quote:
Your arrogant, hostile, bitter, elitist, condescending attitude has apparently shielded YOU from any sense of the true definition of the word respect. I doubt you are capable of showing such a thing as respect to anyone who dares to show a differing view point than the one you're clearly set your heart upon. That's fine, but don't think for a second that it gives your opinion any greater weight. -- APHTERTHOUGHT
Of course, that was addressed to me. But there is the ever recurring theme amongst those who view themselves outside of either the MAINSTREAM of Black Thought on this board or generally in this country about granting "respect" and civility to Black opinions that are essentially on the margins or otherwise viewed, by the complaints themselves, as not "acceptable".

My question is:
Is the call for Civility and "respecting" a diversity of views in the Black Community really motivated out of a desire to be VALIDATED?

It seems as if "they" want what Debra Dickerson proposed for such enigmatics like Clarence Thomas: A SAFE SPACE for their views. A special reserved and protected [SAFE] SPACE where somehow those enigmatic, marginal, pheripheral views get some automatical EQUAL STATUS to the prevailing and historically grounded (and proven) ones -- despite their limits or deficiencies.
Original Post
Truth is one's opinion and/or political positions are personal to that person and as such are valid to that person. Your, or anyone else's, disagreement really serves no value in determining whether their opinion is valid or not. Just as my disagreeing with your opinion would not make your opinion any less valid.
I would think that such a call was motivated out of a desire for the person you are talking to/with to act like they've got some home training and education in acting like a decent human being.

Two people (most two people, anyway) can disagree and still be civil and respectful of each other. However, when at least one of those people is incapable, then the whole conversation gets shot to hell. Roll Eyes
I think it is an attempt to obfuscate, if they focus on your perceived lack of civility or perceived anger they do not have to address the essence of what you have written and can simply say you lack civility and respect for them thus squirming out of having to deal with any information you have provided them with.
Civility talks to politeness or courtesy which I think that even when people disagree that is something that can still be part of the discussion, if nothing else just agree to disagree and move on.

I doubt that anyone here is actively attempting to get out of addressing the various opinions on this board, but the point is that if you start off the conversation by purposely attacking someones intelligent or themselves, why bother having the conversation.

How you deliver the message is sometimes just as important as the message.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Truth is one's opinion and/or political positions are personal to that person and as such are valid to that person. Your, or anyone else's, disagreement really serves no value in determining whether their opinion is valid or not. Just as my disagreeing with your opinion would not make your opinion any less valid.


* I hear ya Kweli,

I would still think that people (except you-know-who) would have moved beyond having an opinion just because they want to believe a certain aspect of things....whatever happened to people having a logical justification that is factual in natureto support what they believe? I think everyone can believe what they like...but when they try to pawn that BS off on me as valid without any type of proof..i find it insulting as hell because they are coming at me like i'm dumb....and they are just trying to validate their BS utilizing the wrong method(s)......so people can think what they like...but i wish they would keep dumb schit away from me that they cannot substantiate..it is a waste of my time and I wouldn't do that to them.....when I post things in here..they have been pre-validated and I am talking to everyone as if they are intelligent and not damn fools....that is all I ask in return.....fair enough huh?
Not only don't I see any reason not to address these views civilly (until they start being hostile first), but in fact it's the tendency to be hostile & uncivil toward them that gives them the fuel to focus on that lack of civility. Sticking to the issue at hand, without all kinds of name calling and screaming, is a better weapon dismantle the other views, because you're not giving them the opportunity Faheem writes about -- you're not giving them anything else to hide their views behind.

And BTW... you'll never get an opponent who's wrong to admit they're wrong. But addressing the issue at hand successfully creates a record that others can look to and judge, or use to help make up THEIR minds.
I think everyone can believe what they like...but when they try to pawn that BS off on me as valid without any type of proof..i find it insulting as hell because they are coming at me like i'm dumb.... by Kevin41

Not at all. Wouldn't that merely demonstrate that the person is ignorant with insufficient justification for their beliefs? Why take it personally?

And BTW... you'll never get an opponent who's wrong to admit they're wrong. But addressing the issue at hand successfully creates a record that others can look to and judge, or use to help make up THEIR minds. by VOX

So true. But additionally, addressing the issues without giving the other the "Civility" out, might just allow the other to re-assess and/or alter their position/opinion without losing face or feeling punked; rather, they feel educated.

That transformation/education can't be accomplished while being called an idiot.
Let me further my answer based on the question and what others have said.

I believe Nmaginate is correct when he say that those with differing opinions seek validation of those opinions by others by asking that their opinion be respected. I have never and I refuse to agree to disagree! I believe that is a cop out and a way for people to save face. There has to be a dominant truth, it does not mean that the lesser truth is necessarily false but it does means that the more dominant truth shall have the final say.

All calls to agree to disagree is ludicrous, I am not talking about the rapper either! I don't particularly get into the whole name calling beyond making a Negro know I believe he is a Negro if not a Negro-Con. I can respect the fact that one believes a particular thing but just because they believe it and have a right to believe it does not mean I have to accept it as truth or simply agree to disagree with them just because they believe it. I will debate any topic until I loose interest but I can assure you I will never agree to disagree.

I can see through all calls for civility and respect, you can say what you want about me and to me, I will stay on message regardless and ignore the cheap shots or throw some back. I will tell anyone crying that "Faheem do not respect my opinion and he is not being civil" to go to hell, I will never respect or agree to disagree with an opinion I believe is a flawed opinion. We don't have to respect what they believe; we have to respect their right to believe what they believe. Two very different things; you can believe what you want; it does not mean I have respect what you believe. All of you can respect my right to be a Muslim but you do not have respect what I believe because I am a Muslim if you disagree with what I believe. That is what debate is for, to argue over our disagreements not say to one another I respect what you believe simply because you believe it.
To answer your question Nmaginate, YES. People post on web sites like AA.org to validate their positions, arguments, gripes and personal views.

