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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)