Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 16 of 860 (681033)
11-22-2012 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by onifre
11-22-2012 4:34 AM


Re: crashfrog, message 343
Do you ever find yourself taking on your comedic persona in inappropriate circumstances?
Me too, except I'm not a professional!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by onifre, posted 11-22-2012 4:34 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2012 8:59 PM Admin has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 860 (681235)
11-23-2012 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 5:40 PM


Re: crashfrog, message 343
It's rather like pointing out a logical fallacy.
But you didn't refer to my argument as being fallacious. You referred to me as having "selective vision."
By definition that's a personal attack, but I guess everyone gets to make them but me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 5:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 860 (681237)
11-23-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Admin
11-22-2012 7:26 AM


Moderator attention in that thread
Hi, Percy.
I was just wondering if, as you'd promised, you'd had a chance to take a look through that thread at how my positions were being misrepresented. As you can see, by now Straggler, Oni, and most especially Hooah have done so at least once each. Hooah has done so on several occasions.
I mean, I'm assuming you said
quote:
Tell ya what, and this is diabolical, you'll love it: just clearly state your position again and let me watch everyone lie about you. It's the perfect plan. I'll catch everyone in the act, everyone will get suspended, you'll be happy, I'll be happy, and peace will prevail again at EvC.
in a wry but sincere good faith, and not just as a way to blow me off. Right?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 11-22-2012 7:26 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 11-23-2012 9:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 860 (681243)
11-23-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
11-23-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Hi Crash,
That was pretty obviously a joke. I was trying to get you to lighten up while still making the point that I think you're being paranoid. The serious part of my post was a quote from the Bible: First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. I didn't think this needed explaining, but given that you've ignored it maybe I should.
Yes, I've been following that thread and am finding the arguments fairly obtuse. You in particular I am finding very difficult to understand. I was looking for clarity about your position, for example, a clear answer to this inquiry from Hooah in Message 379:
Hooah writes:
crash writes:
hooah212002 writes:
If the answer is no, then you admit that racism and discrimination are not synonymous.
I've never made the assertion that they are.
In Message 296, I said
quote:
Racism is not synonymous with discrimination. You should try looking up the definition of racism if you are having such difficulty with this discussion.
In Message 298, you replied with:
crash writes:
hooah212002 writes:
Racism is not synonymous with discrimination.
Yes, it is.
But I never found it. Not understanding your position, in fact finding it pretty convoluted and for that reason incomprehensible, all I can say is that I think other people are pretty confused about your position, too. I think you need to put your effort into making much more clear statements about your position instead accusing everyone of lying about you. Whatever it is you think you're trying to say, apparently you're not saying it.
To everyone in that thread: please tone it down a bit or I'll close it for a bit so people can cool down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2012 8:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2012 10:34 PM Admin has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 860 (681245)
11-23-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
11-23-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
I was trying to get you to lighten up while still making the point that I think you're being paranoid.
Well, ok, but you're wrong. I'm not being paranoid, misrepresentations of my position are actually happening in that thread. Is this the thread where you'd like me to detail each instance?
You in particular I am finding very difficult to understand.
Can you explain the trouble you're having? I explicitly listed the positions I was defending in that thread, in Message 373:
quote:
For the record, then, these are the positions I'm defending in this thread, in approximate chronological order:
1) "Elevator Gate" was a far bigger deal to Watson's detractors, who have largely criticized her for things she didn't actually say, than it was to Watson. The controversy surrounding "Elevator Gate" should be properly understood as an issue where movement atheism had an incredibly sexist response to an incredibly mild criticism of a culture that largely pays little heed to the contributions and safety of women at atheist conferences - not as a woman being "perpetually offended" at the mere idea that she might be found sexually attractive.
2) The worst excesses supposedly attributed to feminism - "all sex is rape", etc - are largely either the invention of detractors or legitimate discourse taken completely out of context.
