University: All Whites Racist

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Nov 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I don't "report" people.

    It's a website, guys. I'm not hurt and my skin is thick enough to handle whatever people say.

    ~String
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    super:
    Yet Tiassa has no qualms whatsoever about handing out 5 point infractions after insulting him, even when he was the one who started the conflict!

    It's not being insulted that bothers me, but the double standards regarding discipline of said insults.

    Bells:
    Yes, I have read them. The one which RA's are given is a kicker.

    There is some controversy over whether the program and floor meetings are mandatory. Quite a few students got the impression that the program was mandatory, and it mentions that students are expected to attend floor meetings, where discussions regarding race/sexuality etc. occur.

    The university denies that the programs were mandatory.

    Of course, this begs the question. Does something need to be proclaimed 'mandatory' in order to coerce students into participating? I know that the ridiculous activities at my place of campus residence weren't mandatory, but you were strongly pressured into attending. For analogy: A husband/wife doesn't need to use direct violence to coerce their spouse into having sex with them. University freshman are hardly going to say no when they are placed in an unfamiliar, alien environment.

    And even if such a program isn't mandatory, does that mean that indoctrination is not occuring? According to the definition, used in this context:

    http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/indoctrinated
    Indoctrination does not require forced attendance.

    To be honest, I'd love to hear from students living on that residence. That's the only way we can find out the truth of the matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Sorry, String. I didn't mean to ask you to think. I realize that it is unfair to ask you to be so politically correct as to actually put thought into your opinion and, furthermore, violates your rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     
  8. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    A mod who trolls. How novel.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It would be rude to ignore him. It's not my fault if he chose to not post anything relevant to the discussion.

    In the meantime, I find it interesting that you conservatives are so unsettled by my outlook that you actually feel the need to stop all other discussion in order to put on a communal chest-beating. Really, I hope y'all feel better.
     
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Go ahead. Keep talking about whatever you like (Your word count in this thread has far exceeded anyone else's). Just don't expect everyone to gather round and sit quietly at your knee to hear your drivel. Unsettled has nothing to do with it. People are tired of your nonsense, your unwillingness to debate, your personal attacks and your often and various self-aggrandizements, and frankly, there's nothing that requires us to listen to you...
     
  11. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Except for the fact that we are prohibited from placing moderators on our 'ignore list'.

    Tiassa:
    For a start, I'm not a conservative. And no, nobody is 'unsettled' by your outlook. What a number of posters are 'unsettled' about is your unprofessional conduct as a moderator. Your hypocrisy in giving infractions for insults while engaging in similar (if not worse) behaviour. Your long winded posts which add nothing to the discussion. Your belittling of anyone who dares to criticise your viewpoint/style of posting. Your bigotry against entire groups of people who hold particular political beliefs, and 'white' culture. And in general, your complete lack of substance and strength of character.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2007
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Thank you for at least trying

    No, actually, he's overreacting to the notion that a definition of the word "racist" includes him.

    I'm more forgiving of that argument. I just think some folks are overlooking a simple truth expressed in the Barker excerpt included in an earlier post.

    When people remove something from its own context and assign it a deliberately-controversial one, of course they're going to find something to complain about. That's the point of insisting that everyone else looks at the issue as you do. What I don't see in the general objections to the policy is any indication that it is being viewed for what it is and what it regards. It is a lot easier to scream "Thought Police" than it is to actually think about what a concept in history means.

    The problem with those papers is that they're not true. If I infect a mouse in a cage with a disease, can I claim that the mouse always had that disease? One of the problems the more deliberate racists have encountered in supporting the thesis, say, that Africa is poor because Africans are inferior is that such arguments generally can't figure out the evidence.

    And? It's not that they do not have a point, but the reality is that the empowered majority is never going simply allow equality to come about, so there is some merit in the notion that at some point oppressed minorities should stop waiting for justice.

    I dispute the integrity of this point, Abu Afak. You, as have others, assign an irrelevant definition to the word in order to complain. This is not honest.

    In the end, what it comes down to is that certain people have a problem with any definition of the word "racist" that includes them.

    It's too bad, Abu Afak, that you don't bother to consider the next paragraph:

    Seriously, I think you're aware that there is more to any one person's life than the range of a school district. What you're asserting requires a leap of logic akin to the idea that, since four square centimeters of your skin are clear of festering wounds, you must be cured of chicken pox.

