I am a victim in all this. I am VERY angry, and my tiny feelings are hurt. Yes, yes they are. Everybody feel sorry for me, or you're all bigots and I'll have to throw a tantrum.
I know it's not very sensitive to mock someone who is obviously psychologically disturbed. However, if you insist on publicly calling me a "stupid bigot" and even a "white supremicist" who would actually support the institution of black slavery in modern America- well, really, you're asking to be made sport with, aren't you?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Dawn
Just another thought,
It's hard for white folks to know what is the right thing to say, sometimes we are offensive even when we aren't trying to be.
77 - The Theory
thank you dawn... i agree.
78 - Natalie Davis
Dawn: Apology accepted, although phrases like "most normal people" frighten me. Oh, and I don't consider myself a minority of any sort. I'm human, same as everybody. Variations such as melanin and sexual orientation and philosophy are merely groovy nuances.
Among my too many words is the statement that I adore both you and Eric. That sentiment was never in jeopardy and could not be.
Eric, please be nice to your wife. When my spouse was mean to me (that is putting it mildly), the situation led to a restraining order, a year-plus separation, and SU's mandated stint in anger-management counseling. One thing I learned is that verbal meanness (which can devolve into verbal abuse and namecalling, which is indeed abusive) can be worse than smacking people.
79 - Dew
Hey Dawn, its all good. I know its my niavete taking hold, but I don't sweat the small stuff, not of course implying anyone else's plight as being small. And I think I caught on to the sentiment you were trying to convey and I am appreciative of it.
80 - Phillip Winn
Natalie, for what it's worth, I don't think you look like a man at all. At least the picture on your site does not.
Off-topic? Me? Nah...
81 - Natalie Davis
Yes, she was empathetic. We all know that, and we all appreciate her empathy. Dawn's a terrific, valuable, worthwhile person; I doubt anyone would question that. But the ramifications of such "small stuff," even when it comes from people we admire and enjoy and respect, can sometimes cause great harm, and that must be acknowledged. Put stone bigots aside for the time being: So much hurt comes from wonderful people who genuinely care and truly mean well but don't know any better or make unthinking generalizations or assign labels carelessly. Looking at the big picture, looking at the general cesspool that is human relations, we do no one any favors when we facilitate even the "small stuff." Sadly, I didn't figure that out until I was in my 30s. Now I know and must act and react accordingly. Far too much is at stake, for present and future generations.
82 - Dawn
I am all about obsessing over the small stuff - it's what makes us each unique.
I am quite fond of you Natalie, as I hope you know, and my fondness for Dew grows each day, and I most certainly want Mac to feel welcome any place I am welcome. We all must learn from each other, and if anything at all positive can be taken from this discussion, I hope it is that.
As for Eric, he is a truly decent and good guy and rarely tries to be difficult, but he has HIGH expectations of me and lets me know when I don't meet them. But I wouldn't be as happy a person as I am today without him, so I will accept his cruel criticism :)
Are we all warm and fuzzy yet?
83 - TDavid
I've tried to stay out of this racial discussion because the only color that matters to my family is $$ green $$
However, I am finding myself curious about something and I hope me being inquisitive here isn't taken wrong.
Natalie - I thought that it was politically correct to say African American in this day and age?
And btw, I am with others here who say I don't care if anybody of any race calls/classifys/etc me as a white male.
There are marketing studies for all different types of groups (income, sex, industry type, education/schooling) and I wonder if it is really such a problem to include race in these studies but I do find myself wondering about the appropriateness at times.
In business I can see that targeting a marketing segment makes good business sense and isn't necessarily indicative of racism, but of selling a product or service to those who are most likely -- or interested -- to buy.
BTW, I have friends, clients and associates that are african american and the only word that they've told me that they take offense to is the N word. That is if a white person uses it, but they can call each other the N word and it's somehow acceptable in that context?
I don't go around calling my friends, associates or clients "honkeys" but the reverse is true. So there are cultural differences that have nothing to do with racism.
Just my 2 1/2 rusted pennies, with a sprinkle of curiosity.
84 - The Theory
i suspect some people don't like the term african american because they were born here, not there.
85 - Natalie Davis
As I am opposed to PC, I don't care what terminology is PC-approved. I'll call someone African-American if and only if they tell me that's what they want to be called. I do tend to use European-American rather than the usually erroneous "white," but generally to make the point that I find those hyphenate terms laughable on many levels.
)
Oh, and I don't buy the concept of "race" (outside of NASCAR and track-and-field events) -- human is all I see. Many scientists would agree.