3) Privilege is crucial to understanding forms of bigotry such as racism, sexism, classism, and other "isms"; where one does not have privilege over another, one cannot discriminate against another. That's how we're able to correctly recognize "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a fundamentally racist text and "Stuff White People Like" as fundamentally not racist in any way, the "n-word" as fundamentally racist when white people use it but not when black people do, the word "cracker" as an epithet against white people as not racist in any way, etc. Those that insist that privilege is not central to discrimination and therefore racism are obligated to explain under their model why it's not racist to refer to a white person as a "cracker" or to invoke white stereotypes like "can't dance", "love cheese", etc.
Those are my positions. If you see someone in this thread impart to me a position other than these, without quoting where I've defended that position, that's a pretty good place to start to see if I'm being misrepresented.
So, just starting from the most recent messages and working backward, is
[quote]merely having a certain skin color... in all scenarios, grant[s] universal privilege[/quote]
a position listed in that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 402. Is
quote:
the much-discussed elevator incident [is] an act of sexism that isn't misogynistic
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 376. Is
quote:
sexism [is] something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 369 and again in Message 376. Is
quote:
you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 316 and again in Message 321. Is
quote:
You think it's only racism or sexism if someone is offended.
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 312. Is
quote:
racism is only racism when white discriminates against black, but not when black discriminates against white?
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 288. Is
quote:
elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts"
a position listed on that list? That position was attributed to me in Message 282. And so on.
These are real posts, Percy, I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not being paranoid that I was asked to defend these indefensible positions, I really was. They were put to me as though they were my positions and I was supposed to defend them from challenge. That really, actually happened. It's not paranoid delusion, those posts exist. How can you say that they don't, or that I'm making up what's happening here? In light of this evidence, isn't it just far more likely that you've arrived at your dismissive conclusions without actually having taken a look at what's going on in the thread?
I was looking for clarity about your position, for example, a clear answer to this inquiry from Hooah in Message 379...But I never found it.
How can that possible, when all you had to do was click the little link at the bottom that said "Replies to this message: Message 389 by crashfrog posted 11-23-2012 6:25 PM"? My clear answer is in that reply: Hooah is misrepresenting the context.
I mean, obviously. Think it through. Why would it be the case that I would tell you that I was defending the proposition that racism was when discrimination occurs on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race in Message 294, suddenly defend the absurd proposition that racism was any time discrimination occurs for any reason supposedly in Message 298, and then suddenly switch back to defending the proposition that racism is discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race in Message 302?
That makes no sense. Clearly, message 298 was in the context of speaking specifically about racism and discrimination on the basis of privilege according to race. Obviously I've never held, nor intended to communicate, the absurd idea that racism is when discrimination happens for any reason at all. I admit that, for sake of brevity, I didn't reference the appropriate context at all times in that thread, and that allowed Hooah an opportunity to completely misrepresent me. But no reasonable person can read that exchange of posts and believe that I hold the view that "racism" is what it's called when discrimination happens for any reason at all.
Not understanding your position, in fact finding it pretty convoluted and for that reason incomprehensible
My position is that "racism" is discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race, a definition that I've provided in that thread, substantiated by reference to authorities in sociology and critical race theory, and repeated perhaps half a dozen times in that exact language. What's "convoluted" about it? What's "incomprehensible" about it?
Isn't it possible, Percy, that the reason my completely straightforward position seems convoluted to you - like I'm defending a dozen different contradictory positions at once - is that you're trusting my interlocutors to be responding to my posts in good faith without misrepresentation, and they're actually not? Like in the seven examples I have above?
To everyone in that thread: please tone it down a bit or I'll close it for a bit so people can cool down.
As always, as in this post, I'm happy to explain my position and detail precisely how I've been misrepresented in the calmest possible terms. But for some reason, you're only prepared to treat the possibility that I might be right as some kind of joke. Is it possible to have another moderator take a look at this message?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 11-23-2012 9:46 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 8:23 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 21 of 860 (681272)
11-24-2012 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
11-23-2012 10:34 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
crashfrog writes:
Well, ok, but you're wrong. I'm not being paranoid...
Ah, I see, you're not paranoid because everyone *is* out to misrepresent you.