The following is not directed at anyone particular because I think we are all guilty of being unreasonable and say things we would not if that person was sitting in front of us. The rule I TRY to use, would I say it to his or her face? Cyberspace gives one security from people who may indeed hurt you because they do not know who you are and where you are located and therefore a tendency to say things with the intent to incite anger that if said in person could lead to a physical harm.

One should give credit where it is due, acknowledging legitimacy of another's argument if it has any and like wise for any counter argument that may have even more legitimacy and carry more weight too. No pure ideology has all the answers, no opinion is sacred, and therefore there is no need to incite another to anger. We have no power in this forum anyway so why should anyone get so mad and argue for the sake of it.

It's hard for me to argue just for the sake of it. I'm not looking to make enemies but I post here for a bit of validation of my opinions and if I'm graceful enough I don't mind conceding when I'm wrong. But some people are on an agenda and are not concerned with facts or the logic of another's point of view and it seems that some argue out of their own conceit and have unduly high value of their opinions and contempt of another's worth because they disagree. Also they argue out of personal reasons that has nothing to do with the subject. Just because a person is perceived to be in a certain camp is to be damned (however, some camps need to be damned) and everything that person has to say is worthless and then to purposely misconstrued that person's opinions or interests to incite anger because they had the audacity to have an opposing opinion to yours.

I know I am already guilty of getting mad but I get upset when I think people just want to argue for the sake of it, they look for reasons to be offended for personal issues in their life that have nothing to do with the subject. They know they are wrong but make it personal to deflect from the truth or because they know the facts and reality of the matter weighs in your favor and can't win on an intellectual level, being wrong is just too much for them to take.
Last edited {1}
Faheem, if you are saying that some people do not have the right to some opinions and views, then I agree and they should be strongly debated against and not respected. There are some views that should not be tolerated.
JAZZDOG:
I doubt that anyone here is actively attempting to get out of addressing the various opinions on this board...

JD, I don't think the record reflects that view.
It's pretty easy (at least for me) to both Play The Dozens, as I call it (name calling, signifying) and address the points made that are relevant to the actual topic. I see very few people who, when challenged civilly or otherwise who really do Stay On Point.

...but the point is that if you start off the conversation by purposely attacking someones intelligent or themselves, why bother having the conversation.

My sentiments exactly. And Insulting (My) Intelligence is exactly what precipates my so-called "attacks".

Seems to me a lot of you are theorizing In Theory and not applying these ideas as a way to assess what happens here IN PRACTICE. There are people who, no matter how civil you are, will still continue to say ridiculous, unintelligent and unfounded things without skipping a beat. And while some are being or trying to maintain "civility", certain type of posters continue to Insult The Intelligence of the person they're engaged in debate/conversation without sanction (i.e. anyone being so worked up about how The Level of Discourse is being threatened by their actions).

How you deliver the message is sometimes just as important as the message.

Okay. How come certain people CAN'T and DON'T feel that way about the whole Bill Cosby thingy?? Hmmm.... funny how some of those very same people who were like, "BILL COSBY IS RIGHT!!!" are some of the very people decry the lack of civility...

But none of that was really my point.
I really was hoping to talk about a larger phenomenon that hardly has anything to do with me. Hence:
"...there is [this] ever recurring theme amongst those who view themselves outside of either the MAINSTREAM of Black Thought on this board and/or generally in this country about granting "respect" and civility to Black opinions that are essentially on the margins or otherwise viewed, by the [complaintants] themselves, as not "acceptable"..."

Essentially what me question was about is this seemingly growing number of African Americans, Black Conservative or whatever, who either feel or act like they are marginalized AND those who constantly use this "Respect Views Different From Yours" theme when it seems to me that they just don't have a firm grasp on either what they believe or are embarrassed in some respects because they hold such beliefs.

So, I'm not talking about me and I'm not even talking about APHTERTHOUGHT. I've used his statement as an example of this theme I see all the time and it is often comes from those, White or Black, who are on the right end of the ideological spectrum who direct this idea at the MAINSTREAM or traditional schools of Black Thought/Black socio-political ideologies.
KWELI:
quote:
Wouldn't that merely demonstrate that the person is ignorant with insufficient justification for their beliefs? Why take it personally?
That's what I have to say about so-called Name Calling. Why do people take "name calling" PERSONALLY?
Sticks & Stones as far as I'm concerned.

But the problem here is the Civility Police have couched the "there's too much name calling going on" stuff in the idea of want More, Better, Elevated Discourse. Yet, when it comes to someone who will try to Save Face at any costs then they really are not adding anything to the conversation and, obviously, never intended to... unless perhaps they were completely stroked (and tricked) into actually making a contribution.

The truth is, people do not come here to learn per se -- especially not those who are quick to want to Save Face or scream "respect please".

People use all sorts of ad homenims (essentially name calling without a particular name) but those things are hardly considered on the same level. And hardly seen as things that should be regulated.

I'm like KEVIN. I expect everyone else to approach this forum the way I do. I don't say shit out the side of my ass... so I expect others not to as well. And that's the crux of things.

Everyone would like for everyone else to respond to this forum the way they do. What's particularly problematic and tragic, KWELI, is that you, for one, assume that the Face Savers would actually respond to and change their mind when addressed "civilly".

Tell me when has that happened?
Name one time....
...... It seems I can rest my case.