Culture is about environment -- not color. Saying that there is a "black" or "white" culture is stupid, IMO. (My culture is the "purple" culture, which Gallup and Harris and Nielsen don't chart. I was a Nielsen family earlier this month; boy, did I fuck up their tally.
I think anyone using the N word (or the H word, or "white trash" or anything like that) is doing a vile, vile thing.
"I don't go around calling my friends, associates or clients 'honkeys' but the reverse is true." If your friends are calling you the H word (does anyone really use that word?), I would suggest humbly that they are not your friends.
And I find most marketing/melanin -based demographic studies, etc. abhorrent. They are useful for those who have an interest in dividing humans. Just because people have similar skin tones doesn't mean they have anything in common.
86 - TDavid
Natalie - you misunderstood what I was saying and I don't know how I can rephrase it without violating what you define as racism, so sorry, I tried ...
If I say black people go around calling other black people the N word -- and they do this all the time, btw -- that was what I mean by the "reverse is true" above.
My question was why was this appropriate? Why is their a dual standard of the use of this word? None of my friends, associates or clients call me a honkey.
If you don't call this cultural, that's find, then how do you describe this happening? What is this all about?
This is why I rarely enter into these coversations because it's extremely difficult to discuss things from a factual basis.
Somebody always has to have a personal opinion, which I'm trying not to have here on this because as I said, green is the color that is of importance to roof over head and food on the table.
87 - TDavid
natalie, sorry, that was there, not "their", doh!
88 - Natalie Davis
"Natalie - you misunderstood what I was saying and I don't know how I can rephrase it without violating what you define as racism, so sorry, I tried ..."
Actually, I didn't misunderstand at all. I just read your words differently than you intended them (although accurately in the way in which they were presented, in terms of grammar; read your sentence again and see what you wrote) for the purpose of drawing you out and making you speak plainly. And it worked. Thank you.
"If I say black people go around calling other black people the N word -- and they do this all the time, btw"
No. All of them do not. Perhaps certain ones of those who define themselves in the fashion you employ do, but certainly not all, and I would wager, not most of them. And all the time? That's a stretch. How do you know that? Did you take a poll? What kind of sampling did you use to paint the phenomenon so broadly and negatively?
"My question was why was this appropriate? Why is their ["there," no doubt] a dual standard of the use of this word?"
I don't consider it appropriate at all. There is a double standard because a lot of (note that I didn't say "all") individuals who have some vested interest in dividing humans are stupid and hypocritical.
"If you don't call this cultural, that's find {I assume you meant "fine"], then how do you describe this happening? What is this all about?"
The stupidity and cluelessness and hypocrisy of the individuals who engage in that sort of behavior and use that sort of language.
89 - Natalie Davis
I just caught this, from Dawn: "We all must learn from each other, and if anything at all positive can be taken from this discussion, I hope it is that."
Indeed, that is the whole point. Discussions such as this provide teaching and learning opportunities.
90 - TDavid
Thank you for the explanation and clarification, Natalie. I can see I need to watch quantifying words with you lol. Obviously I didn't mean "all" people do that, but you took that very literally, which I understand and I should have chosen a better word.
My bad for not carefully crafting every word with you -- but I will be more careful heretofore ;) You remind me a little bit of an editor (that's a friendly compliment btw, not a criticism).
91 - Al Barger
I like warm and fuzzy, but I'm not quite feeling the love yet.
Specifically Miss Natalie, comment #51 way goes over the line with me. MD says all kind of obviously baseless things, starting with her claim that I would support slavery. That is purely and patently MADE UP.
I, on the other hand, try to be scrupulously honest and somewhat self-critical. It is utterly unfair and unfounded for you to imply otherwise.
Further, you are far less than charitable with me. You insist on making the worst interpretation you possibly can, accusing me of malicious motivation in writing this original post. That's really hateful. I'm a bad guy.
On the other hand, MD can say every hateful and untrue personal thing she wants about everyone who takes any disagreement with her. She can pour pure racial animosity into the mix, and it's all good. Hey, that's just expressing her opinions.
After having her a couple day long hissy fit wherein she repeatedly expressed intention of actively trying to screw this whole site, she has chosen instead to contribute a new post. Meanwhile, the Olsens et al are so anxious to make nice and prove they're not "racists" that she is welcomed back with open arms and notes of gratitude with no further hint of criticism or question.
I, on the other hand, take a little different outlook. At a minimum, she owes the site in general, and me among others personally unequivocal apologies for her totally ill behavior.
