My point was that the “one drop” rule could not be taken literally. ywtf was talking about it as if it were literally true. I said that there was no way to scientifically detect one drop of “black blood” in a human being.
Certainly the law was enforced, but it wasn’t based on just “one drop” of blood. The example that she gave of the rule being inforced was a Supreme Court case in which the person was one-eighth black and was therefore determined to be black. I said that that was an example of the law being enforced, but that it wasn’t literally based on “one drop” of blood. Since the human body contains six quarts of blood, logically speaking, at least three cups were “black blood.”
She kept wanting to take my argument figuratively – as if I didn’t know that people had been abused by the law – when I kept trying to reason with her about how scientists could not test for “one drop” of black blood.
For those who are unaware of my background, I spent twenty years teaching high school English in an inner city school. That was where I asked to teach. I retired eighteen years ago and I live in a multicultural neighborhood.
When I got to know my students, I thought of them as the individuals that they were – not as their race. Maybe it was because a teacher’s job is so hectic, but I don’t think that was all of it. I just don’t see why you would think about someone’s race all the time if you know them well. Wouldn’t you think of their personality or individuallity instead?
Every time you read a post from Tom, do you automatically think “white man”? I know that I don’t automatically default to a white person on several of the posters when I don’t know the race.
When you sit down with your family, do you automatically think of their race?
Ninety percent of my students were black. Why would I sit around and think “black student - black student -black student” all day? That just doesn’t make sense to me. These were kids that I knew and loved. I thought of their names – their eyes – their smiles – their goofiness – their problems with homework – their babies – their triumphs – a jillion things, including the problems that they faced.
you with the face and jsgoddess didn’t understand that.
No, she was not saying it was literally true. She was using a figurative expression to say that if a person was known to have a black ancestor, no matter how far back that ancestor was, they were considered black. THAT is literally true, and the “one drop” expression was just that…an expression of that general concept.
As far as cups and drops of blood go, there is no such thing as a person having “black blood” and “white blood.” IANAScientist, but I’m pretty sure that all my blood, for example, contains the same DNA and so does yours. It’s not like some of my blood cells are the German ones and some are the Irish ones. If you sorted out my DNA, you might be able to tell that I’m German and Irish, but you can’t sort my blood cells that way. That was never meant to be the way it was measured, and I’m pretty sure that you with the face knows that.
And if you keep confusing literal & figurative expressions, people are going to start giving you the kind of skepticism on this point that you once gave a certain English professor who used to hang around these parts.
Zoe wasn’t the one who confused literal and figurative language. Her only mistake was in assuming that face had a clue about what she was going on about or that she knew the actual historical use and context of the term she was using and wasn’t applying an anachronistic interpretation and context to it. That is not Zoes fault; her job is to fight ignorance, not be a ninja-death-commando ignorance killer.
A direct ‘name’ that just happens to be a pejorative name? Much like “loon”, “wingnut” and “wacko” would be ‘direct names’? The word is a direct insult. It’s a flame. Synonyms would be allowed? Is there really a consistent standard behind your decision?
I can’t force you to see a direct personal insult as such and I doubt you’ll go back and change a slap on the wrist to a warning, but you might want to reconsider viewing a term that means any combination of incompetent, stupid and foolish as an affectionate term. Would you allow other posters to call someone a “loon”, a “wingnut”, “wacko?” I thought that adding a smiley wasn’t something that would shield you from being called on flaming in GD. Is adding “ya” something that will do that? “Lekatt, you are a loon” is right out? “Lekatt, ya loon” is fine?
If I had started a post by calling someone a word that meant an incompetent, stupid fool, you’d have thought that was okay? Do you see how I might have some trouble believing that, as you were busy slapping my wrist for “attacking” an argument and not the poster? Something that is explicitly allowed by GD rules and which did not violate your explicit injunction against addressing "a poster’s “intelligence, knowledge, or personal dispositions”?
You slapped me on the wrist, unfairly, as I not only didn’t “weasel” as you claimed, I did not violate your injunction against addressing other posters’ intelligence, knowledge, or personal dispositions. I addressed the manner in which an argument was presented. An argument germane to the topic of the thread: the ontology and implications of being “colorblind” or “non-colorblind” and/or if they have things in common with various other fallacious systems of thought.
