Ceci - WEB - Scrib thread digression

[Ceci]

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Here you are saying that Italian Ice is using "Jim Crow ettiquette." That is calling someone a racist as much as saying that someone uses "Nazi etiquette."

In your mind. You can make the allusion as much as you want. Nobody's stopping you.

Show me verbatim where you have been insulted.

From Can Americans Truly Deal With the Issue of Race?

Originally Posted by Scribbler1
I made no rules, and I'm sorry if you find this nitpicky, but I objected to your excessive use of those rolling-eyes emoticons which I find highly insulting when overused like that. Those "smileys" are used to convey facial expression, and by using them, especially with such regularity, you are not merely insulting, but condescending and frankly, annoying as hell.

Insult number one.

Can Americans Truly Deal With Race?

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Off you go now. I do hope you recover from your puzzled condition.

Insult number two.

Can Americans truly deal with the issue of race?

Originally Posted by Sgt. Bilko
Maybe "they" who promote themselves as victims of slavery and want reparations are not taken seriously because Americans don't want to take on the guilt that the Sharpton's and Jackson's of the world want to lay on them for something that took place long before they were ever born. Perhaps they don't won't to take them seriously when the voice of the black and hispanic people come out of the ghettos while they proclaim their hatred for whites and the fact that whites are the "devil". There is no one that's more racist then blacks from urban centers because they're taught to hate from birth. If you wish to call me a racist, so be it.

Insult Number Three.

Can Americans Truly Talk About Race?

Originally Posted by Sgt. Bilko

You are more the racist then anyone who has posted thus far. You point your finger at whites and blame us for all the ills of the minorities within America. There are always a small minority who are racist and let that be known, but the vast majority of whites don't disparage minorities and couldn't care less about skin color. Your perspective is that of the supposed "victims" of the white man.

On the same page:

Originally Posted by Ygorl
You've given us nothing SUBSTANTIAL other than race baiting and excuse making.

I am grateful, you know. You had one "finger-wagging" moment in there against one poster who insulted me. The rest?

Insult number five.

[Sebelius for VP, not Hillary]

Ceci's list of claimed insults hurled at her

Insult number one.

My reply: In this insult, you replied using the exact same insult.

Insult number two. - "I do hope you recover from your puzzled condition." from Ygorl

My reply: You said you were puzzled - "I'm puzzled why you keep on repeating this." Your "puzzled condition" is not an insult.

Insult Number Three.

My reply: In that comment the poster is saying that you can call HIM a racist. Calling HIM a racist is not an insult to YOU.

Insult Number Four. "You are more the racist then anyone who has posted thus far."

My reply: Do tell us what happened to that poster.

Insult number five. "You've given us nothing SUBSTANTIAL other than race baiting and excuse making."

My reply: Not an insult. An insult is like calling someone stupid or dumb. This poster is describing what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Ceci

If I say no, you won't believe it. If I say yes, it falls right into your logic. It seems that no matter what I say it's out of my hands. You'll think the way you want to.

This is a very poor standard of debate. Don't tell me what you predict I will believe and state it as a fact. That's just debating with a strawman you've created, not debating with me.

Originally Posted by Ceci

But, for other people who want to know my answer: no, I never said it. WEB said that anyone who uses the "script" is racist. Take it up with him.

I won't bother arguing the bold. Anyone who even reads the quote you are replying to can see it's false. I'll save a summary comment at the end of this post.

Originally Posted by Ceci

Really, how? Since you know best, I'll defer to you to explain it since you don't like my answers. I didn't say that, but in your mind I did.

You've only predicted that I won't like your answers and then stated that as a fact. You see how that makes no sense? You can't say "I predict you will say my answer is garbage, now explain why you said that." Does that make any sense?

Originally Posted by Ceci

I agree. But that does not let him off the hook for avoiding Xibit's questions, no matter how you try to look at it through rose colored glasses.

This is obviously not a true comment. I clearly called on him to answer Xibit's questions on 3 separate occasions:

Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage
Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage

Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage

I think that Ice's remarks really are those of a person who just rushed though his responses and thus failed to answer a lot of questions and misinterpreted what he was responding to.

Ceci, if I had not stepped into this discussion, where would this thread have ended up? On an argument about whether or not Ice's comment are somehow related to Jim Crow. The forum motto is to argue the issue. Rather than making many unproven assumptions about racism in every comment, it's probably better to force a direct confrontation on the issue.