But, I'd appreciate if someone would actually address my actual (or intended) topic. Which, again, is not about me or even APHTERTHOUGHT or the whole "civility" thing in general.

Thank you very much...
quote:
Originally posted by Momentum:

Faheem, if you are saying that some people do not have the right to some opinions and views, then I agree and they should be strongly debated against and not respected. There are some views that should not be tolerated.
I think that's where I'm coming from.

Whatever "character flaws" I have I completely own them. I am The Mighty Intolerant. Call it a character flaw but I don't believe in putting up with bullshit personally.

When someone Insults My Intelligence in the manner KEVIN alluded to then I feel (given that I pre-validate my views or try to or just happen to have some knowledge about a subject that calls into question the persons ignorance)... then I feel like there is no reason to "respect" their views and play nice.

IMO, Those With KNOWLEDGE have no obligation to peacefully co-exist with (those who come with) IGNORANCE. Ignorance is a sin, IMO, and I treat it accordingly. lol

Again, using myself as the guide, the times when I have been challenged the most, whether I cried "Uncle" or not... or whether my 'opponent' was civil or not, it was the fact that they presented strongly argued and firmly organized views that caused me to reconsider or revisit mine. So, again, name calling has never been a factor to me... I come purposely looking for substance. That and only that would be the source of my Intolerance.

I submit that there are people who only come to say what they want to say and they could care less whether they are "right" or "wrong" (i.e. whether their views are based on sound reasoning or not). It's silly to assume without any reason to believe otherwise that people post for any other reason.

But I guess I am just that differently constituted... me and a few others (Kevin, Faheem and Momentum here... I guess).
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
Let me further my answer based on the question and what others have said.

I believe Nmaginate is correct when he say that those with differing opinions seek validation of those opinions by others by asking that their opinion be respected. I have never and I refuse to agree to disagree! I believe that is a cop out and a way for people to save face. There has to be a dominant truth, it does not mean that the lesser truth is necessarily false but it does means that the more dominant truth shall have the final say.

All calls to agree to disagree is ludicrous, I am not talking about the rapper either! I don't particularly get into the whole name calling beyond making a Negro know I believe he is a Negro if not a Negro-Con. I can respect the fact that one believes a particular thing but just because they believe it and have a right to believe it does not mean I have to accept it as truth or simply agree to disagree with them just because they believe it. I will debate any topic until I loose interest but I can assure you I will never agree to disagree.

I can see through all calls for civility and respect, you can say what you want about me and to me, I will stay on message regardless and ignore the cheap shots or throw some back. I will tell anyone crying that "Faheem do not respect my opinion and he is not being civil" to go to hell, I will never respect or agree to disagree with an opinion I believe is a flawed opinion. We don't have to respect what they believe; we have to respect their right to believe what they believe. Two very different things; you can believe what you want; it does not mean I have respect what you believe. All of you can respect my right to be a Muslim but you do not have respect what I believe because I am a Muslim if you disagree with what I believe. That is what debate is for, to argue over our disagreements not say to one another I respect what you believe simply because you believe it.


Actually agreeing to disagree is not a cop out, its just a realization that no matter how two parties argue or debate their views, neither one is going to influence the other to the point where they acknowledge the other partys opinion as being correct. In that sense there comes a point where hopefully realization sinks in that nothing else is come to out of the debate whence both parties agree to just move on.

And while there is suppose to be a dominant truth, who decides that, on a board where most of the statements are peoples own opinions based on their own individual views just what is the dominant truth, whence the neverending cycle of someone standing on top of the mountain trying to convince people of their absolute truth.

Better yet it takes two fools to make a fight, why choose to be one of them.
quote:
And while there is suppose to be a dominant truth, who decides that, on a board where most of the statements are peoples own opinions based on their own individual views just what is the dominant truth, whence the neverending cycle of someone standing on top of the mountain trying to convince people of their absolute truth.
And I say apply this to the ACTUAL and not the ABSTRACT.

There are a number of arguments where someone is definitely not basing their opinion on all the relevant information when their opponent, at least, does base more of their opinion on factual or relevant info.

THere is something just inherently problematic with the idea of AGREE TO DISAGREE. Again, until you apply your idea to an actual situation (those that actually do occur here) then what you say really is of little value.

Like one of our last exchanges. Turns out I found the FACTUAL information you wanted to counter-challenge me with. But had I insisted on drilling that issue, you and I both know you weren't going to acknowledge the "dominant truth" in what I said. In that instance, IMO, you COPPED OUT by latching onto other themes that came up.
I believe the real problem lies in those with who believe that their opinion is so above reproach and infallible that they refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something. At least those willing to entertain the concept that they can't possibly know everything there is to know about what they think they know are usually willing to listen to another point of view and discuss/debate an opposing view if for no other reason than to validate their own opinion. Such discussions are usually quite civil and respectable, because you have two (or more) people who are actually trying to listen and learn something. If nothing else, that they are right to believe what they believe.

However, if in that discussion/debate additional knowledge and/or facts surface by someone who may have a more extended or different knowledge of the subject matter, that person of unshakable conviction will never even hear it. They are not interested in learning, because they think they already know. There is nothing more to learn. That is usually when at least one participant has no respect for the other and sees civility as an unnecessary component of the discussion.

But very few of us already know everything even about the things we already know. Because one lives and one learns. That is the nature of life. If you think about what you thought you knew at 22, you probably know even more about when you've reached 34 ... unless you failed to continue to gain knowledge.

