Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Neverfly, Jun 1, 2012.
We've done what we can.
If he wants to shout himself hoarse, that's his problem.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Is it worth asking what you think you're achieving here?
I'm not achieving anything.
From my perspective, this strikes me very strongly of, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Tiassa firmly believes that I was using racial slurs by referring to a black kid as "a black kid" and will justify that belief however he can. In trying to get him to question that conviction, I've only encouraged him to attack my character even more, it seems.
Was I to be expected to force Tiassa or anyone else to understand my mind in just a few sentences? No one can do that- that's why these threads go on for so long. It takes a lot of hashing back and forth to get thoughts out. You type and type- then realize you forgot a key detail or whatever... hit edit --or even forget til later, thinking you already said that bit... It's a P.I.T.A. The members around here will claim you're lying if you don't word things in the exact way their mind will comprehend on the first try. Bullcrap.
I mean, look how long I had to make this one post just to get as much of the thought process out in writing as I could and I had to edit the thing like 10 times.
Be accurate. You cannot accuse someone of lying over your inaccuracies.
We argued further for many posts because I did not understand what it was you thought was racist. When you finally clarified it and I saw what, exactly it was that bothered you- I clarified it. I did not apologize for that- since I had no need to. After that, you accepted that clarification politely and we moved on. (That was the comment that you accepted the clarification for that Tiassa returned to later to justify the charge. You misunderstood what I meant, thinking that because he was black, he was supposed to behave differently- when I finally found out that was what you thought, I clarified that it was descriptive of the individual but any kid would can be expected to behave the same way- color was irrelevant.) It was after that that I did put my foot in my mouth and did apologize for that. Any reader can go back and see that clearly. Be accurate.
I had apologized only for referring to your color as a possibility of a personal bias on your part- I was wrong to do so.
That said, claiming I had a racist attitude is Abhorrent behavior of your own. It is dishonest. You disagree with my assessment so you and Tiassa labeled me to be a "racist" without any real knowledge of my personal views. Referring to a black kid as a black kid is NOT RACIST and while referring to your color was wrong- it was not necessarily racism on my part but suggesting racism on your part. Unlike you or Tiassa, I realized I was wrong to do so, retracted such an ugly charge and apologized.
You like to fling severe character attacks at those that disagree with you and then claim they had abhorrent behavior.
I didn't apologize for being racist but for suggesting that you were being racist. That in itself can be interpreted as a racist comment, as you claimed, so I retracted it. You, at the time, graciously accepted that apology yet you fling it in my face now- not very inclusive to an acceptance of one, now is it?
Those two points are the ONLY points you can claim are supposedly Racist. Tiassa has bent over backwards trying to justify the charge. The best he can come up with is, "You referred to his skin color and therefor, that MUST be racist." Riiiight...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Basically, it appears to me that if I don't just take Martins side, right away and unquestioningly- I must be racist simply because the victim was black. That strikes me as very wrong- it's political correctness gone too far.
The answer to your question:
I do not believe it's worth it at this time. It's pointless to argue against minds that are set, regardless of what may really be the case. It would be worthwhile if either one of them would sit back and examine their own attitudes. Their own claims and their own words. They have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to do so- for reasons of their own. I've demonstrated a conviction of my own that to claim and label me as a racist is absurd, out of line and dishonest- it requires tricky reading and misinterpretation of what was said. I had said, "If you can show I'm wrong, I will accept that." Tiassa failed to show me as wrong- he instead demonstrated a lack of desire on his part to re-evaluate his own attitude and perceptions- his misconceptions and bias. He thinks he can tell me what I think, feel and believe- He cannot do that. Rather than demonstrate something real, he tried to justify his charge, using uncalled for character attacks, suggesting I was dishonest simply because he couldn't follow the conversation that took place quite a while ago and went on for many many many posts. And for not taking Martins side unquestioningly, as if that somehow has some bearing.
It's an impasse I doubt will be resolved anytime soon and I have no doubt that they both will continue to press their bias against me in future posts. I think anyone can see why having that absurd charge over my head would bother me. Wouldn't it bother you? And to think that others will believe it and accuse anything I say later as racist because "Tiassa Proved I must be one."Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What a load of crap.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You still don't get it, do you?