WEB

[Ceci]

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Ceci's list of claimed insults hurled at her

Insult number one.

In this insult, you replied using the exact same insult. Why did you not mention that?

Okay. Scribbler's your friend. You had to defend him. Understandable.

Insult number two. - "I do hope you recover from your puzzled condition." from Ygorl

You said you were puzzled - "I'm puzzled why you keep on repeating this." Your "puzzled condition" is not an insult.

I do think it was an insult. And I stand by it. But Ygorl is also your friend. Also Understandable.

Insult Number Three.

You totally messed this one up, Ceci. In that comment the poster is saying that you can call HIM a racist. Calling HIM a racist is not an insult to YOU.

But I didn't call him a racist. Nevertheless, I FELT INSULTED BY IT AS WOULD A LOT OF BLACK PEOPLE. (probably not you, since you have a hypersensitivity to people being called racist.)

Insult Number Four. "You are more the racist then anyone who has posted thus far."

Do tell us what happened to that poster. Why keep omitting information that undermines your claims?

I did say that you "fingerwagged" at one poster. Sgt. Bilko was Banned. The rest, as far as I know, are STILL HERE and HAVEN"T BEEN DEALT WITH.

Insult number five. "You've given us nothing SUBSTANTIAL other than race baiting and excuse making."

Not an insult. An insult is like calling someone stupid or dumb or practicing Jim Crow etiquette. This poster is describing what you are doing.

I think that it is an insult. But then again, you only think that you're right. And if you think you are right in your own mind, I can't fault you with that.

I just happen to disagree with you.

This is a very poor standard of debate. Don't tell me what you predict I will believe and state it as a fact. That's just debating with a strawman you've created, not debating with me.

Funny you should talk. You've set me up as a straw-man--as usual.

I won't bother arguing the bold. Anyone who even reads the quote you are replying to can see it's false. I'll save a summary comment at the end of this post.

You contradict yourself. You yourself said in your last post that there was some truth to what I said.

You've only predicted that I won't like your answers and then stated that as a fact. You see how that makes no sense? You can't say "I predict you will say my answer is garbage, now explain why you said that." Does that make any sense?

All I can say is that's the way you read my questions. For the most part, you've tried to clown me and others who speak frankly about race. And, in your mind that's the way you'd see it.

This is obviously not a true comment. I clearly called on him to answer Xibit's questions on 3 separate occasions:

Okay.

Ceci, if I had not stepped into this discussion, where would this thread have ended up?

Probably discussing the issue without your use of me as a strawman.

On an argument about whether or not Ice's comment are somehow related to Jim Crow.

Again, in your mind. I didn't. But you'll argue it until the cows come home. So be it.

The forum motto is to argue the issue.

I have.

Rather than making many unproven assumptions about racism in every comment, it's probably better to force a direct confrontation on the issue.

There are people (who have a commonality of experience in terms of race) who agree. In this case, your "experiences of race" are different. Therefore, maybe you don't see it. That's fair. Not all people of color have the same experiences. It depends how they've been treated and have access in society.

But what isn't fair is that you'd like people to believe that your way is only correct way to finding a deeper meaning of things--especially when it comes to race. And the way you do that is to openly attack the style and method a person likes to seek their own awareness--right down to their debating style. Isn't that a little arrogant to assume that everyone must take up an argument the way you do?

About forced confrontations: I've been there and done that. But thanks for the suggestion.

As for me, the straw is on the ground. I feel like a pinata. I bid you good night.

[Scribbler1]

Okay, Ceci. Since you brought in my name I feel the need to respond.

While it's true WEB and I go back a few years, he has NEVER pulled his punches when he thinks I, or anyone else is wrong. He isn't shy about expressing his opinion, and if he agrees or disagrees with me or anyone else, it isn't personal.

Friendship, or the lack of it has NOTHING to do with how one conducts oneself in a debate.

Deal with it, or look for another strawman.

[Sebelius for VP, not Hillary]

Originally Posted by Ceci

Okay. Scribbler's your friend. You had to defend him. Understandable.

You are not taking responsibility for something that you said is wrong and which you equally partook in (i.e. insults).

Originally Posted by Ceci

I do think it was an insult. And I stand by it. But Ygorl is also your friend. Also Understandable.