    He shouldn't be offended by the notion that he's smart enough to know the difference. Unless, of course, he's not smart enough to know the difference, in which case, I may regrettably have oppressed his ability set.

    I find your use of the phrase "unvarnished truth" almost funny. I offered one up, and nobody wants to touch it, except for the fact that their arguments tread all over it. Nothing ever begins, Abu. He wants to make this about race and ethnicity, not history. He wants to pick an arbitrary point to begin in order to exonerate himself.

    It's kind of sad. The entire weight of insult these conservatives feel is self-generated.

    When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

    However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.

    When the correlations of aesthetics and circumstance wane, when the echoes of these chapters of history finally fade to ambient noise, we might then be able to strip down the argument into such pretentious ideological blocs. Then again, we likely won't feel compelled to, because justice will have arrived, and the only people seeking to keep it alive will be those who, for whatever reasons, oppose that justice. In the meantime, it is arbitrary, and therefore irresponsible, to apply so many artificial and superficial constraints about historical examination.

    The objections tend more to be about aesthetics. And truth--whatever it equals--is never as pretty as we might hope.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I must admit the questionnaire was a tad disturbing.

    It has its good side and its bad side, depending on how it is handled. Is it so bad to attempt to open up discussion on those issues? I understand there had been an incident of racial discrimination by some members of the university earlier this year. Link This could be their way of attempting to ensure something like this does not happen again.:shrug:

    It is the invasion of privacy that got me with this. Does the RA really need to know the students sexuality? And them give them a competency grade in how they respond and react to the question? It's just going too far. If I ("the liberal do-gooder") was asked such questions, the answer would be 'sod off and mind your own business'.

    I can understand the reasoning and possibly the need behind the program, but to force anyone to do this is unethical. Have it as a course or seminar at the university, where students can choose for themselves if they wish to attend.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It's not that you're a conservative, Mountainhare, it's that you're a cheap liar

    I believe you.

    I believe you.

    Hmm ... you and Max? Right. I'll worry about your opinion of my conduct when you worry about getting some integrity, Mountainhare.

    Since you won't give it a rest, I might as well respond: You don't seem to recall the period during which I refused to give infractions at all. You are unaware of my prior policy of not issuing infractions in topics that I started or arguments I was having.

    Your own ignorance is what unsettles you, Mountainhare. Personally, I think the prior insistence on going through the longest possible process, while honorable in its intent to give members every last chance to correct difficult behavior, was a bad idea. I'm not going to blame their unwillingness to act until the situation had dragged out for months for your perception of my approach, but the nature of your complaints strongly suggests that you're incapable of understanding the situation.

    Really. If the administration and moderators had not extended special rights and protections to members like you and Max, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Given that our efforts to make sure conservative posters were not completely alienated only gave them cause to complain, I really don't give a rat's ass what unsettles you.

    Grow up. Conduct yourself with some integrity and decency. Maybe then we'll be able to have a conversation that does not suffer the prerequisite of psychically obeying some arcane and hidden script that allows your eventual satisfaction.

    (chortle!)

    That criticism coming from a semi-literate thug with a chip on his shoulder is almost amusing. We need to use absolute values in order to describe your contribution in positive terms.

    No, it's the dishonesty I belittle. If you had some integrity and comprehension skills, you might realize this. I'm not upset with Superstring99 for disagreeing with me. I'm upset with him for being a cheap liar and provocateur. I'm not upset with Max for disagreeing with me. I'm puzzled by his bizarre infatuation. I'm not upset with you for disagreeing with me. I'm disgusted by your childish, dishonest tantrums.

    I am not one of those who demands you must earn my respect. I am, however, one who gets the hint quickly when you make a point of insisting that you don't want it.

    And as to my style? When half-wit thugs complain that I'm confusing them, I suppose I should be honored.

    In the history of this website, the one thing I've taken the most shit for is presuming people are intelligent. And, no, Mountainhare, I'm not particularly sorry that I can't stoop low enough to satisfy you.

    I admit that I'm sometimes sharp with conservatives in general on this point, but after years of hearing conservatives demand the right to discriminate against and hurt people simply for existing, I haven't much sympathy for people who make the choice to be cruel.

    It has nothing to do with white culture. It has to do with the dishonesty of white supremacists who try to pretend they're not.