Natalie, I'm disappointed but not, unfortunately, entirely surprised that you clearly don't hold MD to anything like the same standards that you do me. As a liberal female of dark hue, she gets to act as stupid as she wants, and it's all good. Noticing this no doubt constitutes a further hate crime on my part. She can be purposely dishonest, disruptive and disrespectful, and she gets hugs and kisses.
I, on the other hand, am scrupulously honest, and actively reach out to make nice with people of differing political beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. I have played MUCH nicer than her, or really even than you have. Considering the hateful nature of what is being thrown at me, the record will show that my personal responses to MD are quite mild and light in tone. Yet I'm the bad guy.
Let me conclude then, with the wise words of Aunt Eller:
I'm not saying that I'm better than anybody else,
but I'll be danged if I ain't just as good.
92 - Dawn
Excuse me AL, but leave me out of it as I am not a part of this problem. You, on the other hand have gone out of your way to be really negative and pissy.
I thought you were above taking this crap personally.
Al, I don't believe I have said one thing unpleasant about you that wasn't undeserved. And I know for a FACT, that Eric didn't.
I mean what the hell? I like you and have stated so, in spite of your needling and ribbing me.
In fact, I MUST like you, cause I really don't like being needled and ribbed by pretty much ANYONE.
93 - Al Barger
Dawn, I didn't say that you or Eric had been critical of me at all. I said that you have been have been (perhaps overly) solicitous of MD.
I don't think the "negative and pissy" part is really warranted. At least it's not slanderous, though. So that's better than average. I purposely walk in to talking about things with negative ramifications, but that does not automatically make ME negative.
The slanders do make things a bit more serious, but I have endeavored to the extent possible to be good-humored.
It is not right or appropriate, however, to sweep such abusive behavior as Mac Diva's under the rug.
I don't take criticism from MD personally, in that I put very little stock in her. I will tend to put considerably more weight to comments from you or Natalie, however.
Don't be mad. I needle and rib with love.
94 - Natalie Davis
Al writes: "Natalie, I'm disappointed but not, unfortunately, entirely surprised that you clearly don't hold MD to anything like the same standards that you do me. As a liberal female of dark hue, she gets to act as stupid as she wants, and it's all good. Noticing this no doubt constitutes a further hate crime on my part. She can be purposely dishonest, disruptive and disrespectful, and she gets hugs and kisses."
I don't deal with you or anyone else on the basis of skin color. I'm opposed to affirmative action, remember?Al is accusing me of being a racist.
First of all, let's re-run the comments I assume pushed you to accuse the person who doesn't believe in "race" of racism.
I wrote:
I have stated more than once and in more than this thread that I don't agree with much of what MD had to say or with her approach. By no means is the situation, as you so snidely put it, "all good." Additionally, your very first paragraph makes your intent in beginning this topic crystal clear. To wit:Your stated intent was to "mock" another human being and "make sport" of her. (I will give you points for honesty for that statement.)
Which takes me back to a question I posed earlier that you never bothered to answer: No doubt, she has said some horrid things, and I've already said so. But where has MD been dishonest? Prove it. And show me where I am holding her to differing standards.
As I have also said, I believe her to be at least as honest as you claim to be. How does that make me a racist?
And you say that you are making nice? Nicer than MD? As if. Both of you have said cruel things in this thread and others. However, you are not only mean, but calculatedly so. THAT is the difference. That has nothing to do with the way you look -- that has to do with whatever lives within your heart and soul.
Bottom line: You stated your disgusting goal flat out at the beginning of this thread. How in the world can you call that "making nice" and expect people to believe it?
95 - Joe
I can't speak for Al, but on the subject of dishonesty I'd offer these quotes:
As for Joe, he can always be counted on to support bigotry. He seems to come here for that purpose. He seeks out the threads dealing with race and eggs on anyone expressing a bigoted viewpoint.
Feel free to examine the see other comments from link at the bottom of the post (go with the "both", there are other Joes out there). Her first two sentences are opinion, to which I disagree. The last, well, I think I go out of my way to express my own viewpoint and, generally, I'm more interested in facts or sources.
Joe (a troll who goes from site to site posting racist rhetoric)
I'm getting a little sensitive about the troll business, how would you feel sitting under a bridge waiting for goats all day? After 100 comments don't I get some sort of membership upgrade? Kidding aside, I limit my comments to few sites and keep the content light. So if you actually have seen a site where I've posted some type of racist rhetoric, please, let me know because somebody is pulling a fast one.
Is that honest?
[Edited by admin to fix closing tag.]
96 - Joe
Lesson: preview before post!