You applied "that it was logical for the black kid" to do something no one would ever, ever, expect any person to do. In short, you applied a standard to the "black kid" and said it was logical for said "black kid" to do something that is completely and utterly illogical and dangerous.
Do you understand how your applying this standard to the "black kid", a standard that would never apply to anyone at all in any given circumstance, and then declaring it's logical for this "black kid" to do this and is racist?
When you single out someone because of their colour and declare that it would be logical for that individual to do something that you would never expect anyone to do.. That is racist.
And then when you discounted my argument about your racism because in your opinion, being black makes me "touchy".. While you apologised for that days later and after countless of posts trying to determine how you could have said such a thing and having you defend it, the statement was still racist.
One thing we have noticed about you, Neverfly, is that you tend to forget or ignore your own posts and then deny and then accuse everyone else reading your posts and interpreting your words as you type them of dishonesty and being biased against you, etc.
To put it bluntly, if you didn't want to come across as sounding like you were racist, it would behoove you to not apply such standards to people because of their colour and it would also be best if you did not apply someone's colour to a debate and tell them that their argument was somehow null and void because of their colour. You have spun yourself into such a lather that you forget your own words and PM's. You accuse everyone of quote mining, when the posts are there for all to see.
And again, it isn't referring to the black kid as the black kid that is the issue.
The issue is that you applied a standard and stated it was logical for the black kid to do something that no one in their right mind would ever expect anyone to do. Get it yet?
No one had to bend over backwards to justify the charge of racism. We all thought you were racist. Again, it is not everyone else, but you. I spent page after page detailing and questioning your statements. Now you either cannot read and comprehend or you are dishonest. I linked back to your posts, I quoted you in full and I sought clarification as to how and why you could make such statements and I explained, in detail, over and over again why such statements appeared racist. You not only ignored them, but you defended them and dug a bigger hole for yourself.
Here's the thing about posting on an internet forum. We can only go by what you write on here. That is all we see. So when you make such statements, it is on those words that you will be judged and opinions about you will be formed here based on what you write here. Do you understand now? While it may be that your personal views are different, when you write something here, we will take those words from you as you write them.
Now, you demanding he retract something that was plain for everyone else to see, but you, it seems is ridiculous. The mod note was because that was how you portrayed yourself in that thread.
The hilarious thing is that we'd all moved on from it and kind of forgot about that sorry episode.. In short, there was no charge hanging over your head because the issue had been settled, filed away and left there to rot and be forgotten.. You left the forum and then returned and instead of moving on, you return and demand that it be retracted because you think it's hanging over your head. In short, you brought the issue back to life when it was dead and dusted and then accuse us of hanging it over your head when you keep hanging it over your own head.
What a load of crap indeed..
You didn't want him to re-evaluate his actions in posting what he did in that mod note. You just want him to agree with you.
Wrong- in fact- kindergartners are TAUGHT to do so- Recognize authoritative figures and answer their questions calmly.
It's taught to children regularly and from early on.
Granted- I was under the misapprehension from one article that Zimmerman had been wearing a jacket marked SECURITY.
But that misconception had nothing whatsoever to do with race. When it was later clarified that he was in his P.O.V. not marked as authority in any way- I retracted that claim. You forget that, conveniently. Yet, I told this to Tiassa and to JamesR in PM months ago.
Yes, if questioner is marked as Authority (Officer, security, detective, guard, secret service- whatever) answer the questions calmly.
If they are not marked but a stranger in normal everyday wear and in a P.O.V.- that's not a safe situation for a kid and I agreed with that. There is a Marked difference which you seem to be ignoring.
You are utterly misrepresenting what was said due to your own misconceptions and lack of understanding. What you're saying now is very inaccurate and presents a false display of how the conversation went. THIS was my complaint about you Bells: You jump to wild conclusions and then assault the poster with character attacks without taking the time to understand what they mean to say. It's a very bad habit.
I did not single him out due to his color. You claiming I did will not change REALITY. Nor did I say he was supposed to do something dangerous. You have gotten this absurd idea into your head and you are saying, "Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!" It's still absurd and your accusation is still without foundation.