    And it also has to do with people like String and Madanthonywayne and other conservatives who insist they know what someone else was thinking. In doing so, they substitute definitions of words in order to create the impression that someone has done something wrong. It's not just Sciforums, Mountainhare. After years of looking into various claims and accusations and finding that whatever other issues might exist, conservatives never seem to give me anything real to work with, I'm tired of trying to pretend that people who can never get it right are actually correct. I'm tired of pretending that it's normal that I should have to grant so many presuppositions at the outset as to nullify the purpose of the discussion.

    You might be a fine, upstanding fellow in life. You might be someone I'd enjoy a beer with over a football game or something. But if you're really as dishonest as your Sciforums presentation, no. I can't lie to you enough to make that relationship work.

    Do you understand that there is a difference between what someone is and what someone chooses? Conservatives in general seemed to remember this until one day they realized gays simply are, and not by choice. In the last couple years especially, though it's a hallmark of conservative political argument, we've heard the volume come up on the complaint that rejecting what someone chooses is somehow an offense akin to persecuting what someone is. Do you understand that difference? Blacks, women, gays, and other commonly-victimized empowerment minorities are treated poorly for what they are: black, female, gay. Conservatives, however, when lamenting that they are discriminated against, are complaining that reality does not accommodate equally what they choose to believe despite reality.

    It's like the argument with Madanthonywayne last week. He raises one issue, and it is explored. When it looks like his issue is bogus, does he make the note? No. He changes subjects and complains about college professors making jokes. And when that doesn't have the desired effect, does he acknowledge that? No. He jumps onto an academic discrimination complaint that becomes so messy that, by the end, he's asking me if I've read his guy's side of the story when that's what I've been building my argument from the whole time, and then comes back to justify his player according to a point I'd made earlier that he decried as a straw man. Do you understand that it's not that he disagrees with me that I find so annoying? Do you understand that I'm getting sick of taking him seriously, trying to give his argument credit, when he's not even trying?

    Do you understand that what annoys me about String's argument is the fundamental dishonesty that comes from assigning his own definition of "racist" in order to be upset that another definition of "racist" includes him? He has an aesthetic problem, so it's suddenly something the University needs to balance by giving bullshit equal time?

    Now, you might doubt my assessment of the facts of the case. You might perceive String's conduct--or Madanthonywayne's, for that matter--differently. But can you at least admit that, from my perspective, it seems really annoying and disingenuous? Can you or any of your (closet) conservative associates actually dispel this appearance? Can you address it without the whining and crying?

    Think about it: All String had to do was shrug and say, "Well, that pretty much includes every white person, and is therefore an inapplicable, generally useless, obscure definition that hasn't much practical value." All Madanthonywayne had to do was shrug and say, "Okay, I think that's bullshit. What is it for?"

    That's all I did. I'm not disturbed at being called a racist according to such weak terms. Why does it bother them, or anyone else, so much? If this was about drugs or sex or music piracy, people would wonder about the sharp reaction and what it suggested about the person.

    But there are only two things conservatives seem to get from this story: "I'm not racist! And liberals are evil!"

    And, really, man, if you can't figure out that it's the dishonesty and not the political label, that's your own damn problem, and stop trying to make it mine.

    Or should I just lie to you and pretend that you have a decent, honest, functional point?
     
  15. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    And the word count continues to go up and up...
     
  16. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Wow... you inferred that I was disabled. Witty.

    The liberal débutante shows his true stripes. Instead of any mature & cogent debate (of which we see vary little from Tiassa), it always comes down to the name calling. Aghast that someone would have better things to do than dwell on YET ANOTHER his witless mega-rants on how conservatives are to blame [for everything], we get... even MORE name calling.

    My... how original you are Tiassa!

    So, the question that comes to mind: How old are you Tiassa? Are we still in high school? I'll admit that your diction is admirable for a teenager, but your constant backsliding to name calling gives you away.

    A note to non-brain-washed extremist: notice how it's okay for liberals to call names and get away with name calling, especially when one gets a smidgen of power (no matter how infinitesimal), and uses it to badger conservatives. You can bet that if the tables were turned on young Tiassa, we'd have a barrage of liberal outcries against the actions of the evil "neo-cons".

    I admit, Tiassa, I love you... you're the best thing going on this website. You do wonders in making my argument against extreme partisanship.

    Please, PLEASE, carry on.

    ~String
     
  17. abu_afak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    218
    I disagree "racist" includes him
    And Your post Littered with that charge is Intellectual Laziness, as he, unlike you, makes a Case, with Facts for his positions.

    Better!

