Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
38 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 43 of 707 (681307)
11-24-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
11-24-2012 12:22 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
But crash is right that this is not the place for this discussion. Though if you want to have it, there's always the PNT procedure.

As for the matter at hand. I don't think any form of actionable misrepresentation is taking place that I have seen. It seems to me that what's happening in general is that people are trying to show what they feel are flaws in crash's argument by showing were they feel it breaks down.

If they are wrong about where crash's argument breaks down, that isn't misrepresentation. For example let's take Message 402, which is claimed to be a misrepresentation. Looking at the post as a whole, it seems hooah's understanding of crash's position came from Message 325 where crashfrog responded to an example that hooah had constructed where black people had privilege and were discriminating based on race which crashfrog said wasn't racist.

He was saying this runs in contrast to crashfrog's stated position that a situation like that where ' where the black man had more racial privilege than the white person, that would be racism.'

Personally, I think that crashfrog misunderstood hooah. Either because in hooah's example wasn't sufficiently clear or some failing of crashfrog's or both, it doesn't really matter.

Hooah was trying to point out what he felt was the difference in the ideals crashfrog was espousing and the way crashfrog was applying them to examples being raised. That seems a legitimate debate course to take, even if we want to criticize hooah's execution of it.

I've held off from commenting previously because crashfrog isn't exactly a fan of my moderator actions/comments. However, he did ask for another moderator to take a look at the situation. If crashfrog has a preferred moderator he'd like to take a look, he should probably PM that person.

Though I would say one further thing, as related to the topic the discussion may well be, it seems to have become something of a topic in its own right and maybe someone wants to try making a new topic dedicated to it...though if it brews more bad blood that might not be the wisest course of action.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 12:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:07 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 49 of 707 (681317)
11-24-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 1:07 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation?

Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation?

Case by case basis. Whether someone misrepresented someone, and whether that constitutes a serious enough problem to warrant action is not something that can be defined in a straightforward manner.

This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given.

Whether he succeeded or not is not a matter I'm going to discuss. That was clearly his intention.

Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood?

Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege.

Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message?

An unpleasant way of saying that your new statements seem to run counter to early ones. Which was hooah's overall point.

Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here?

I suppose I could have been under the mistaken impression that hooah was trying to construct a scenario where the black people had the privilege to see if you would be prepared to call their actions racist.

quote:
in my example, the black men had "privilege" because they had the basketball and the extra players and the white guy wanted to play basketball, but needed the black guys. The white guy is the underprivileged in this scenario.

No, it looks like my understanding of hooah is pretty much what he was trying to represent.

Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it?

I raised hooah's potentially poor execution as a possible reason for the issue.

The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me.

quote:
Either because in hooah's example wasn't sufficiently clear or some failing of crashfrog's or both, it doesn't really matter.

I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents?

I'm really not sure that's going to improve your mood, but here's what I made of a few of them

Your citing of Message 376 falls down as that is a question about your position, not a representation of your position. For some reason when you quoted it you omitted the words 'Are you citing' and the question mark at the end. You then changed the word 'as' to 'is'.

In Message 369, Straggler said "you have effectively defined", indicating that Straggler believes that your position amounts to that, not that he was saying you had explicitly stated that as your position.

Message 316 is a conditional. You quoted hooah as saying 'you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.' When what he actually said was " I said that racism is not dependent on race to be qualified as racism. Black people can be just as racist as white people. It's about seeking equality, something you will never be able to do if you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white."

This seems a reasonable, though not particularly eloquent, continuation of the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever.

With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right - but you did introduce 'upsetness' as a flag of sorts for racism.

Message 288, you omitted the 'So' and the question mark.

Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'. How is that misrepresenting you? Are you one of those blog entries?

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:07 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 2:42 PM AdminModulous has responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 707 (681346)
11-24-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot.

I see.

But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply.

You did? I thought you said it wasn't racist and then said that SWPL is not racist. What was the convincing argument that he had failed to construct a scenario in which black people had privilege? Another way to look at it is that you were just arguing that it was fine for a black person to say 'White people can't play ball' (which would make it a bit like SWPL I suppose), but hooah's example has them denying the white person the opportunity to play ball. Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps there is some alternative I'm not seeing.

Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood?

Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege. I appreciate that you claim not to have misunderstood this, but that is what I was referring to. Maybe you misunderstood it in the way described above. If you understood hooah's intention and meaning fully, your reply to him looks pretty misleading to me - and I can't fault him for being misled.

...was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me?

I'm not sure further explanation will get us anywhere. Hooah believed that he had presented an example where black people had privilege and were racially discriminating. When you said that wasn't racist, he criticised you for it. He believed you held the position that when black people held privilege they still wouldn't be being racist, as that is how you had responded to him.

My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary?

I wasn't implying your mood was uncalm or irrational.

Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that.

It's not a loaded question. If you answer 'no', the follow up would just be 'can you provide such an example?'. I see no unjustified or controversial assumptions built into the question here. I don't think anybody reading that would reasonably infer anything incorrect about your position.

Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure.

If your opponent is wrong about what your position leads to, that isn't misrepresentation. Or if you want to say that it technically is on some level, it's certainly not the kind of thing that will get moderator intervention - as it would be unworkable and if applied fairly it would kill discussion dead.

the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever.
What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it?

He made it in Message 312,

quote:
if I tell Oni to go eat a taco, it IS RACIST but he likely won't get offended. Hell, it's not even accurate since he's Cuban, but it's still racist. It is NOT, however, racial privilege. Its is simply racism. RACISM, NOT RACIAL PRIVILEGE. You are just too much of a honky to understand racism. You are so wrapped up in cracker land that the only racism you know is what you read in your college textbooks.

And back in Message 291 he said

quote:
Since when does privilege dictate what is considered racism? You are basically saying that it would not be racism for you to tell the king of Rwanda to go eat some fried chicken and watermelon simply because he is privileged.

Racism is racism no matter the race. Sexism is sexism no matter the sex. You ought to stop trying to make special cases.


Hooah was clearly of the opinion that one can be racist without having privilege and was making that argument.

...And?

That means it wasn't a representation of your position, but a viewpoint as to what your position implies. It's perfectly fine in an argument to use the 'so you think x, then?' line of attack. I mean it can be used problematically, of course. But just because someone says 'So then x?' and you don't agree with x, that isn't necessarily misrepresentation.

Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'.

That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts."

It's a pretty close description of what Straggler said, indeed what he said exactly was

quote:
I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action........

I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick.


Some blogs said it was sexism, Straggler is unconvinced that it was either sexist or the exhibition of misogynistic thoughts. Where's the misrepresentation of your position?

Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts?

I thought he was referring to some blog posts. I got that from where he said 'I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action'

Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional.

Whether or not misrepresentation is something that can be acted upon is not a concept invented by me. Since in debates, people regularly misunderstand what their opponents are arguing - the charge 'misrepresentation' as a debate problem is a difficult one to establish. I would normally look for some intent to deceive in place, or some other egregious act.

As I said, I don't think there is any particular act of misrepresentation going on here. At best your opponents are trying to demonstrate problems with their perception of your position. I guess its up to you how much work you want to put into explaining the errors in their perception before you give your opponents up as hopeless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 2:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 5:31 PM AdminModulous has responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 53 of 707 (681368)
11-24-2012 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
I've given my view of the situation. I looked at your examples. I answered questions you asked of me regarding my position on it, though I appreciate not fully to your satisfaction. Experience tells me that continuing in this vain will be futile and counter-productive.

Sorry if you didn't get what you wanted from me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 5:31 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:48 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 65 of 707 (681862)
11-28-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
11-28-2012 8:52 AM


Re: Forever having another meltdown?
Percy has gone through several phases of using this method with some positive results. Message 26 and Message 288 are examples of it being used. I think you're right to think it might be worth employing this tactic with FEY as a means to maintaining thread integrity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2012 8:52 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 189 of 707 (718886)
02-09-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Coyote
02-09-2014 12:15 PM


Re: mini-rant
I think Theological Creationism and ID we designed for this purpose. And it was built for Faith too, if I recall correctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2014 12:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:40 PM AdminModulous has responded
 Message 210 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 5:51 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 193 of 707 (718907)
02-09-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
02-09-2014 12:40 PM


Re: mini-rant
I see no reason to suspect its going to become any form of issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2014 2:00 PM AdminModulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019