Everybody is wrong at some time ... about some thing. And who knows what that something might be that you are wrong about right now? Roll Eyes
quote:
But very few of us already know everything even about the things we already know.
EBONY, your ABSTRACTION is contradicted by JazzDog's sense of what the nature of conversations are here on this board:

"...on a board where most of the statements are peoples own opinions based on their own individual views just [who is right and who is wrong]???"

quote:
However, if in that discussion/debate additional knowledge and/or facts surface by someone who may have a more extended or different knowledge of the subject matter, that person of unshakable conviction will never even hear it.
Speaking In The ABSTRACT and hence your point has little if any value. Can you point to an instance where this was the case?

NOT "may" but WAS?

Now you've made me reconsider what JazzDog said, I guess the majority of posts here are a lot about opinions rather than factual info. Hmmm... I dunno. Can't say I would know how to quantify that expect but by examining or reviewing ACTUAL posts instead abstracting over a subjective idea.

quote:
That is usually when at least one participant has no respect for the other and sees civility as an unnecessary component of the discussion.
No. I don't see "civility" as a necessary component to a discussion and have said that I can, will and do learn with or without the "civility"...

So, really, JAZZDOG is right. This is all about opinions, because I don't need or require someone to be nice to me or use gentile language with me for me to receive information - knowledge. By definition, it's not knowledge that you're looking for if you let anything else sidetrack you from getting or receiving knowledge.

Now, you're a COSBY-ITE?
What's with that HYPOCRISY?

He was "RIGHT" in your estimation. You were the least bit concerned about his Style of Presentation. So what gives, EBONY?
I believe the problem that people like Nmaginate and I have with calls for civil discourse by various individuals is that their call for civil discourse comes between if not completely surrounding by insults to our intelligence. These insults are masqueraded as the sharing of information but truthfully are nothing more than insults covered with nice words. If one wants to have a civil discussion, they should make sure they do not insult the intelligence of those whom they wish to converse with it. But as I said, I can take the cheap shots and keep on rolling; my ego is neither hurt nor bruised by name calling and the like on this forum or on my Blog. Maybe there should be a call for more toughness in a forum where verbal warfare takes place.
Once again....someone can say whatever they like and I will not be bothered, even if it is insulting...I will just reciprocate.....because the thing to do seems to be....is that some people say some dumb shit and when they are respectfully questioned on it, turn to personal attacks to distract from their inabilty to support their position with facts or any kind of rationale.....when people try to mask this inability, they are treating other people like they are too stupid to recognize their shallow tactics......what should one do...let someone talk to them like they are dumb for the sake of civility? I don't see that happening....with me anyway......
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
And while there is suppose to be a dominant truth, who decides that, on a board where most of the statements are peoples own opinions based on their own individual views just what is the dominant truth, whence the neverending cycle of someone standing on top of the mountain trying to convince people of their absolute truth.
And I say apply this to the ACTUAL and not the ABSTRACT.

There are a number of arguments where someone is definitely not basing their opinion on all the relevant information when their opponent, at least, does base more of their opinion on factual or relevant info.

THere is something just inherently problematic with the idea of AGREE TO DISAGREE. Again, until you apply your idea to an actual situation (those that actually do occur here) then what you say really is of little value.

Like one of our last exchanges. Turns out I found the FACTUAL information you wanted to counter-challenge me with. But had I insisted on drilling that issue, you and I both know you weren't going to acknowledge the "dominant truth" in what I said. In that instance, IMO, you COPPED OUT by latching onto other themes that came up.


Actually I have no problem acknowledging the dominant truth as long as it is the truth and not the truth as you see or express it. I don't ever believe that I have had a problem admitting when I was wrong and I certainly don't pretend to know everything, but I think I know theory from fact and opinion from truth.

But as their say, "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
I believe the problem that people like Nmaginate and I have with calls for civil discourse by various individuals is that their call for civil discourse comes between if not completely surrounding by insults to our intelligence. These insults are masqueraded as the sharing of information but truthfully are nothing more than insults covered with nice words. If one wants to have a civil discussion, they should make sure they do not insult the intelligence of those whom they wish to converse with it. But as I said, I can take the cheap shots and keep on rolling; my ego is neither hurt nor bruised by name calling and the like on this forum or on my Blog. Maybe there should be a call for more toughness in a forum where verbal warfare takes place.


Its amazing that you would call for more toughness but not civility, do you honestly think that making verbal warfare on this site tougher that somehow will keep people from insulting your intelligence. And just what do you consider to be an insult to your intelligence, a differing view or a plain outrageous statement or series of statements. Granted, there is at least one individual on this board whose statements are so outrageous that it has gone pass insulting my intelligence, or as Mr. T would say "I pity the fool".
I just had a throught, why should we be focusing on whether people are tough enough to endure insults, some of which are so juvenile that it reminds me of being back in grade school on the playground. So your intelligence was insulted, get freaking real, you are black in america and even as educated and intelligent as the members of our community clearly are, this cannot be the first time that particular issue has happened to you or people around you. The fact that its other blacks shouldn't be surprising either considering the number of sellouts who are held up as "blacks finally making it" who continually insult all black people with their behavior. People complain about having their intelligence challenged, in that instance one could easily incurr that one is expressing a lack of toughness in dealing with that.