Directing criticism at a post not a poster, at a claim and not the person making the claim, not only didn’t violate your injunction, it is part and parcel of GD’s rules.
And while I’m at it, tom, saying, as a mod with a mod hat on, that I should “refrain” from saying that I won’t answer a post directed at me until one of mine, directed at the person questioning me, that’d been ignored for more than 70 posts, was addressed? Weaksauce.
Saying, with a mod hat on, that I was somehow wrong for saying I hadn’t violated your explicit instructions or been “weaseling”, that I disagreed but would refrain from discussing it in the thread and would take it to the Pit? *Lame. *
You showed odd judgment in ignoring one direct personal insult leveled at me (and classifying it as a ‘direct name’, whatever that is exactly) and several leveled at Zoe… and then accusing me of misbehavior for addressing a post not the poster, of violating an injunction that I did not violate, of saying that I disagreed and wasn’t"weaseling", but that I would discuss it in the proper place, the Pit?
You seem to be very willing to overlook things you should take note of, and to apply bizarre standards to things which aren’t violations at all.
In addition, tom, you ignored a direct accusation of dishonesty: "I think it is a supremely dishonest person who says they don’t make assumptions about individuals upon meeting them. "
Which is a violation of the new GD rules on being unable to point out dishonesty.
You also ignored face calling Zoe’s posting “madness”, another direct personal insult, unless saying that someone’s is insane is also a ‘direct name’.
You also added a slap on the wrist instead of a warning for facerather hamfistedly callingZoe stupid “[that] tells me a lot about your thinking skills. And I’m not impressed at all.”
Again: “Yes I made the “claim” that it was enforced. Supported that “claim” by citing a very famous legal case. But you said it wasn’t good enough because 1/8th is too large to be a dr–…let me stop myself before the stupidity breaks my keyboard.”
And again: “The sad thing is, I used to respect you too. Even came to your defense when the board piled on you and called you stupid a while ago. Now I’m not so sure I should have done that.”
You wrote a post saying that you are “not sure why this particular thread has drifted into personal acrimony”. Perhaps it had something to do with the accusations of dishonesty and madness that you simply skipped over, and then accusations of stupidity in tandem with a real jerkish, long series of posts from face that you didn’t specifically address or even take notice of until it had already gone way to far? That instead of nipping it in the bud or calling posters out for flaming, you inappropriately spread around the blame?
Do I even need to get into how you get upset that some threads drift into “personal acrimony” when your own recent posts include such comments as: “Yet you have time to keep coming back, waving your imaginary credentials”(essentially calling someone a liar, without a mod hat on, and without any moderation in sight), “Complete and utter bullshit.”, “no one posting to this thread can believe that you take any of the silly claims you have made seriously?”
Do I need to point out flaming other posters by calling them uncivilized thugs can get a pass from you without a mod hat anywhere in sight?
You have lamented how GD sometimes isn’t civil, and yet you allow flames and instigate incivility yourself while sometimes clamping down on other people when they are also uncivil.
Bad callsTom.
I don’t expect to convince you, and I don’t expect what I’m saying to have any impact on you at all. Hell, for all I know you’ll dismiss what I have to say out of hand. But damnit those were not good calls, at all.
You can have the last word, I don’t need to say anything else in this thread.
I disagreed with you about an issue. You started squealing that I “put you in the white hood of your enemies.” You with the face then said she thought you were overreacting, so you went into another thread and attempted to correct her about the one drop rule, all the while claiming how mean and cruel and vicious everyone else was if they didn’t take your word as gospel.
Sorry, but I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel, and your plain inability to maintain a normal conversation without climbing on any available cross is ridiculous.
You are still missing the point. You are right that people did not always have the understanding of “blood” that we do today, but I don’t think that you with the face believes that people were actually extracting all of a person’s blood and attempting to find the “black drop.” The only way to actually know or guess if a person had that “black drop” was by either looking at them or by knowledge that the person had a black grandparent/great-grandparent/etc.