I said that it was logical to answer questions when asked by a security guard- not to RUN or ATTACK.
This is in the thread and any reader can see it clearly. I identified MARTIN as an individual by his real and actual description. Is that racist? If I say Martin Luther King was a black man- did I just make a racist comment? NO. So STOP misrepresenting what I ACTUALLY SAID.
Stop being so inaccurate, Bells.
I wanted both.
You need to understand what you read. Not assume and then condemn. Not read between the lines, speculate or misunderstand and refuse to receive clarification. You accepted clarification mid-heated-argument yet now, reject it again for the sake of this argument.
A simple misunderstanding is not enough to justify this hullabaloo and it all could have been avoided. If Tiassa or JamesR had not avoided and ignored and only responded when pressed, took the time to READ what was written, not someone elses dialogue, rendition or misconceptions about it- It may have been settled long ago. You speak of discussions in the back room, yet, I was not there to dispute the inaccurate version you presented. Whatever opinions others had at that time doesn't impress me much. Your version wasn't accurate and it still is not accurate.
While I am none too pleased at being labeled something I find very distasteful and stand against, I find it appalling that you lot have taken the wrong action every step of the way: Ignore, refuse to listen- to understand. Refuse to let go of misunderstanding and hear what the other has to say. Tiassa seemed to treat it like a math problem: "assume statement is true- find a way to prove it is."
You got the wrong idea in your head and then refused to let go of it.
For almost three months, I've been trying to get you to see what it is you are doing.
Yet, that time is used against me- as though it is somehow my fault that it takes so long, so many words and exchanges for something that is very very simple.
It is you that is still not getting it.
And what I WANT is for you lot to stop shutting it all out- closing your ears. You assume way too much and then tell me all you have to go by is my words. What good do my words do if they get distorted by one jumping to far fetched conclusions and then ignored ever afterwards?
1) You had been wrong about Martin's actions and about Zimmerman's actions right from the start and you refused to listen to or acknowledge all evidence which countered yours.
2) You applied a standard to Martin and very clearly stated that it was logical for a black kid to answer his questions.. In other words, you attributed Martin's race and stated it would have been logical for him to approach and then answer the questions of the stranger following him in his car and then chasing him on foot that evening.. Something no one would have expected him to do.
3) You made it about race when you stated it was logical for "the black kid" to speak to a stranger following him as Zimmerman had been following Martin.
4) When it was pointed out to you that Martin had no reason to stop and speak to the stranger following him in his car and then chasing him on foot, you argued against that and questioned why Martin was even out on the street and what his motives apparently were and stated he was suspicious.
5) You refused to acknowledge that Zimmerman had no position of authority to be following in a car, chasing on foot and then brandishing a gun on anyone, let alone a teenage boy.
6) You seem to forget that the thread is still there for everyone to read.
7) You entered the thread at post 400 and disregarded all known evidence and information provided in the thread and instead, made things up and brought up the fact that you thought it was logical for the black kid to stop and speak to the stranger following him at night..
8) When you were questioned again and again about your argument about the "black kid" and it was pointed out to you how and why it was racist, you blamed everyone else for your words and your argument and had the actual nerve to be offeded and so, decided to disregard my argument because of my race.
I could go on, but I think you get my drift?
You have misrepresented yourself and your own argument Neverfly. Suffice to say that again, it's not everyone else who is wrong, but you.
Here is what you said - and I am looking at just your "black kid" comment and disregarding when you questioned and queried Martin's apparent suspicious actions by walking down the street to go and buy snacks:
Not only did you single him out because of his colour, but you also said that he, as the black kid, should have done the dangerous thing (you deemed it logical for said black kid to do) and stopped and spoken to the complete stranger following him in his car and then chasing him on foot at night. We spent pages and pages explaining to you why no child should ever stop and speak to a stranger following them on the street and you pushed back against that and demanded that Martin somehow shared the blame for his own death for a) running from the stranger following him, b) fighting back when said stranger approached him and started to hassle him..
Really, you want to push that you didn't single him out because of his colour? You did so and then went on to defend it and then blame the victim for his own murder.
And stop being so dishonest.