97 - Natalie Davis
Thank you, Joe (and you offer very good advice -- preview, preview!). I went through and read (re-read, in most cases) all of your BC postings.
She says "seems." Perhaps that is how your activity appears to her. I don't believe that what appears to her as you "seeking out threads... and egging on anyone expressing a bigoted viewpoint" is true. You don't appear to be racist to these eyes. Your posting to my obituary for my childhood priest and my MLK article, for example, would be proof that this is not the case. Could be a lie, could be her misperception.I don't know what you do on other sites, and I would have a hard time believing that she does either. I can't imagine that that is true, though. I have seen no evidence of your even resembling a "troll" in the common Internet usage of the word. In fact, you turned some of her own racist statements against her and she called you a racist for it. And I've noticed her going after you (example: Where Will You Be When Your Heart Stops?, which had nothing to do with "race" until she chimed in to label you a "brainy white guy.") THAT is true. I have to question your considering Al a cool guy, but then, Mr. Barger does have some good qualities, even if he assumes that melanin-enhanced liberal women would have to be racist (what would that make him? I don't want to go there, as the kids might say).Re: the MD quotes you cited:
I am reluctant to label someone a liar, because I do not know their walk, what they've seen, what they know, or how they perceive things. I can say, however, after reading that "Friends" thread (I can enjoy that show even if I do find it silly, unrealistic, and inconsequential and be a Beefheart fanatic; and "colorless" doesn't necessarily mean uninteresting -- think snowflakes and ice sculptures and Nicole Kidman [yum!], for instance) that she has said some terribly racist and shameful things herself.
If, however, she made up that bit about you trolling other sites, that would be a bold-face lie and cruel slander to boot.
MD, are you still here? Are you telling the truth? What sites did you see? Can you provide URLs? Have you considered that Joe is a pretty common name? Bottom line: Your accusations against Joe, upon inspection of his Blogcritics postings, do not hold water.
98 - Phillip Winn
I am just curious: How many people have ever clicked on the "Leaderboard" link underneath the recent comments?
I ask because it could settle pretty quickly who was or has not "taken over" the site in any quantifiable way. As I post this, for example, I see that Eric Olsen, as usual, occupies all of the top spots*. It has been that way forever, and probably always will be. Al Barger, however, is the second most prolific commenter and poster, ever, beating me out in the comments category by a few, and in the posts category by a mile.
However, more recently, his output seems to be slipping. The esteemed Natalie, whom I grow to respect more with each passing day, has posted more comments than Al in the last 30 days, with the always-fun The Theory joining that lofty rank for the last week and 24 hours (with a shout out to TDavid, who has done almost as well).
In the posts column, Al is the #3 poster for the last 30 days, but slips to #8 for the last week and doesn't even register in the top ten for the last 24 hours (though Mac Diva does).
I prefer to be able to accurately assess judgements and labels, and the leaderboard seems in this case to be a valuable way to do that. There are other factors, such as the time of day one posts or one visits, and the types of posts to which one gravitates while posting, commenting, or reading, but in general I would say that Al is definitely a strong voice on Blogcritics, but well-countered by voices such as Natalie's and others.
*Actually, Eric has all but one, the most comments for the last 24 hours. I suspect he is at a disadvantage in that category, being in the Eastern time zone, but still, what's up with that, Eric? You don't actually have a real life or anything, do you? I mean, I know you were on the phone with a new Blogcritic for a while today, since he called me next, but still! :)
99 - Mac Diva
Blogcritics talk to Phil and Eric on the phone?
100 - Mac Diva
Natalie, I know this Joe from other sites. He has been bugging me since I was a commenter and guest blogger.
101 - Natalie Davis
Which sites? Where can I read his postings so as to see for myself whether he is, as you claim, a racist or a troll? I need to see the URLs so that I can see his words in proper context and prove that this person is the same as the one here. As I said earlier, your very serious accusations against Joe, upon inspection of his Blogcritics postings (and I have read every one of them), do not hold water.
102 - Joe
Indeed, please do, because I really have no recollection of ever having any contact with you other than here.
103 - Al Barger
My "disgusting goal" Natalie? Isn't that a bit harsh? MD came out of the blue saying that I would support slavery even in modern America, among other wicked accusations. [And how in Gaia's name do you NOT see that as grossly dishonest?] In response, I did not make similar vicious personal attacks, but instead made fairly gentle fun of the her bogus charges, if you look at the original content of the post. Seems to me that this IS playing nice.
I may be accused of pushing a point to the wall sometimes, but I make a strong effort to fight fair. I am careful not to misrepresent other people.