    Those papers/Books ARE true.
    And there have been 6 strings to that effect in the Science section, but only the 2 (later) PC-titles remain Unlocked.
    Your cohorts/S.A.M. stopped the Original one"Dr Watson's views on race seem very sensible" among others.

    The evidence, as on IQ, is Overwhelming in fact.
    This has PCers tails in a Knot! even tho some know it's true.
    So, what can They/Do they do/Say?
    1. "'Race is Fuzzy", doesn't really exist.
    2. (caving slowly). "It's true but due to nutrition or economics".
    3. "You're a Racist".

    Be glad to/even Prefer debating this one-on-one here with Anyone including You without the constant Trolling that Includes Childish, last-wording Moderators like S.A.M. Harrassing and deleting posts, issuing violations, and closing string titles she doesn't like and replacing strings like the above 'Watson' one with "Why do Racists have lower IQ's."
    It's an Outrage.
    Forcing one side to debate under a demeaning premise that doesn't even include them.
    It's Moderators using the tools to be even worse Trolls than any poster Can be.

    Without going categorical/quoting any of the rest- I found superstring99, continuously point to Facts while you pointed to His Facts and called him "Racist" a number of times without rebutting those numerous facts.
    It's troubling, as this behavior is even more common in Mods, who have power and confidence of position and each others views to Brow Beat anyone who puts up contrary opinion.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2007
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I'm a mod. He can brow-beat me all he wants.

    (I respect your thoughts and appreciate the insight, Abu)

    ~String
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    ...Tiassa, I wonder at your comprehension. Quotas would reduce standards, not raise them. What Orwellian translator is your corpus plugged into?

    Tiassa, I'm not sure you've actually ever attended a university, but there isn't a pack of evil students running around trying to blame African poverty on them being African, or wasn't when I was there. Is String making this argument? Perhaps you should follow along and see if there might be some other reason for his statements.

    Now you're inferring that String is racist? BTW, it isn't only conservatives who aren't in favour of affirmative action.

    Aaaaand here you ridicule the mentally disabled.

     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    American universities. They are all designed to oppress the "sticking it to the man".
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    (Insert title here)

    Whatever you say, String. Keep running your con job if you really think you can.

    Change the word "liberal" to the phrase "extremist shill", and you've pretty much described yourself.

    What I wonder is why you're so afraid of the argument. Why it is that when presented with a challenge all you can do is cry and complain.

    • • •​

    Proposition/Response:

    S.A.M.: How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.

    Superstring99: Did you think before you said that, or did you just pound away on the keyboard?​

    How to offend Superstring99:

    String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

    Tiassa: Who's forcing them to go to college? Who is forcing them to spend money they don't have for a degree? A public university, obviously, cannot make everyone happy.

    String: A good point and I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were a private institution. But its a university that's funded by all those tax dollars from nasty white racists.

    Tiassa: I generally find arguments intending to assert affirmative action on behalf of racism and the exercise of politics in lieu of education repugnant, and your argument is no different, String. It seems to me that you're asserting that, just because they're a public university, they ought to lower their standards in order to make insecure bigots more comfortable. You agree that a public institution cannot make everyone happy, so you assert, instead, that they should make you happy. The problem with this is that your happiness depends on the university's endorsement of crap or refusal to examine basic truths. Neither of those conditions suggest quality education.​

    Now, it seems you find that upsetting, String. But instead of arguing that I'm perceiving your objection too broadly or affixing it too narrowly, you instead invest your expression in criticizing what you claim to not have read:

    String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.​

    I think it says more about you that I'm worth your time to actually put the effort into being dishonest just so you can feel like you've stung me.

    How to upset Superstring99 (pt. 2):

    String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

    Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

    String: The university should offer this concept as part of a class that can be taken. Just because this ridiculous brainwashing meshes with liberalism doesn't make it right to force it upon every student who walks on campus.

    Tiassa: Oh, boo-hoo. I can't believe you think it's brainwashing that a university rejects political myopia. So it's harder to write a paper that says Africa is poor because blacks are inferior. It's harder to write a paper that says people are poor because they deserve to be. It's harder to write a paper that says people are inferior because they're not like you. Oh, those poor students are so oppressed.

    String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.​

    Wow. You mean if I don't accept your assertion at the outset, that this is brainwashing and liberal indoctrination, I'm wasting your time?