Ygorl is my friend, but that is irrelevant. You said you were "puzzled" so describing your condition as a "puzzled condition" is not an insult. Insults are something like "stupid, dumb, idiot, etc"

Originally Posted by Ceci

But I didn't call him a racist. Nevertheless, I FELT INSULTED BY IT AS WOULD A LOT OF BLACK PEOPLE. (probably not you, since you have a hypersensitivity to people being called racist.)

Warmer. Granted the way you phrase it is a bit warped as "hypersensitivity" but you get my point now that people calling each other racist is not very civil discourse.

Originally Posted by Ceci

I did say that you "fingerwagged" at one poster. Sgt. Bilko was Banned. The rest, as far as I know, are STILL HERE and HAVEN"T BEEN DEALT WITH.

A ban is fingerwagging? Obviously, that's not true. I never banned him, by the way. I just told him that if he didn't want to post civilly that he should leave. So as for "the rest" are you suggesting that Scribbler and Ygorl be banned? If you suggest Scribbler be banned for saying you are annoying, then you would also have to be banned for saying the exact same thing back to him. Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by Ceci

I think that it is an insult. But then again, you only think that you're right. And if you think you are right in your own mind, I can't fault you with that.

I just happen to disagree with you.

It's not an insult. The forum rules provides examples of insults:

Rule 1: No direct personal attacks (i.e. Person X is an idiot.

Rule 2: No indirect personal attacks (i.e. I dislike Person X's idiocy.

Originally Posted by Ceci

Funny you should talk. You've set me up as a straw-man--as usual.

You do not address my point. So you're not going to admit that making a prediction of someone's response and then stating that treating that prediction as if it as an actual comment by someone makes no sense and sets someone up as a strawman?

Originally Posted by Ceci

You contradict yourself. You yourself said in your last post that there was some truth to what I said.

I don't contradict myself. There is some truth to your political commentary. However, I asked you a question about your beliefs. You falsely said that I was not asking a question, but making a statement on my own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Ceci

All I can say is that's the way you read my questions. For the most part, you've tried to clown me and others who speak frankly about race. And, in your mind that's the way you'd see it.

You can see that this statement is false right away as I haven't engaged the other two people you are referring to. Also, it's not about clowning you, it's about getting rid of the hyperbole (i.e. a person's alleged commonality with "Jim Crow") and the (you can admit you're a racist vibe your sending out).

Originally Posted by Ceci

Probably discussing the issue without your use of me as a strawman.

No, the discussion had failed by the time I reached it. The thread would have been served well if people merely pressed one poster to answer questions asked by another.

Originally Posted by Ceci

There are people (who have a commonality of experience in terms of race) who agree. In this case, your "experiences of race" are different. Therefore, maybe you don't see it. That's fair. Not all people of color have the same experiences. It depends how they've been treated and have access in society.

You don't know what personal experiences are, Ceci. You have no idea what my "experiences of race" are.

Originally Posted by Ceci

But what isn't fair is that you'd like people to believe that your way is only correct way to finding a deeper meaning of things--especially when it comes to race. And the way you do that is to openly attack the style and method a person likes to seek their own awareness--right down to their debating style. Isn't that a little arrogant to assume that everyone must take up an argument the way you do?

About forced confrontations: I've been there and done that. But thanks for the suggestion.

As for me, the straw is on the ground. I feel like a pinata. I bid you good night.

I'll admit that I did err in automatically assuming you were throwing the race card around. You do have the unfortunate habit of suggesting that someone is a racist, which you may do in addition or instead of making a political or social argument. What I failed to see was that in the reported post I got, which complained about you, that the person who made the complaint had failed to correctly understand what you were saying due to sloppiness on their part.

For that, I will apologize. I think that you ask different questions about how race and you have an unconventional style and way of questioning the way the debate is framed. That's good. A lot of people don't like it when they are implied to be racists, especially when the person saying that is making statements like white people think this, white people think that. That appears to be making racial categorizations for some and then condemning racial categorizations when it is done for others.

In the first part of this post you mention friends. I would be glad to think of you as my friend as well.


WEB

[Sebelius for VP, not Hillary]

I am going to lock this thread because I believe this discussion has run its course and the situation is already compromised. Further retorts and rebuttals and an expansion of the debate will only make the situation worse.

Ceci may PM me a response to insert in this thread if she preferes and I will post it on this thread.


WEB