You identified Martin by his colour and then determined it was logical for "a black kid" to stop and speak to a stranger who was following him in a car and then on foot at night. The thread is there for all to see and again, reading through that thread, you are the only individual who seems to believe that it is logical for "a black kid" to stop and speak to Zimmerman, who would have been a complete stranger following him in a car and then chasing him on foot. Just you. No one else thought that was logical. In fact, you blamed Martin and questioned his suspicious behaviour, because apparently walking down the street after buying snacks is suspicious behaviour. You spent the majority of your time in that thread defending Zimmerman and blaming Martin for his own murder.
Your argument was racist because you singled out his colour and because you applied a standard to him because of his colour.
I did read and understand what you wrote.
And guess what Neverfly, no one here has to agree with you.
We are under no obligation to view the world as you do. Nor are we under any obligation to agree with you. This is one instance where we do not agree with you. And I can assure you, all the moderators who participated in reading everything that you wrote and that I and others wrote in response were fairly unanimous that you were in the wrong.
We are under no obligation to agree with you and to do what you want.
Because we all agree that you were in the wrong.
I'm sorry what?
You keep bringing it up. We ask you to move on and you keep bringing it up and trying to paint yourself as the victim when it is far from the truth.
Show me where that time was used against you?
Was it used against you when you launched an abusive and threatening attack on the staff and members? So which do you think was used against you? That you actually made the "logical for a black kid" argument? Or the fact that you appeared to have a mental fit of some sort, abused and threatened the staff, obsessed about your testicles and abused many?
Closing our ears?
You have been whining about this and obsessing over it even after we told you repeatedly that the review from a wide range of moderators who rarely agree in the back room, all agreed with Tiassa's assessment.. I mean what part of that don't you understand?
We read your words.. all of it. And we are no richer for the time we have spent dealing with this issue.
At no time were your words distorted. Your posts were presented in full and links to threads provided. At all times. No one had to twist your words to have everyone disagree with you. All I did was link your posts in full with thread links. People read it for themselves. In fact, 22 people read that thread. Six of them moderators and admin.
No one shut their ears. No one distorted your words.
If people disagree with you it isn't because we distort what you write.
It is because of the content of your words and what you write.
It is because of how you string those words together and form sentences. It is not our fault if that is how you portray yourself here.
We are under no obligation to agree with everything that you say.
At first I stated what I had understood from a few articles. Reading further, I made corrections that are still there to read. I admitted errors of mine several times. See point number 6. At first there were a lot of news agencies reporting a lot of different things. Some had to post later corrections to their articles, as well.
Incorrect and inaccurate. I applied a standard that applied to anyone wandering around in the middle of the night approached by Security Guard- again see your point number 6.
When it was clarified that Zimmerman was plain clothes in a P.O.V. I agreed that Martin would have been right to have been afraid of Zimmerman. Again, see your point number 6.
No, not really. You made it about race when you decided to heavily focus on the fact that his race was clarified AT ALL. I did not make a racial statement, I simply described him as he was.
True- I questioned what Martin was doing- Does that make me racist? no- it makes me question what he was doing.
Inaccurate- I did not acknowledge that a Security Guard should be run from- but I did acknowledge an odd plain clothes stranger should be. Again- see your point number 6.
NOT AT ALL- I'm counting on it, in fact. It stands in spite of your inaccurate portrayals.
The rest is repetition.
Identifying his race when racial tensions on the topic were high is NOT singling out his race in regards to actions he took.
The rest has been covered repeatedly above and THIS is exactly why it went on for pages and pages, Bells- You Refused To Listen and Read.
You refused to acknowledge that you focused heavily on his identification and you ignore NOW, what you accepted readily THEN- that there is a BIG difference between being approached by a security guard and being approached by a random stranger. This has been clarified again and again and again and the confusion you are adding to it by refusing to let go of your misconceptions only demonstrates that you're ignoring the facts.
I'm not the one ignoring the facts, here, Bells. You are.
I applied NO STANDARD TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR WHATSOEVER- yet you accuse me of dishonesty?
You misread the statement and this has been covered. You accepted that before and now- you say the opposite. Again- refer to point number 6 - YOU seem to forget it's All Still There. It's There where it shows you misunderstood- it's there after a LOT of confusion over what was the issue, I finally grasped what your misconception was and clarified it and you accepted that. It is ALL still there.