    How to really upset Superstring99:

    String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

    Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

    String: And while the college is at it, it might want to start exploring other racial issues like, why even in racially mixed and wealthy communities with racially balance educational staffs (like certain universities, and school districts like... say... Shaker Heights, Ohio) why black students still account for the most drop-outs, score the lowest on tests and end up in detention at rates far exceeding white or Asian students-- even despite economic parity within the community. (I know by even knowing and acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist)

    Tiassa: Actually, what that last parenthetic note suggests is not that you're a horrible racist, but that you're a jerk who refuses to take the situation seriously .... Seriously, I think you're aware that there is more to any one person's life than the range of a school district. What you're asserting requires a leap of logic akin to the idea that, since four square centimeters of your skin are clear of festering wounds, you must be cured of chicken pox.


    String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.​

    Something I've never understood are hysterical notes like, "I know that even by acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist." Now, given that your response to learning of this topic was to throw out any intent, thought, context, or definitions relevant to the university and invent your own in order to indict them, it's pretty clear that your statement characterizes your opinion of those who disagree with you. That you require such a simplistic opposition in order to feel you're making progress is telling, String. You treat people as if they're stupid, and then get offended if they don't thank you for doing so.

    How to upset Superstring99 so badly that he won't respond:

    String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

    Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

    String: One cannot attempt to hold white bad people accountable for their misdeeds (which, apparently, all whites must pay for /answer for as a community) without calling out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community).

    Tiassa: You conservatives make this leap so often people are starting to resent it. This is one of those things where the only time I hear about it is when conservatives are attempting to describe something they don't like.

    So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?​

    And, on that last one:

    Tiassa: (to Abu Afak) When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

    However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.​

    In the meantime, I've carried on other aspects of this discussion, and am met with silence except for a bunch of conservative savages who are only interested in a self-righteous power play. For some reason, the more I discuss the issues at hand, the more you, Mountainhare, and your buddy Counte want to avoid discussing those issues.

    And so we find ourselves this far in, and you've spent more posts reflecting on your assessment of my character than actually considering the issue. In the meantime, I'll leave you with your own hypocrisy to choke on:

    String: Did you think before you said that, or did you just pound away on the keyboard?

    String: I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

    String: The liberal débutante shows his true stripes.

    String: So, the question that comes to mind: How old are you Tiassa? Are we still in high school?

    String: A note to non-brain-washed extremist ....​

    The only thing I find striking about your tone is that you're simultaneously trying to pretend you're outraged over my conduct. In the meantime, why is it that you and your conservative buddies always get upset when someone does you the courtesy of addressing you according to your own standards?

    So let me know if you're ever ready to have a useful discussion, String.

    • • •​

    A note for Abu Afak

    I understand. And at some point I would probably agree. But that's actually beside the point. Instead of looking at the concept according to its actual terminology and boundaries, String and others (yourself included) have chosen to write different definitions in order to be upset at the concept.

    Even String acknowledges that the broad definition applies to him; he just rejects the idea that it's racism. And he's got a point. After all, if he murders someone, takes their money, and buys some drugs with it, and he and I get high together, I haven't exactly committed murder. Neither am I innocent, however, if I know that the profits were ill-gotten.

    And that seems to be what upsets him. He doesn't want to think of himself as guilty in any way, even if that way has no actual moral effect or assignation. At least, that's how it seems. It would be easier to know what it all equals if we weren't using wildly subjective variables whose only purpose is to create the basis for complaint.

    And no, I don't find this a particularly honest outlook. I also understand that people fall into it fairly easy. The disappointing part is that this seems to be what he chooses. He wants to be offended. He wants to feel like a victim. So he will believe anything in order to justify himself.

    At least, that's what it looks like. The easiest thing to change that appearance would be to consider the issues according to their original context.

    Also, Abu Afak, I would ask you to consider that this topic (and its poster) derive from another discussion. The source for this is a group called FIRE, whom we previously encountered over in the EM&J forum during another discussion about universities. In that, our topic poster posted a complaint; when that complaint was dismantled and not so much debunked as placed in serious doubt, our topic poster changed the subject. When that argument about professors making jokes fell apart in no small measure because of the conduct and unreliability of the poor, beleaguered conservative student he advocated, he changed the subject.

    So, first off, do you understand the problem here? I think people would be happier, or at least at greater ease, if they realized that the seeming conspiracies they find so blatant would not seem so dangerous if they did not devoting energy to redefining them specifically to seem threatening. The spectres these conservatives lash out against are born in their own imaginations. And that's why he changed the subject. It's not about winning and losing the argument, Abu Afak. Society will actually benefit when it can focus on real problems instead of taking time out to accommodate worrisome figments of overzealous political imagination. At any point, had our topic poster wanted to discuss the misperceptions and disagreements, so that we could come to a common outlook, that would have been great.