I wish I could help, I really do, but facts and arguments count for little against what people sincerely believe. If you really and truly believe everyone's out to misrepresent you then there's little to be done.
But as I said earlier, you may yourself be the cause of confusion. For example, I have no idea what the qualification about "on the basis of privilege according to race" means in this quote:
crash writes:
Clearly, message 298 was in the context of speaking specifically about racism and discrimination on the basis of privilege according to race.
Don't explain it here, my interest right now is discussion problems, not racism. I think the best approach would be for you to return to the thread and try once again to make your position clear. There's even a clear advantage in this approach for you. If you are actually being clear, then every time someone "misrepresents" you it's another opportunity for you to post yet another clear and persuasive statement of your position. Pretty soon you'll have a whole thread full of brief essays expressing your point of view and making clear what a bunch of lunkheads the other participants must be to not understand such clarity of prose. What could be better than that!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2012 10:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2012 8:45 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 9:57 AM Admin has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 860 (681273)
11-24-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
11-24-2012 8:23 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Well as one of the lunkheads can I just say that I am genuinely not trying to misrepresent Crash and that I do in fact quite enjoy his uncompromising style of debate.
I think he is simply wrong in that thread but I'm not out to get him at all. From what little I know I think I'd quite like the guy if we were to ever meet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 8:23 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:01 AM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 860 (681276)
11-24-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
11-24-2012 8:23 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Ah, I see, you're not paranoid because everyone *is* out to misrepresent you.
I don't think everyone is out to get me; it's not my intention to cast a wider net than the specific individuals who, above, I've detailed instances of misrepresentation.
I wish I could help, I really do, but facts and arguments count for little against what people sincerely believe.
Yes, I'm starting to get that sense. For instance, what do you do when someone ignores more than half a dozen examples of precisely the behavior they deny anyone is engaged in?
For example, I have no idea what the qualification about "on the basis of privilege according to race" means in this quote
I mean "discrimination on the basis of privilege according to race" as opposed to "discrimination on the basis of anything at all", the position attributed to me by Hooah in Message 371 when he asked me to address his example:
quote:
I'll ask again: is it racism to deny someone a job based on a disability?
Now, it's certainly discrimination to deny someone a job based on their disability, but it's not discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to race. Obviously. It's discrimination on the basis of someone having a disability; when that happens, it's sometimes known as "able-ism."
So when I specify "privilege that accrues according to race", I'm trying to be as specific as possible about what kind of discrimination on the basis of privilege is racism, and what kind is not. When the privilege underlying the discrimination accrues on the basis of race, that's racism. When it accrues on the basis of sex or gender, that's sexism. When it accrues on the basis of socioeconomic status, that's classism. I'm just trying to be as clear as possible because otherwise, Hooah seizes on the ambiguity to misrepresent my position with quotes taken out of context where I appear to be defending absurdly overgeneralized ideas, like any time that discrimination of any kind happens, it's racism.
Don't explain it here, my interest right now is discussion problems, not racism.
Well, ok. The discussion problem we're having right now in that thread is that my opponents are misrepresenting my positions freely, but you refuse to even consider that they might be. I don't require that you immediately come around to my view on this - I appreciate that I'm not in a position to be fully objective, since I'm one of the participants - all I'm asking is that you look at the evidence I presented, see if the positions attributed to me where anything I ever myself asserted, and if not, make a determination about whether the other participants are making an effort to "avoid any form of misrepresentation" as stipulated in the forum guidelines.
I think the best approach would be for you to return to the thread and try once again to make your position clear.
As of Message 416 I feel that I've been as clear as I can possibly be without having a better understanding of the issue you're having. Is it possible that, in that thread and possibly as a reply to that post, you could reply either as Admin or as Percy and let me know how I'm not yet being clear? A list of questions, perhaps, or you could try to restate my position in your own words as you understand it so I could see how I'm being interpreted (or misinterpreted, as the case may be.) My only goal is to communicate clearly, and in my professional life I usually develop a reputation as someone who is able to explain complex concepts clearly, so I'm surprised to learn I'm having such trouble in this instance.