I like alot of folks on this site could give a shit about the insults, I am Army official at an Chemical Storage depot with a active chemical destruction facility of which alot of folks don't like. I'm used to insults, the kind that happen in a public forum with the press in attendance so this is nothing. I just think that we say something about ourselves and this community when we get down to that level and yes I have done it as well. I think that it is safe to say that many members enjoy coming here because this site hasn't turned into a dump of a board where nothing intelligence is discussed, all that goes on is insults and flaming messages.
I have had arguements with some people on this board and I admit I went overboard with the insults. When I finally calmed down I realised that what I did was uncalled for and apologized. There are still those who try to start arguements with me over really petty stuff (probably because they took the way I stated a certain fact on a previous post as a diss)but rather than get drawn into another pointless arguement to satisfy their bruised egos I decided from now on to just ignore them.
Okay... Everything said is all good and stuff...
But would somebody address what I actually said? Big Grin

quote:
"...there is [this] ever recurring theme amongst those who view themselves outside of either the MAINSTREAM of Black Thought on this board or generally in this country..."

My question is:
Is the call for Civility and "respecting" a diversity of views in the Black Community really motivated out of a desire to be VALIDATED?
Please note the clause IN MY QUESTION specifically targeted at the notion of effectively having or nurturing "A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY"

How this became strictly about this forum, I don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
I just had a throught, why should we be focusing on whether people are tough enough to endure insults, some of which are so juvenile that it reminds me of being back in grade school on the playground. So your intelligence was insulted, get freaking real, you are black in america and even as educated and intelligent as the members of our community clearly are, this cannot be the first time that particular issue has happened to you or people around you. The fact that its other blacks shouldn't be surprising either considering the number of sellouts who are held up as "blacks finally making it" who continually insult all black people with their behavior. People complain about having their intelligence challenged, in that instance one could easily incurr that one is expressing a lack of toughness in dealing with that.

I like alot of folks on this site could give a shit about the insults, I am Army official at an Chemical Storage depot with a active chemical destruction facility of which alot of folks don't like. I'm used to insults, the kind that happen in a public forum with the press in attendance so this is nothing. I just think that we say something about ourselves and this community when we get down to that level and yes I have done it as well. I think that it is safe to say that many members enjoy coming here because this site hasn't turned into a dump of a board where nothing intelligence is discussed, all that goes on is insults and flaming messages.



don't believe that schit for a minute...people do not like to be insulted because it is insulting....not because they cannot handle it.....and as so far as being juvenille....i could give a schit less if I did not "take it there"........and if someone is trying to teach me to be civil so they can talk to me like a dumb azz and i'll accept it...forget it....it "ain't" going to happen....because I would rather be cursed out and called names.......that is even less insulting to me...........
Adding still more to NOBODY ADDRESSING MY POINT (which was not about insults via name calling or To One's Intelligence):

quote:
JAZZDOG:

I think that it is safe to say that many members enjoy coming here because this site hasn't turned into a dump of a board where nothing intelligence is discussed, all that goes on is insults and flaming messages.
Well, I guess that's a very subjective view you have of Discussions With Intelligence. That would be the very issue at hand with respect to those who say woefully untenable things that Insult The Intelligence because they, for one, are not adding anything intelligent to the conversation.

But it's the very easy and readily identifiable "Name Calling" that most act concerned about under the increasingly questionable pretense of "Intelligent Discourse".

The point is, such discourse is not happening even when there is "civility" as long as those who Insult Others Intelligence hardly draw the ire of some easy to dismiss "Name Calling". Take LOFTON, for instance. He doesn't call names that much, per se but there are a few who respond to him but the "Level Of Discourse" question doesn't come up there.

So why is that?

It just seems there really is little concern about the Level Of Discourse. Actually, it seems like there are just too many people who are thin-skinned or something. Whatever it is, it ain't really about the Level Of Discourse.

And as for this:
quote:
Actually I have no problem acknowledging the dominant truth as long as it is the truth and not the truth as you see or express it.
I referenced a case where you did not. On the Gay Parenting thread, I challenged one of your statements (in conjunction with EBONY) and you thought you were slick by trying to counter-challenge me to come up with stats, etc. Well, when I did you didn't acknowledge anything. You did as I said. You latched onto another theme as quickly as you could never acknowledging anything -- i.e. never revisiting or revising your previously stated and challenged view.

So, let's really talk about elevating the LEVEL OF DISCOURSE.

For the record, I could care less if anyone admits their "wrong" (about essentially opinion issues), my thing is when someone makes a point, states their position... lay out not only the basis for why they have the opinion they do but also advance and forward their opinion (point-counterpoint) once challeged or once contradicting or different opinion-information is offered.

Too many times, just as you did, when either a Dominant Truth is presented or information in support of one's opponents position is presented, not only is there no acknowledgement but for those who, no doubt like you... who won't change or reconsider their position... they get quite without re-asserting why their position is "valid" and, again, advancing the conversation on the very thing they wanted to argue over.

Now, what do you call that?
It's definitely is not an example of Acknowledging anything. You didn't acknowledge that I presented information that you challenged me to come up with.
I guess "how" something is expressed is more important that "what" is actually expressed......that is what is wrong with this country....too much damn hype and window dressing and no substance.....i guess that is why W is their leader.......
Nmaginate,

I honestly don't remember you giving any stats about Gay Parenting, I found stats that you offered concerning a discussion about transracial adoptions, of course I could be wrong and they are there hidden among your many posts.

Dominant Truth even on this board is really opinions hopefully back by some shred of evidence or information. But even that is not guranteed because for every piece of information you find to support you Dominant Truth, there is an opposing opinion written by somebody else, people here love to quote folks who have authored books and articles that support their position, however they usually they find something inherently wrong with authors that offered a differing opinion. And as for stats there was a discussion just recently where stats were given to support an opinion, great, except that the stats were several years old, or does not the use of dated reference material matter, I'm not implieding that stats you offer when you do are dated, but hell anybody can dig up stats that were probably truth and relevant in their time.