The point of the “one drop,” from what I understand, is that the belief was that no matter how small the amount of “blackness,” the person was still black. No matter if they looked completely “white.” No matter if both parents look completely “white.” No matter if they were raised as white among white people. If that black ancestor was discovered, that white person, in the eyes of others, was now black. It had nothing to do with actually measuring blood. And, as I said, I’m quite sure that you with the face knows and understands that, and was using the term figuratively to express a historical attitude towards mixed-race people.
I’m not returning to that thread. I was willing to lead the stupid dead dog lie, but then Zoe opened up this one with the attempt to equate oranges with watermelons.
Her point–whatever it is, in all its ethereal, wackjob absurdity–is quite insulting to someone who knows the history and really appreciates the horror of what it means to be told that you aren’t human because you’re black. To come at me like I’m making the whole thing up, or making exaggerations to score debate points, or whatever her mission was in derailing the thread…just because she took offense at a harmless observation that jsgodsess made in a completely different thread…that was wrong. Redfury and I were having a perfectly calm and rational exchange about our experiences, and she really fucked it up with her combative tone and her insistence that I was wrong about historical fact.
No, but it makes her ignorant. If she really thinks the “one drop rule” was ever meant to be interpreted in terms of literal quarts of blood in the human body, then she is ignorant and I will not mince words in pointing that out. Especially when the ignorance is coupled with an attempt to portray the past as something as it was not.
“Curly hair was a prized attribute among whites! That means the one drop rule wasn’t enforced.”
Good, because you have demonstrated a pretty thorough misunderstanding of several words (in context) as well as making a great display of your failure to grasp the general dynamics of this message board (if not all less-than-formal discussions throughout the world).
A couple of notes: despite your run-to-the-dictionary effort on goofball, it is often used as an affectionate term of dismissal rather than as an emphatic insult. (Note that your own link provided such examples:
and
Note, also, that several posters to this thread took the exact same position regarding the word when my only comment on its use had been to stop it. I will also laugh at your example of “loon” which is clearly used in many situations as a mild dismissal rather than the direct, personal insult. The fact that some foilks like to feel insulted, regardless the context, is the only reason I told Maureen to refrain using the word, at all. In a Forum of adults, I would have expected the overwhelming majority to understand the difference between her use of “goofball” and some other poster’s use of “idiot.”
In a thread that was seriously in danger of going off the rails due to personal acrimony, I stepped in to call a halt to that sort of personal (and hostile) interaction. Your very first post following my intervention was to go back and make an issue about another poster’s particular participation. I suppose that I will now have to create some sort of all inclusive boilerplate instructions for those who are not able to understand the concept of not continuing personal squabbles at a time when a thread has been endangered by such sqabbles, listing all the possible permutations of such posts.
I would prefer that the folks who populate GD could have enough awareness to realize that when a thread has begun to run off the tracks, any further personal shots will be seen as more derailment. Did you expect the target of your opening paragraph to simply ignore your comments if she disagreed with your assessment? In my experience, your comment was an invitation (perhaps inadvertanrt, but real, nevertheless), for her to respond with her own (personal) reasons to jusrtify her responses or her lack of responses. It was not germane to the discussion of the thread.
You “had” to tell another poster that you were not going to respond to a question? Nah. That is simply self-justfication. If you actually do not respond, every poster on this board is capable of understanding that you did not respond.
I fully understand the compulsion that many of us have to publicly justify all our actions. In the context of a thread that has derailed, they are never anything other than unnecessary further disruptions.
No. I ignored the rhetorical device that said that the poster found dishonest specifc claims–claims that had not been made in those words by anyone in the thread prior to that point. In other words, it was a preemptive effort to shut down an argument before it got started. I would agree that it was hostile, but it was not actually calling anyone a liar and it is no worse (in terms of hostility) than remarks you have made without any comment by any Moderator over the last couple of years. Your claim was that no one had to indulge in prejudice. Her claim was that she found claims of “no assumptions” (not “no prejudice”) to be dishonest. She was modifying the argument in a direction she wanted it to go and she did not claim that you were dishonest.
I didn’t even understand it, to be honest. For that to be true, it would have to mean that it was believed that only black people have any kind of curls in their hair.