Pretty soon you'll have a whole thread full of brief essays expressing your point of view and making clear what a bunch of lunkheads the other participants must be to not understand such clarity of prose.
Well, but again the issue is not that I'm being misunderstood, but that I'm being misrepresented. Is it possible that your confusion about my position has arisen not because I'm suddenly a tongue-tied communicator - me, with a background in English literature, scientific journalism, and technical communication - but because my positions as I state them, and my positions as reflected in the replies of my opponents, are so different that it looks like I'm defending a confusing mishmash of contradictory views?
Isn't that at least a possibility? And if it was, what kind of evidence would you accept for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 8:23 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2012 10:09 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 27 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:25 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 860 (681277)
11-24-2012 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
11-24-2012 8:45 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Well as one of the lunkheads can I just say that I am genuinely not trying to misrepresent Crash and that I do in fact quite enjoy his uncompromising style of debate.
I'd just like to say, Straggler, that I also enjoy debate with people who are prepared to level a full-throated defense of their position, and you're very much one such.
But intentionally or unintentionally, I would ask that I not be expected to defend positions that aren't the ones I hold. I'm prepared to accept that your misrepresentations are unintentional, and for your reference, when I ask you to show me where I said something, that's my signal to you that I believe you're ascribing to me a position I don't hold. If the answer is "oh, I misunderstood, I thought that's what you meant in this post", then by all means say so and I'll take whatever pains are required to express myself more clearly. When genuine misunderstanding occurs, it's my responsibility to address it.
But if others are determined to ascribe to me positions that aren't mine, it's not a matter of expressing myself more clearly. It's a matter of other people being determined to violate the forum guidelines.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2012 8:45 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 25 of 860 (681280)
11-24-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
froggie writes:
ad nauseum...
TLNR
Yawn.
Isn't this thread supposed to be for discussion problems, not self-esteem issues?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 9:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:22 AM Theodoric has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 860 (681282)
11-24-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Theodoric
11-24-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
I don't understand how there can still be doubt that some participants here are motivated by a personal vendetta against me.
A quick question, Percy, if I may - have the messages posted by any other EvC member at completely unrelated websites resulted in a massive hacking attempt against EvC, simply because I post here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2012 10:09 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:42 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2012 11:00 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 27 of 860 (681283)
11-24-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
crashfrog writes:
Well, but again the issue is not that I'm being misunderstood, but that I'm being misrepresented.
You're reading intent where there is none that I can see. I have invested serious time reading through this thread and through your posts to this thread, I can't justify any more.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 9:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:30 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 860 (681284)
11-24-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Admin
11-24-2012 10:25 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
You're reading intent where there is none that I can see.
I'm reading intent where it's happening too frequently, and too frequently in the direction where a less defensible position is inaccurately described to me rather than a more defensible position, to be accident.
But, regardless, how much unintentional misrepresentation are you prepared to accept in that thread? Maybe you could offer a guideline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 29 of 860 (681286)
11-24-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Hi Crash,
I wasn't going to respond to any more of your posts to this thread, but this one is intriguing enough to make an exception:
I don't understand how there can still be doubt that some participants here are motivated by a personal vendetta against me.
A quick question, Percy, if I may - have the messages posted by any other EvC member at completely unrelated websites resulted in a massive hacking attempt against EvC, simply because I post here?
In other words, you're using your well known propensity for intensely pissing people off as evidence of a conspiratorial vendetta. It's an interesting argument, but I don't see the purposeful intent that you see.
What I do see is that you are taking up my time with, however significant and important they seem to you, frivolous issues.
I do have a few fixes I can propose, people can vote here if they have a preference:
  1. The thread is about atheism, not racism. I could rule the racism discussion off-topic.
  2. The thread is already way past 300 messages, I could send it into summation mode.
  3. I could close the thread.
  4. I could do nothing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2012 10:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 11-24-2012 10:53 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 11-24-2012 10:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:13 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 860 (681288)
11-24-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
11-24-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
2

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024