You express that I or anybody should acknowledge information in support of your of anybody offering a different opinion however are you and others equally able to do the same, understand that I'm not saying that you should agree, I just saying what makes your stats or supportive information any better then mine, eseecially when there is an abudant of third party offerings that can and will support a varity of opinions. If I get quite its because I get bored with the conversation, at some point I realize that you have your opinion and I have mine, to keep beating the issue knowing that no one is going to change their position is pointless.

However if you like I will definitely acknowledge the information you present whether I agree with it or not and no matter how old it may be.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
I guess "how" something is expressed is more important that "what" is actually expressed......that is what is wrong with this country....too much damn hype and window dressing and no substance.....i guess that is why W is their leader.......


Point is that you might have a very valid point but if you get in my face screaming it, I probably am going to be more focused on what the fuck is wrong with you instead of hearing your message.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Okay... Everything said is all good and stuff...
But would somebody address what I actually said? Big Grin

quote:
"...there is [this] ever recurring theme amongst those who view themselves outside of either the MAINSTREAM of Black Thought on this board or generally in this country..."

My question is:
Is the call for Civility and "respecting" a diversity of views in the Black Community really motivated out of a desire to be VALIDATED?
Please note the clause IN MY QUESTION specifically targeted at the notion of effectively having or nurturing "A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY"

How this became strictly about this forum, I don't know.


Ok, enough of the other stuff about this forum. I don't think that validation requires you to have to respect the views of all people or even be civil to them, maybe good manners requires that but validation does not. In my opinion I would hope that if someone nurtures or supports a diversity of views it because it is realized that there is always more then one way to approach an issue or problem and that solutions can be found by combining different ideas or thoughts instead of just one. In that essence its not a matter of seeking validation but of seeking a concensus on ideas though the effort of nurturing and recongizing diverse views of different members of the community.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Nmaginate,

I honestly don't remember you giving any stats about Gay Parenting, I found stats that you offered concerning a discussion about transracial adoptions...
Please READ:
I referenced a case where you did not. On the Gay Parenting thread, I challenged one of your statements (in conjunction with EBONY)...

Seems we're both talking about the same THREAD but, oddly, you assumed something that was not said. I said nothing about Gay Parenting STATS. I said: I challenged one of your statements. And funny how you seem to know what statement/argument and STATS I'm talking about - i.e. the TransRacial Adoption stats. sck
quote:
If I get quite its because I get bored with the conversation, at some point I realize that you have your opinion and I have mine, to keep beating the issue knowing that no one is going to change their position is pointless.
Then most of these topics are POINTLESS. I don't know where people get the idea that people come here to Get Their Minds Changed.

But, seriously, it's awfully funny how you got bored after I presented the stats that you tried to dare and counter-challenge me to come up with:

quote:
Posted April 27, 2005 10:55 AM
I SAID:

Further on my above point, there are exceptions to every rule. And surely one instance (and possibly an exception) does not make the rule.

So, really, JAZZDOG... your brother-in-law's story is not very useful here unless you have some stats that show his reflects the rule in such a situation as opposed to Ward Connerly types....
Your counter-challenge to that was:
"Unless you have stats how can you make the statement that he is the exception to the rule."

Hmmm... and it's funny how you got "BORED" so quickly after you racheted up your rhetoric, thusly:
quote:
Posted April 27, 2005 05:56 PM

...You are so intent on assuming what is the norm without providing any basis for that assumption.

I'm still waiting on your stats to support what you and others by your statement think is the norm for black kids raised by white families, something that you allude to but don't actually state. For someone who seems so sure of it, it should be easy to provide that if you can.
Now, on April 28, 2005 02:02 AM I presented those stats you were "waiting" for... and what did you do? How did you respond?

You conveniently talked about the Marcus Dixon situation I brought up without ever acknowledging those stats you were supposedly "waiting" for.

Your last post there was on April 28, 2005 11:49 AM. You made three (3) post total after the one I posted the "awaited" stats on. All of those 3 posts of yours responded to other posts I made after the one with the stats.

And, as far as we know, those stats were undeniably true. So there is no question of merely picking out something that supports my opinion.

quote:
JAZZDOG:
I'm just saying what makes your stats or supportive information any better then mine, especially when there is an abudant of third party offerings that can and will support a variety of opinions.
You didn't offer any stats in that situation... So, again, SPEAKING IN THE ABSTRACT and not about a particular situation all your talk here serves to do is to OBFUSCATE.

Obviously, in that Gay Parenting vs. White Parenting (Black Children) thread... MY STATS WERE "BETTER" by default because you offered none to contend. And I suffer to see what would constitute a "Third Party" source particularly when you consider (1) you didn't offer any stats that called mine into question and (2) the nature of the stats were not about opinions but about objectively observed phenomena, however flawed particular methods in collecting said stats might be.

But, without you offering anything save an Anecdotal, then all this stuff you've said here amounts to not-so-well crafted BS.

quote:
You express that I or anybody should acknowledge information in support of your of anybody offering a different opinion however are you and others equally able to do the same?
No. You claimed that you did or do acknowledge such information:
"Actually I have no problem acknowledging the dominant truth as long as it is the truth and not the truth as you see or express it."

So what part of the stats I listed was not THE TRUTH? How was it, as you say, "the truth as I see it" as opposed to THE TRUTH about the matter?

You can take a look at it again (link below).
What is it about the STATS that you can legitimately call an opinionated, perceived, personal "truth" of mine as opposed to the DOMINANT or objective obtained TRUTH?

http://www.pineforge.com/newman4study/resources/transracial.htm

And it would help if you actually read what I said. Again, the Acknowledgement thing was your theme, not mine. This is what I said:

For the record, I could care less if anyone admits their "wrong"... my thing is when someone makes a point, states their position... [then they should] lay out not only the basis for why they have the opinion they do but also advance and forward their opinion (point-counterpoint) once challeged or once contradicting or different opinion-information is offered.