As has happened before, you are confusing/conflating “personal” with “attack the post, not the poster”.
No, just say “for the purposes of this thread, no one may apply a term to a post that would be insulting if applied to a poster”. Or else just lock the damn thread.
If you can’t explain a rule, then don’t expect people to abide by it.
You seem to be trying to change the culture of GD, but sporadically and inconsistently.
Not at all. My objection to FinnAgain’s specific comment was his attempt to carry on an argument that was not directly related to the thread at a point where such comments were going to continue to derail it. I highlighted a couple of inflammatory adjectives, demonstrating that his comment was liable to be inflammatory, but in a different situation, his comment might not have been out of line and I did not construe his comment as an attack on the person, just one that was liable to continue the trainwreck.
A comment might still be inflammatory without being insulting. (And any number of posters are quite capable of seeing insults where none are offered while others are insulting without realizing their offense, so that particular wording does not address this sort of situation.)
[quote=Shodan*Or else just lock the damn thread. [/quote]
In certain circumstance I do. I do not generally close threads due to the inappropriate actions in a small number of posts. It does not seem wise to close discussion in which others may wish to participate just to handle a couple of posters who temporarily forget themselves.
I suspect that every reasonable poster understands the point well enough.
(And even a reasonable poster may have a bad day.)
[tiptoeing into the thread because I feel partly to blame]
Zoe, I’m sure most of us know that this is your background. It’s something to be proud about, to be sure, but that doesn’t excuse you from the same erroneous thinking that affects the rest of us. Your past doesn’t count as a cite.
If jsgoddess had even come close to calling you a racist, I would have slapped her down my damn self. But she didn’t utter a single slur against you. I still don’t understand why you reacted the way you did to what she said. A button was obviously punched.
Two posters who have reached out to me in friendship should be friends to each other, not enemies. It makes me sad to see ya’ll fighting.
As far as you with the face goes, we have different debate styles. She is a killer debater; she doesn’t play footsy like I do. Sometimes I even fear her online wrath. If you had been any other poster, she would have turned you into shreds. I’m glad she didn’t, but I wouldn’t have been mad at her if she had. Some people don’t like being jerked into ridiculous semantic games, which is what you were playing in that thread. I’m one of these people, which is why I had to stop participating.
Jeez, serve me right to run off and have a life for a week. Sorry I’m just now posting to this, but I did want to clear this up.
Finn, I wasn’t using “goofball” as a pejorative; I’m sorry if you took it that way. We’ve had many discussions in the past in which we’ve both managed to find middle ground (the pit thread about rape comes immediately to mind), and I admit I was a bit flummoxed that you were addressing me in a tone which (I thought) was overly combative in this one.
I took Tom’s reprimand in the spirit it was intended; it was a direct name, even if it wasn’t one I find insulting. Again, sorry if you did find it so.
No problem, at all, Maureen. I’m sorry if I misread you.
For what it’s worth, I was trying to get at the methodological side of the issue and it seemed from my position that you were getting snippy with me, so I got snippy back. From your position, it probably seemed like I was getting snippy, so you got snippy back.
Understood, darlin’, and if you’re up to continuing that conversation, let me know. I saw something on CNN last night that made me want to log back in and whittle away at your obstinacy some more.
Might be fun, actually. If it’s any consolation, I’m an obstinate bastard by training I had the good fortune to study under some really fine teachers, and research methodology and statistical analysis are two things that I was trained to take seriously. I’ve been meaning to look up the data, but I’ve been busy the last few days and haven’t gotten a chance. I may have enough free time over the weekend so that I could provide some of my own cites and construct my own hypothesis, rather than simply gnawing holes in yours.
I really am interested to see if the American media has a systemic sexist bias, and would like to see the information that’s out there.
I had the good fortune to study under some really fine teachers, and research methodology and statistical analysis are two things that I was trained to take seriously. I’ve been meaning to look up the data, but I’ve been busy the last few days and haven’t gotten a chance. I may have enough free time over the weekend so that I could provide some of my own cites and construct my own hypothesis, rather than simply gnawing holes in yours.