Unless you can read my mind, Bells- You cannot CLAIM to know what I meant when I'm flat out telling you that you misunderstood it. Only a FOOL could be told they misunderstood a sentence and refuse to believe that they had.
No, you clearly did not. You've been spouting absurdities over it ever since. You obviously completely misunderstood what I said. That you flat out REFUSE to admit you misunderstood when I have repeatedly demonstrated what that misunderstanding was only demonstrates that you do not wish to see what was really said.
Time was used against me by you and Tiassa- you pointed out it had been two and a half months etc. Claiming it was not is ABSURD. It's in recent posts, even. Come ON Bells... seriously?! Try post 240 and post 244 is another one. Those are just yours, not including Tiassas- I'm not going to look them all up for you since you forgot what you JUST said.
I'm not obligated to agree with you either, but that doesn't stop you from launching Ad Hom attacks and character assassinations when I disagree with youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah- with you telling that what I said? That's a LAUGH! Read all your inaccuracies above.
Whether you agree or not, no one cares. It is racist to apply that standard in the manner that you did - ie.. that it is logical for the black kid to do something no other child or person would be expected to do, regardless of their colour..
We explained it to you repeatedly back in the thread and again in this thread. That you refuse to acknowledge it is not my concern.
It was a racist statement to apply a standard to the "black kid" that no one in their right mind would ever apply to anyone. When this was pointed out to you repeatedly, you disagreed and defended it.
Then you switched and said 'well no, I was just describing him as the black kid.. Sorry, you can try and cut this any way you so choose. It does not absolve your statement.
You can try and project as much as you like, twist things as much as you desire. The thread and your posts were quite clear to all who were unfortunate enough to have to read your posts and got to debate you in it.
But understand one thing, that mod note was correct in the assessment of how you posted in that thread.
You were offered an out. You were offered the chance to not have to rehash this and bring your racist posts back into the limelight. You not only refused, but insulted the person who offered you that out. Just as you insulted, abused and threatened the staff and insulted another member here.. Instead of moving on from it, you want to dredge your bad posts back because you have this incessant need force people to see things you way.
Well guess what? Not going to happen.
We have a right to not agree with you, just as we have a right to say that your posts were racists if you post as you did. You can disagree with it as much as you want. You can obsess over it for months, well you have done that anyway. But when you post stuff like that, don't expect people to not see you as racist. So go ahead and post in upper caps and bold and believe that it makes a difference to your argument. It does not. No one disagreed with his assessment of it then and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it now.
Yes, it is that simple.
And now this:
Excuse me, you were told back then that the issue was settled and that his assessment was correct. You disputed it and it was quite clear that no one agreed with you. Quite the contrary.
So you threw a hissy fit, got abusive and left. Then you came back and abused us some more, threatened me, insulted us and another member, whereupon you were banned for a week and advised that you should revise how you post here if you wish to be allowed to continue to post here. You returned after some time away and get right back where you left off.
After repeated requests that you let it go and move on, after being given an out, you refused, became abusive and here we are.
And as for character assassinations.. The names you have called me before threatening me. Really? You're pissed that we think you're a racist because you made racist comments? Tough. Next time, don't make such racist comments.
Scream, stamp your feet, do whatever. I stopped listening a while ago.
You aren't achieving anything here and you won't achieve anything.
So I will leave you to scream yourself hoarse. You aren't going to convince us otherwise because we read the thread the first time when you made those posts, we read it again when it was reviewed and read it again when you returned to complain about it again months later.
His assessment stands because it is correct.
And again- no- it isn't.
You misunderstood the statement, then. It was clarified, then. You accepted that and realized you misunderstood, then. You're lying now by continuing to claim I siad something I did not say- QUOTE ME where I said:" A black kid is held to a different standard than other kids." Quote it Bells- You can't because I never said any such thing. You're lying by telling others that I did say such a thing.
The problem- I never said these things.
You are repeatedly (As Usual) lying about what I said- Yes, at this point I am directly calling you a Liar, Bells. You are telling lies because you've been duly informed that you misunderstood the statement and again, only a complete fool can be informed that they misunderstood a sentence and would shut their ears and say 'No.' So, since I do not believe you're a fool, you must be lying.