    It comes to a head, though, when the subject changes to a sexual harassment investigation. With only scant details to operate on, I went out and found paperwork from the accused's attorneys, a Christian-advocacy group. I built my perspective from this, the richest record of events possible. To the point that, after using Savage's lawyer's assertions to build my perspective, our topic poster asks if I've bothered to read Savage's side of the story. And then, after having dismissed my note about this group FIRE as a straw man (Savage was feeding information to FIRE before the situation completely blew out of hand, which leaves him with the appearance of being a provocateur), our topic poster came back a bit later to make the "straw man" point in defense of Savage.

    Obviously, we did not settle a whole bunch of issues then, but we see the outcome. Our topic poster has grabbed onto another propaganda group and run with it. Instead of considering the deeper aspects of any one situation, we are simply supposed to hop from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, ever damned to only be allowed to consider the most superficial aspects possible, lest we offend the political conservatives.

    This whole topic is just another dishonest slight of hand on behalf of a conservative agenda that the advocates are afraid to admit. I am, after all, amused when someone who claims to not be a conservative only ever is distressed by liberals, and in order to bolster their non-conservative credentials, claim to disagree with George Bush's non-conservative policies and general ineptitude.

    I just wonder why these conservative outbursts demand that the only way to view a situation is according to the conservative political assessment? It doesn't make for a credible argument, especially when they claim to be somehow oppressed when people don't believe them.

    Okay, a couple notes:

    I'm glad I could satisfy you. Now then, I would ask that you go back and read through that Barker quote and consider it in relation to my argument.

    And also, please, consider your earlier response:

    Tiassa: So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?

    Abu Afak: Why don't we begin with the unvarnished truth superstring posted (this is 'sci'forums, not PCforums) and You didn't touch- Just called/categozized everything he said "Racist".​

    So where do we begin? Go back and read through that Barker quote, and if you decide that you understand it, let me know where we should begin the telling of history. As I wrote you earlier:

    When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

    However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.

    When the correlations of aesthetics and circumstance wane, when the echoes of these chapters of history finally fade to ambient noise, we might then be able to strip down the argument into such pretentious ideological blocs. Then again, we likely won't feel compelled to, because justice will have arrived, and the only people seeking to keep it alive will be those who, for whatever reasons, oppose that justice. In the meantime, it is arbitrary, and therefore irresponsible, to apply so many artificial and superficial constraints about historical examination.

    The objections tend more to be about aesthetics. And truth--whatever it equals--is never as pretty as we might hope.

    It is a dubious proposition to declare an arbitrary starting point designed specifically to distort history in order to accommodate the sentimental demands of the empowered majority.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The sentimental demands of the "empowered majority" being that they're not all racist?
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    That's one way of looking at it. It's the kind of watering down of education that left people with college degrees stunned on 9/11 not just by what happened, but by the thought that anyone would do such a thing to Americans. (This sentimental demand is called "American exceptionalism", which, when you cut through everything else, asserts that Americans are unique in history, and thus the rules, ethics, and standards of history must be redefined before examining American history; that is, we are to judge American history by a separate standard than we judge the rest of the world.)

    I just don't understand why people are so distressed that a broad standard of racism would include them. If we were looking at other people reaping benefits off a history of injustice, we would include the beneficiaries among the guilty. Maybe not as the killers or oppressors, but like I noted in my initial response to this topic,

    The truth of the matter is that I do benefit from the white supremacist system. And, like most of my racist neighbors, I haven't really done much about that system except benefit from it. The only real problem I have with such a definition is that, if it is taken out of its proper context--and the basis of our discussion, this topic, reflects one of those improper contextual shifts--it can legitimize severe behavior. I do think there is a difference between those of us who haven't thrown away every principle, virtue, or value we ever learned or were taught, and those who seek to regularly exploit and sharpen the imbalance.

    As one who is, by this definition, guilty, I'm puzzled at the reactionary hyperbole put forth by exceptionalists. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty weak indictment and, as I noted, brings certain problems when applied generally.

    Nothing ever begins, Geoff. It's kind of like the truism that everyone is somebody's son/daughter. Everyone, at some point, has a mother. This fact, in and of itself, means almost nothing. White people are inherently racist for benefitting from racism? This fact, in and of itself, means even less.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page