Too many times, just as you did, when either a Dominant Truth is presented or information in support of one's opponents position is presented, not only is there no acknowledgement... they get quiet without re-asserting why their position is "valid" and, again, advancing the conversation on the very thing they wanted to argue over.


And yes. I'm willing to point-and-counterpoint sticking to my position especially when I believe whatever point my opponent makes does not adequately address what I have been saying or conceptualizing.

But, I guess I don't get "BORED" so easily -- and conveniently when ostensibly OBJECTIVE facts are offered by my opponent.

Again, I said I could care less about anyone admitting they're "wrong". But, then, that's me. I'm more interested in why a person said what they did in the first place and why or what makes them hold onto their positions after "facts" or a "better" argued case has been made against what they say.

I do that because, it seems to me, people aren't very forthcoming with what really informs their views. Sometimes, right or wrong, at least knowing where they exactly are coming from helps you better understand their positions. So it's definitely not about getting someone to agree with me.

But that actually seems to be important to you. In fact, you said, in essence, conversations are POINTLESS without it -- i.e. without someone changing their mind.

I have always maintained that's not my purpose nor do I presume I have such skill or power. A person makes a very personal choice to change their mind for their own reasons. Perhaps something somebody says may spark that but I don't delude myself by thinking people come here To Get Their Minds Changed.

Seems to me, people posts on forums, generally just to speak their mind. And some, obviously think they actually can change other people's minds and set out to purposely do so, even when their arguments, logically, "inferior" to the very person's mind they think they can or have to change.
JAZZDOG:
I don't think that validation requires you to have to respect the views of all people or even be civil to them, maybe good manners requires that but validation does not.

Unfortunately, you're still not addressing what I've asked. In fact, you got it twisted.
HINT: I'm not asking "what validation requires".

In that essence its not a matter of seeking validation but of seeking a concensus on ideas though the effort of nurturing and recongizing diverse views of different members of the community.

Seeking Validation vs. Seeking A Consensus?

How does that make sense when considering what I said? How I prefaced my question:
"...there is [this] ever recurring theme amongst those who view themselves outside of either the MAINSTREAM of Black Thought on this board or generally in this country..."

That is, this "civility" and Diversity Of Views rhetoric come from Black Conservative types (of all stripes - Libertarian, etc.) who feel like what they have to say is legitimate and criticisms directed towards them are, I guess, overly harsh, ostracizing and alienating.

So, if they are Seeking A Consensus based on their ideology or particular things they specifically note as not being within the perceived MAINSTREAM of Black Views...
HOW ARE THEY NOT LOOKING FOR VALIDATION?
... by artificially saying their views should be respected just on GP?

I mean, that's what it seems like to me.
Why would someone nuture a variety of diverse views if they were seeking to be validated and their views respected. Why encourage different thought in opposition to your own view especially since the views being nutured could overwhelmingly be different to your own.

Unless you are saying that they know that they are outside the mainstream thinking and by giving the appearance of encouraging different views they seek validation as someone who nutures different ideas other then their own, they are not party to one idealogy but are open to all opinions thus making them and their views more respectable and less harsh to the community. By this method they seek to soften the criticisms directed toward them by thus gaining some small measure of legitimate status as an individual open to diverse views and ideas. Because as long as they are seemed as being outside the mainsteam, their views and themselves will never get the respect or validation they seek.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
I guess "how" something is expressed is more important that "what" is actually expressed......that is what is wrong with this country....too much damn hype and window dressing and no substance.....i guess that is why W is their leader.......


Point is that you might have a very valid point but if you get in my face screaming it, I probably am going to be more focused on what the fuck is wrong with you instead of hearing your message.


I hear ya jazzdog, I have learned to allow myself to be exposed to it all..and sift through even the bullschit to try and get something out of it.....no matter how it comes at me.......
quote:
By this method they seek to soften the criticisms directed toward them by thus gaining some small measure of legitimate status as an individual open to diverse views and ideas. Because as long as they are seemed as being outside the mainsteam, their views and themselves will never get the respect or validation they seek.
JD, now we're getting somewhere.

It seems to me the "Civility" and "We Should Respect A Diversity Of Views" angle is said by Black Conservative types as a way to soften the criticisms directed toward them. It certainly doesn't seem like they actually Respect or Nuture A Diversity Of Views. Matter of fact, their whole social/political existance, IMO, is about criticizing the mainstream or traditional Schools Of Black Thought without even a hint of genuine respect for them. They seem to openly rebuke those "traditional" Schools Of Thought as being outmolded, non-forward thinking, counterproductive or the very source of Black people's problems.

It is THEY who come from an Oppositional Mindset. I'm saying THEY are self-conscious about where they stand as they stand outside of the "Mainstream" of the Black Political Consensus loosely composed of those more "traditional" Schools Of Thought. Because of that, it seems, like the Debra Dickerson said they feel there should be a SAFE SPACE for them and their views. To me, that seems like they want to avoid the criticism directed towards them while, apparently, they are free to criticize as they please.