No, you repeatedly claim that I applied a standard to a black kid that I do not apply to other race kids. I never said anything of the kind and to claim I said that is dishonest.
Another lie. I did not switch at all- I have said the same things since then. The only one backpedaling here is you- You accepted that you misunderstood the statement then but now- you act as though you never did for the sake of THIS argument. This demonstrates a clear switch on your part and is intellectual dishonesty.
Wrong- you distorted my post to say something I did not say, that is that a black kid was held to a different standard than other kids. I never said, implied nor suggested such a thing. It is your inability to comprehend that created the conflict and your dishonesty and lying about it now that continues it (Since you accepted the clarification then and now have switched to not accepting it.)Your assessment is based on your own delusional desire to ignore reality. It's not a matter of whether I disagree- it's a matter of you lying about what I said.
"we're ignoring the facts- we made up our minds."
You Bells, are a Liar. You've repeatedly misrepresented what I said and I have no doubt you've done so with deliberate intent.
Very well, you want the issue dropped- Fine. If you don't want it dropped- Keep arguing it. But I am now fully convinced that you are a liar who does not care to understand members posts but only cares to distort them to justify your preconceptions about the member. I am convinced that you will continue to get away with it because you project your own disgusting behavior onto the poster that stand up to you for lying about them.
bells never claimed you said it. bells is claiming you implied. and now when your being called out on it your to chicken shit to stand by your implications.
not to mention you spent your entire time trying to blame a frightened child's death on their attempts to protects themselves.
you essentially blamed martin for his death and not the asshole who stalked him.
and buddy if you deny that your ass is in the deep
Letting it go
He's ready to drop the issue, PJ. It's time to let it go.
Ech... no, that's not racist, you're just acting crazy. Are people not allowed to say "black" or "white" anymore when describing people on this forum? I mean, the much of the case in question is centered around the fact he was in fact black. Sheesh, Bells has gone crazy once again.
Diamond Joe sez ....
Why do I suddenly hear Diamond Joe?
"That was unexpected."
Doesn't work for me.
Reading this thread is a perfect illustration where a careless initial 'phrasing', no matter how often clarified afterwards to correct any wrong impression by that careless initial phrasing, spirals out of control and assumes 'a life of its own'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I for one am prepared to accept Neverfly's implicit apologies for any offense caused by his initial phrasing (who knows what lingual background his phrasing springs from?). I know of many cases on the internet where simple ways of expressing oneself in ways that seem innocuous to one language/culture will come across and be 'read' as something sinister and outrageous to another. That's the nature of the internet in a global context where it takes all kinds, complete with communication hurdles attached to almost every word and sentence/expression.
It's clear now that Neverfly is not in any way justifying anything that would maintain any racist intent. And any partially-informed statements made intially have been more than sufficiently discussed and fully informed many times over.
How about let's calling it a day on this and letting the current fully informed common understandings be the final word on this unfortunate misunderstanding/episode?
Forgive and forget and learn from it all and move on to more current matters deserving of your attention?
Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
You really hit the nail square on the head. What I was trying to get Bells and Tiassa to see was to not jump to such conclusions and to understand that whether or not they are capable of interpreting something a certain way, doesn't mean that they should or are justified to do so.
I gave in, finally, after realizing that there was no way at all they were going to accept that they read way too far into what I said, jumped to conclusions and then refused to budge on the matter. I find that to be the opposite of the behavior of a skeptic or critical thinker, but rather, thinking with a bias and then justifying authoritative action on that bias. Which was the part about "anti-authority."
From now on, I suppose I must just try to avoid Bells, avoid a Free Exchange of Ideas, avoid expressing myself simply because this behavior is so pronounced. I find that sad. I'd rather contribute than have to always fight for several pages just to say something quite simple.
So, RealityCheck- on your suggestion, allow me this: My apologies to the forum for allowing my anger to guide my words so often.
PjDude- If I was "chicken" I wouldn't have fought so hard to be heard. Whether Bells said I said it or Implied it- I believe that only I can say what I said.
Separate names with a comma.