I disagree with this characterization.
He posted his last post outside the Pit on 11/24/18. He explains in this post on 12/16/18 why he no longer posts in the rest of the forum.
spoilered for brevity
I tried that. But yes, you are correct. I am not here to debate or discuss. I read, I (sometimes) say my piece/reply, I read some more, and I move on.
But yeah, when I joined, I tried the whole debate thing. The moderator referred to my post as “anti-white” while actively participating in said thread, then followed that up with a warning for insults. Though, curiously, another poster said something similar prior and was not given a warning. The lack of consistency was enough for me to read between the lines and get the fuck out. You see, there is no entitlement here - when a white man tells you to get off his lawn, I get the fuck off his lawn. Immediately. I am not going to debate, plead, or beg to be around where I’m not wanted. Hell, If I ever got a warning in the BBQ pit, I’d stop posting here too. I’m not here to debate with you (or anyone else). That ship has sailed. If that bothers you (or anyone else), I encourage you to ignore my posts as others have done.
Of the remaining 143, 27 were in a Pit thread with his name on it. Another 58 were in the Living while Black thread. One would think it’s fine to have an invective-filled screed against posters who are Pitting you. He seems qualified to post in the Living while Black thread. I found some of his posts in that thread interesting.
That leaves 58 remaining posts. Of those posts, here’s a sample of the ones I didn’t find particularly insulting for the Pit. That leaves 54 posts where he might have been insulting others with invective-filled screeds, but I doubt it. Even if all 54 posts were invective-filled screeds, that’s not very many in the Pit, which is supposed to be about invective-filled screeds.
spoilered because of length.
I think white folks came up with this crime called “menacing”. I don’t know much about it, but it fits the bill, after all, this law was written by white folks, passed by folks, affirmed by a white president/governor, and adjudicated by a white judges. So, it must be a legit law, right? Phillips said he was fearful. We should believe him, just like we believe your white supremacist cops were “fearful” when they murder people of color. As for “thug”, where were you when Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice were referred to as thugs? These children had no criminal record. One of these children likely hadn’t even entered puberty yet. Meanwhile, the white animals refer toCharles Manson as “loving” and “compassionate”. What a fucking joke.
I disagree. We should treat these students as our society would treat teenagers of color. In other words: as fully functioning adults from the age of infancy. Whether it be Tamir Rice (e.g. “It was the child’s fault for deliberately using his paycheck to buy a toy gun* without* an orange tip”) or Trayvon Martin (“He’s not a child, he’s an adult! He knew better!”), teenagers and children of color are expected to have the faculties of fully functioning adults. IMO, these non-compassionate, non-empathetic animals should be afforded the same benefit of doubt as people of color. Period. These teenagers* know that the MAGA hat is a symbol of hate and division*; they are wearing it as a means to “troll the libs”, to invoke hate, to affirm white supremacy, and, more importantly,* to hide their racism under the veneer of political affiliation*. This is all done to create the illusion of plausible deniability . Think about Obama. Who do you know wore an Obama hat when it wasn’t 2008 or 2012? Like no one. You are, however, spot-on in your analysis of the school and encourage you to take a look at their website - not a single person of color. Not. A. Single. One. The fact their graduates have a history of racism and bigotry is all you need to make a judgment. This is the same kind of school that produces the Kavanaugh, Coulters, and Bannons of the world. Matthew 7:16 screams from the mountain tops.
I’ll end with a comment I made awhile ago.
Kuchiyose No Jutsu
Dude, you give the patchouli-smelling liberals too much credit. This’ll surprise you (and probably most white conservatives) but white liberals are not Machiavellian in their approach to politics. Not even a little bit. In fact, white liberals (especially their white leadership) are spineless traditionalists that prefer slow, incremental change. I’d love to see a cite of white liberal leadership (NanChuck or NanReid) stating that immigrants will “swell the ranks of the Democratic Party”. That logic collapses when you think significant portions of Hispanic/Latino immigrants (e.g. Cubanos) who vote Republican and identify as fiscal and/or social conservative.
But, I digress.
The inability for the white liberal to abandon the white conservative coupled with his or her belief that the conservatives can be “saved” (i.e. tricked, convinced, or cajoled into being more tolerant), makes the white liberal useless. The white liberal insists on clinging onto the fantasy that white conservatives can be “saved”. This sets up an interesting paradigm where white liberals care more about what white conservatives think about a policy than people of color think about a policy. This contributes to the cycle of dissatisfaction and frustration that people of color feel for white liberal leadership.
Real talk. If cowardly white liberals wanted power, white liberals would have been obstructing every bill until Trump resigned or capitulated, Merrick Garland would’ve been strong-armed through, there would be plans for repeating votes for Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC Statehood, set up a secret law society that promulgates a narrow view of the Constitution and then appoint members of said society as SCOTUS judges, engage in gerrymandering (thank God for Maryland for showing these thots how to fight fire with fire).
I endorse this. You cannot change hearts and minds on social media. It’s a waste of time. For example, just this morning, I thought long and hard about responding to this post with cites and all but after about 10-second reflection, I decided against it. Why waste time? What would be the fucking point? It is my belief that people post on social media sites (like SDMB) not to debate * ideas but as a place to seek gratification and to get validation* of their ideas . This need for extrinsic validation has the tendency to turn what would be “great debates” into psychotherapy sessions or a priest’s confessional. I think it all comes from a place of loneliness and/or helplessness. The former type of loneliness where one would rather engage with strangers than the people they don’t know. It’s sad.
I’m not a Huey Freeman fan. I don’t really care about him. But when these rules start to look like made-up rationalizations or justifications for banning someone, I believe the whole forum loses.
I also don’t like the idea that people who only post in the Pit are somehow suspect. Way back when I started on this board, there was a time when I only hung out in the Pit. I didn’t have time to check out every forum, and I liked how diverse the Pit can be sometimes.
Bone:
Imagine if every time a poster shared some story of a personal nature, or some tragedy they experienced, Huey was there to take that element of sharing and use it to incessantly attack that poster in the Pit? Would that be okay? If someone has a kid who dies of cancer and shares that story, is it okay for Huey to use that kid’s cancer death to attack a poster (hypothetical) would that be okay? That they were better off dead because they wouldn’t have to deal with a poster? If not, then there is a line somewhere even in the Pit that is jerk and troll behavior. And if that was all they ever did?
That type of attack is destructive to community because it closes off any incentive to form community. Why bother participating when people like him will use any and all manner to attack you over it.
I would agree that if that’s all someone ever did, that would be jerkish. I don’t believe that’s all Huey Freeman ever did. I’ve seen other people in the Pit do it a lot more, especially when they follow people around to do it. AFAICT, Huey Freeman didn’t do that.
Guinastasia:
There should be a rule against attacking peoples’ families, and I think the mods seriously need to look into that. They dropped the ball there. But whether Huey was rightfully banned or not, he was not just some poor, innocent victim.
I’d be good with a rule against attacking posters’ family members, but then it needs to be modded uniformly and given notice. I’d also be good with a rule that posters can’t use personal information to mock other posters. But again, that would need a rule and be modded the same for everyone.