I did not complain, I kept my head up and kept posting, until I left the sites.
If I make a reference to the horrible reporting that Olbermann and Maddow are engaged in, it's because they seriously distort some stories to fit their agenda. I have actually showed this verbatim. They have got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I have family members who become outraged when I mention this. So I am used to this sort of thing from people who oppose my political viewpoint. Very used to it.
You seem like you want a forum in which you will not be offended. I don't care where you are, that's not going to happen. As far as civility, that's your interpretation, I cannot change that. I have never engaged in a heated discussion with you as I have with others. Even in the midst of a heated discussion, there usually are no ad hominem attacks by just about all the regulars.
So if you want to post in "Improving American Society", go ahead, I will not respond.
kpauljohnson wrote:
But moving it to the bottom of the site certainly removes the sense that I'd be inviting my liberal friends, relatives, and Melungeon friends into a threatening, bullying atmosphere just to come in here.
I take exception to the "threatening bullying atmosphere". Why, because of the Obama articles? My comments about some of the articles? Have I personally attacked posters like Dragon Horse, who loves heated discussions from what I take? Do we have to walk on eggshells because you might be offended?
Can you please cite specific examples of where I was "threatening", or used bullying tactics? I am curious. I think intimidation and bullying tactics would be to use being a moderator to threaten posters with warnings and suspensions who do not agree with me. I do not do this, nor have I ever. I would gather you have a different opinion.
So if the tides were turned and a lot of pro Obama topics were being discussed (I wish there were more), would the people you know still feel the same way? Why are "liberals" so sensitive? Certainly if the tides were turned as they were back in November I would gather you would have felt more comfortable. DH and others kicked my butt back in November, December. I don't know, just asking. But hey, that's the ups and downs of it all, I know that in time, Obama supporters will be able to kick my butt...again, then round it goes. I wish it could end, but as long as we're human beings, it ain't gonna be any time soon.
kpauljohnson wrote:
However, I still consider "Improving American Society " quite inappropriate for the forum name, since the #1 thing we need to improve it right now is a less polarized, less angry political conversation. The left/right dichotomy is as destructive and misleading as the black/white and north/south dichotomies in national discourse.
I agree here. Perhaps Poltical Topics would be more accurate. With a footnote that engaging in such might lead to heated discussions as such topics tend to do in school boards, town halls, state legislatures, Congress, Cabinet meetings, dinner tables, etc.
I guess it's all about perception: what you see as anger, I am having fun, as I am sure some of the folks I debate with are also having. If was angry, I would not be doing this.
All in all, I'll tone down the rhetoric, but I will still post articles about Obama and various members of Congress as needed to expose them. I will do this no matter who it is if they are acting contrary to the Constitution.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 131 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Wed 23 Sep 2009 14:01 Post subject: Incivility in discussion of Obama
Dean wrote:"Perhaps that's the difference between our "cultures" if you will, I don't know. Well if I impugn the sources you rely on, I can come up with evidence as to why I do, usually within a video from "youTube". I am sure you might be able to do the same. I don't know where you're coming up with this "hate" thing."
The first presidential election I remember was 1960, and since only Obama's inauguration have I seen polarized racial rhetoric in this country that gave me strong deja vu about the early 60s. I have never seen such an outpouring of hate against any president in my life as what has erupted in recent months under the pretext of anti-government protests. My new congressman, Tom Perriello, manage to triumph over the disrupters in our town hall meeting here in Danville and a civil discussion eventually was held, but only after a long period of very angry behavior. It appears to have been outside agitators who started out loudly disrupting, but locals with serious questions and respectful demeanor prevailed, so it began badly and ended well. Still, we've never seen anything disruptive like that around here before that I know of. Fast forward to Joe Wilson's behavior and the outpouring of support and money it caused, again, we've never seen anything like that before, not even close. In such an atmosphere, defending Obama is to invite the wrath of those who are attacking him.
"I am confident enough in my beliefs and sources that I will put them out here for debate and discussion. If someone wants to rip them apart, go for it. I am confident I will be able to defend my beliefs and sources. I know I will not always be right."
Fine, but the whole "rip apart" vs. "defend" beliefs atmosphere is one I prefer to avoid. I accept that the nature of your forum is one of heated debate about current political controversies, and that right vs. left is the main dynamic of your debate style. But I just find that right vs. left obscures the subtleties, intensifies antagonism, undermines real communication.
"So if you want to post in "Improving American Society", go ahead, I will not respond. "
Thanks for the invitation but since you feel that way I'll decline the honor.
"I take exception to the "threatening bullying atmosphere". Why, because of the Obama articles? My comments about some of the articles? Have I personally attacked posters like Dragon Horse, who loves heated discussions from what I take? Do we have to walk on eggshells because you might be offended?"
No, the tone you use about liberals and the Left and Obama, the names you use talking about the media are what I think creates such an atmosphere. What I mean by threatening and bullying is that you express strong disrespect for those you with whom you disagree, generically if not individually. That discourages expression of disagreement-- not to DH who thrives on it, and perhaps not to the majority of participants in the forum, but for anyone who wants the discussion to be friendly and respectful.
"Can you please cite specific examples of where I was "threatening", or used bullying tactics? I am curious. I think intimidation and bullying tactics would be to use being a moderator to threaten posters with warnings and suspensions who do not agree with me. I do not do this, nor have I ever. I would gather you have a different opinion."
It's not tactics, but language. Namecalling is threatening and bullying, and I find too much of it in your posts. It would be an exercise in futility for me to dig up all the examples, so I'll just say that your use of the word liberal is accusing and insulting a lot of the time. E.g. your bringing in my friends and acquaintances as negative examples of liberals just because I *surmised* that they might find your rhetoric over the top.
"I agree here. Perhaps Poltical Topics would be more accurate...I guess it's all about perception: what you see as anger, I am having fun, as I am sure some of the folks I debate with are also having. If was angry, I would not be doing this. All in all, I'll tone down the rhetoric, but I will still post articles about Obama and various members of Congress as needed to expose them. I will do this no matter who it is if they are acting contrary to the Constitution.[/quote]"
You get more traffic in your forum than any of the rest on the site, so I won't argue with success, or criticize what goes on there any more, but just try to focus on the more scholarly and historical aspects of the site and avoid the current politics. Maybe after Obama has been in office a while longer people will discuss his tenure with greater objectivity than they are at the moment.
Posted: Wed 23 Sep 2009 14:19 Post subject: Re: Incivility in discussion of Obama
kpauljohnson wrote:
You get more traffic in your forum than any of the rest on the site...
It depends on how you look at it: the forum as a whole versus the popularity of individual threads. See Usage Statistics for the OneDropRule Forum. Not one of the twelve most-viewed threads in the site was posted in the "Improving U.S. Society" forum. Tyrone's celebrity forums are far more popular, with molecular anthropology second. Also, only two of the twelve most-posted-to threads are in the "Improving U.S. Society" forum. The most-posted-to threads are mainly in "Issues for Biracial Americans."
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Hey, I hold no animosity towards any of the mentioned above. We may have very heated discussions though. I have an aunt (moms sister), and uncle (Jewish), whom I am very close to. They happen to be radical left wingers (at least IMO). They were also among the original hippies. I have got into screaming matches with my aunt, but when it's over, we laugh and put it behind us. My brother is different, he gets down right hostile and insulting.
So I hope that any emotion, on my part, has not soured anyone's tastes for my thoughts about race and the study of