You know, I’ve always kind of tried to live by the rule that, rather than tagging people with any kind of permanent label, good or bad, we should limit our judgment to individual actions, and try to focus on that. The unpleasant fact is that sometimes generous people say or do mean things, kind people say or do cruel things, smart people say or do stupid things, and egalitarian people say or do racially insensitive things. And when this occurs, a lot depends on what happens next. On one hand, there’s: “I was wrong, and I’m sorry. I can’t undo it, but I won’t do it again.” And then there’s the other path, that we’re all sick of by now: “As I’ve already told you many times, I am a certified wonderful and admirable person. Take your objections about what you see me saying and doing now and stuff 'em.” It’s as if people think that if they admit they’re wrong even once, they will lose their entire reputation. Actually, the reverse is true.
The sad thing is, in these arguments, nobody, not the harshest poster, not even I, has ever tried to take away Zoe’s past or even questioned her reporting of it. A simple “oops,” as opposed to wildly attacking anyone who challenged her, would only have enhanced most people’s opinion of Zoe. Judging from the story she’s told, she is a hero. But even heroes are not beyond error or question, and we miss the point when we honor them at the expense of the principles they stood for.
If Jesus himself ponied up for membership here, and one day he submitted a post saying “fuck the poor: it’s every man for himself,” he would be wrong. He would still be Jesus, he would still be the savior of mankind, but he would be wrong. And there would be honest and clearheaded posters (well, you probably wouldn’t catch me writing hilarious posts making fun of the son of God, but somebody) who would say so.
Good point, that. I’m pretty sure Der Trihs would speak up. And maybe even prr would give Lib back his money (I can’t remember what the amount was) for the opportunity to log back in and call [del]h[/del]Him a cunt.
I agree with your post, Soup. I actually think that if ywtf hadn’t argued with her simply because she was harmless, wonderful Zoe, that would have been sign of weakness.
It seemed obvious to me that ywtf wasn’t being engaged in a calm, reasonable debate. I dont think her comments would have been so direct and burning if Zoe hadn’t already labeled her as a big meano along with jsgoddess. And if the “one drop rule” sidetrack had been posed as an exclamation-free question (kinda like the discussion we’re having in this thread), I don’t think it would have derailed the thread and turned it into a bickering session. But instead, Zoe used it as an excuse to start an argument with it by attributing a crazy strawman to ywtf’s position. Instead of admitting that’s what she did, she’s still playing the “poor misunderstood victim” thing. So yeah, I agree with you, Soup.
I’d have more sympathy if this wasn’t Zoe’s second attempt at beating this dead horse, and if she would just admit that she was giving just as good as she was getting in that thread. My opinion is that when you step in GD, you’re fair game for the things you say. Your past and all its accomplishments are not relevant. Posters shouldn’t have to “get to know you” before judging you by your words. We should all be respectful, but not when it comes at the expense of a good fight.
And yeah, with you as the triplet, jsgoddess, we can be crazy, sexy, and cool. I have first dibs on “crazy”.
I can see where Zoe was coming from in terms of seeing jsgoddess’ response to her in the first thread (regarding the remark to her student) as an attack. I would guess that the term ‘putting on a white hood’ is very emotionally laden to Southerners of her generation, and particularly someone who feels she has devoted her life to actively fighting racism. It would have been helpful at that point, or at the beginning of the second thread, to separate the question of ‘colorblindness’ from the Zoe’s comment, but that didn’t happen.
That said, I find the whole thing to be sad, and the victory dance to be in poor taste.
As someone who has been attacked for everything from my arrogance to my mental health and has never felt the need to bring a mod into any of it, my serious question to you is why do you care about a stranger’s opinion when he/she obviously knows nothing about you? For you to continue to be annoyed and insulted enough to start yet another thread about that very thing, it seems to me that you might want to really consider why one stranger’s “attack” can concern you to this degree. In addition, to go as far as to feel you were not “protected” by the board moderators to the degree you felt it warranted makes me suspect you are taking it all far to seriously.
I personally respect many people on this board and, as with any other public board, insults and attacks are to be expected from people that disagree and can not express those thoughts in a civil manner.
However, like real life, you take the good with the bad and move on. Ignoring and/or chuckling over random insults is a lot more productive than wasting time and energy giving a shit.
I think anybody who sticks it out as a teacher for 20+ years is bound to have a high opinion of themselves. Especially one who teaches in an area of the country that’s perceived as high risk. Joe Clark certainly does.
Plus, Zoe’s southern belleness comes with a tendency to be condescending to those who disagree with her, and leads her to dismiss them as being well-meaning, but poorly raised. It’s how Type A’s get their cult of personality established. Politely belittle the opposition and get people on your side who don’t want to be losers like them. And, in leaving the thread, does it while proclaiming she’s sipping a cup of tea, again dismissing her detractors as being too much of a nuisance to warrant her consideration.
Her problem was, she didn’t get the audience of supporters she’s used to. Too many people here see through the bullshit.