The SAFE SPACE comment was made when Dickerson was talking to Michael Eric Dyson about his Cosby book, speaking about us having a constructive Dialogue relationship with Clarence Thomas(-es), no less.

quote:
Unless you are saying that they know that they are outside the mainstream thinking
That's exactly what I'm saying. THEY are conscious, actually self-conscious (as in overly conscious - hypersensitive is more like it), about being outside of the Black Mainstream...

quote:
by giving the appearance of encouraging different views they seek validation as someone who nutures different ideas other then their own,
I think you're confusing things here. Yes, I'm saying THEY want to appear as if they feel there should be a Diversity of Views, ones given automatic (I guess) respect. And I'm saying it is SELF-SERVING. I'm saying THEY want or talk about African-Americans being "civil" and "respecting" A Diversity Of Views just say their views can be respected. THEY are, IMO, not about "nurturing" a Diversity Of Thought. THEY are about trying to legitimate or establish their ideological place as a legitimate one worthy of respect JUST BECAUSE. IMO, THEY don't want to earn the respect is what I'm saying, for one, and they act like they shouldn't be criticized.

What else is a SAFE SPACE mentality/call/request all about except for wanting to automatically be granted legitimacy and, in truth, a sense of "equality" amongst the Mainstream or Prevailing Schools Of Thought.

IMO, THEY want respect that THEY haven't earned. And, by way of calling for "respect" and "civility" -- which ultimately translate into wanting Legitimacy or Equality -- THEY seek validation or the recognition. THEY want their views to be seen as Legitimate (in the sense of being unquestionably valueable and viable) and Responsible (as in possessing a valid and responsible analysis of our situation).

quote:
and they are not party to one idealogy but are open to all opinions thus making them and their views more respectable and less harsh to the community.
I don't know what you're saying here. I don't think the Black Conservative types (or however you would describe the whole group voicing the same sentiment) are any more tolerant or considerate as anyone else. Again, I view their words and calls for "civility" and "respect" as ultimately if not entirely SELF-SERVING.

There is nothing I've seen where THEY seem to have an interest or place an emphasis on How We Reach Common Ground or Where We Seem To Have Common Ground And Common Cause On.

The point is THEY want full reign to criticized but don't want to be criticized themselves. And I guess their idea is that they are (more) easily overwhelmed or shut down by the criticism because they are outnumbered and Out Of The Black Mainstream.
Perhaps I should have used the wording "self serving" when I addressed these types of people as giving the appearance of encouraging different views as the seek validation, because of course they are self-serving because their effort clearly is not to help others but to give the sense that they and their ideas can fit into mainstream thinking as part of a diversity of views which is probably the only way their ideas would even get considered.

They are in a sense using a slight of hand trick to become respected, not actually earning respect but using tricks and notions of nurturing diverse ideas in hopes of their views being accepted unchallenged as the community accepts all views with equal status, including theirs. If they can sucessful push the idea of having or nuturing a diversity of views, it clearly means that even their views as outlandish as they may be can also be considered for mainsteam thinking and acceptance, because in accepting a diversity of ideas, everyones opinion should have merit, even the crazy ones.

I clearly understand that and the notion of a safe space, a place where they can continue to challenge traditional thinking yet at the same time be insulated from having to explain or defend their own ideas, I'm not sure how they expect to be taken intellectually serious if they are scared to put their ideas out there and have them challenged or perhaps thats the point, they definitely don't want them out there because they already understand just how far outside mainstream thinking they are. In that sense they are probably doing the right thing, if you know that you and your views can't stand the spotlight of intelligent discussion don't put them out there by themselves but hide and insulate them among the diversity of ideas that you are nurturing among the community.

My quote about them not being party to one idealogy but open to all opinions and having their views becoming more respectable and less harsh to the community was not to push the ideal that they were more tolerant or considerate then anybody else but was intended as defining a goal of theirs. The goal being to present something that they are not which is a group of people not defined by one idealogy but open to all opinions, in that manner they look to be more appealing to the community, in short as you have say they are self-serving concerned with how they and their ideas are precieved.

Ultimately the end goal as you have stated is respect not earned but given in a space devoided of any criticism of their ideas and opinions, the fact that they use subterfuge to obtain that goal is a definite indication of how badly they want to be considered mainstream.
quote:
Ultimately the end goal as you have stated is respect not earned but given in a space devoided of any criticism of their ideas and opinions, the fact that they use subterfuge to obtain that goal is a definite indication of how badly they want to be considered mainstream.
I think that sums up what I was trying to say. That is, I think you understand my point. And I think your point about MERIT Is exactly what's at issue.

It seems THEY want they're views to be considered as having MERIT even when their overall arguments have been specifically criticized for their lack of merit. And it does seem like THEY want the spotlight, the resonance and "respect" more traditional views have in the Black Community.

The truth seems to be that THEY want to be seen as THE LEADERS or the most responsible, forward thinking group (or collection of people) among us. This has struck me to seem THEM as people who view themselves as PEOPLE WITHOUT A PEOPLE. Or Leaders Without The Following THEY Think THEY Should Have -- which is both ironic and tragic (for them at least) because of how overrepresented THEY are in the media.

Yes, it is all about "trickery"; Sleight Of Hand tactics trying to pull off what THEY can't otherwise do, by legitimate, straightforward means.
I maybe wrong in this assertion but does it not seem that most of the time those that want to be seem as the leaders are people chosen by everybody but the rest of the community. Either that appointment is a self-appointment i.e. Rev Jesse Patterson, or one by a third party selection, i.e. Condi Rice selected by GW. In both cases both parties are definitely overrepresented by the media, one because the person actively seeks the attention, the other due to position on the world stage.

In the case of Rev. Patterson he wants the spotlight so bad he is willing to be used as a stooge for groups that traditionally have not had our best interests at heart and while he may have a small following I seriously doubt even in an atmosphere where diverse ideas are welcomed that anybody is going to take him seriously as a mainstream leader.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×