This is as opposed to when YOU say, he assumes that melanin-enhanced liberal women would have to be racist Now, that's not really what I said at all, is it? I made absolutely no broad statement about a group. I was responding specifically to you and this situation.
Nor did I use the term "racist." I don't go throwing that word around promiscuously. I've had that word thrown at me often enough, and I like it about as much as you would like hearing The N Word.
The relevant phrase was "liberal female of dark hue." I don't presume to speak of your internal machinations, especially not in the darker corners of the psyche that produce racism and liberalism in general.
Of those three attributes, my best guess would be that "liberal" was the main operative one. But I obviously can't say what's going on in your mind. Maybe none of those considerations was in any way prejudicial to your judgment.
Still, I struggle to find any other explanation than those for why you would defend MD here AT ALL.
Finally, after much grief, starting with comment #94 you have started to become a little bit critical of MD. Finally. Thank you.
And I'm still waiting for some love. OK, there's Mr. Barger does have some good qualities. That beats a sharp stick in the eye, but it's slim pickings for affection- and you immediately follow it with a slander.
Come on. You can do better. Show me some love. I deserve it.
104 - Brian Flemming
I have no idea if Joe posts elsewhere.
But as the person who may have first used "troll" to describe Joe here (in a comment I addressed to Mac Diva praising her for her patience in dealing with Joe), I feel compelled to defend that characterization.
"Troll," like a lot of Internet lingo, has various definitions, but to me it means someone who enters a thread and posts comments that, on the whole, seem designed only to provoke, rather than to contribute to a useful discussion.
Comments like this...
Which is merely representative of the kind of comments Joe often offers. Question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question, question. That's what it often seems like when talking with Joe. Lots of questions, usually with an accusation implied, and not much of substance contributed to the discussion.
I'm not surprised that a browse of Joe's comments wouldn't reveal an overall impression of troll-like behavior. In context, however, one snarky question after another, with little of substance contributed to the discussion, gets tiresome. Where I have called Joe a troll, I defend it.
I would say that Al Barger and Joe are most responsible for the lowering of the quality of political debate here on Blogcritics. If a discussion becomes an unproductive mess, as likely as not it is because Al has posted another name-calling screed or Joe has flicked his gadfly spitballs every fourth comment. Very often what Al and Joe post seems designed to provoke an emotional response rather than engage the person being addressed in a serious debate.
And I do know for a fact that that sort of behavior HAS led people to avoid Blogcritics. Not because of disagreement on issues or ideology, but because it's just so damn frustrating to have a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to argue in good faith. It's frustrating to post links to support an assertion and have them ignored. It's frustrating to have someone demand you take a position and then refuse to do the same. It makes one feel like one is being used as a toy for the other person's amusement.
Sometimes that seems like Joe's perspective to me. I post something substantive, then he peppers me with snarky little questions throughout the comments thread that follows, and then insults me when I ignore them.
So, I was the one who called Joe a troll, and I defend it. It was in a thread where I was studiously ignoring him, and he kept manipulating Mac Diva with one question after another, largely ignoring her substantive responses, and throwing accusations at me in the process. In fact, this post is a good example of how Al and Joe drag the quality of debate down.
Here's the play by play:
POST: Brian accuses Arnold Schwarzenegger of having a connection to a prominent "racist" because he is an advisory member of a group whose leader said this in his official capacity: "As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night?" The facts in the post are supported with links to the Washington Post and Slate.
COMMENTS:
1. Joe calls Brian a "natural politician." No reference to the links that supported the assertions in the original post.
2. Al accuses Brian of not being "honest" or "decent" and of engaging in "cheap, vicious demagoguery." No reference to the links that supported the assertions in the original post.
(Note how Joe and Al have instantly, on no personal provocation, taken the discussion into the realm of name-calling and personal attacks. Their responses are about me, not what I asserted or the evidence I used to back it up. By comment #2, the debate is already in the gutter. I would also note here that not only did I not attack Joe or Al in my post, but I did not call A.S. a racist. I accused him of having, and I quote, "racist connections," and I provided evidence to back up this accusation.)
3. Brian asks Al which of the facts he disputes. Offers the links to the Post and Slate again. Offers another link to tolerance.org. Says he "will consider challenges to the evidence and arguments in the above articles" and asks Al to read them.
4. Funny post from a guy named Frost.
5. Joe provides link to Advisory Board list of U.S. English, which includes other prominent names. Asks, "Between this and the wiener pics, I don't know, Brian. What do the polls say?" (Brian had earlier posted link to naked pic of A.S.)
6. Mac Diva posts link to her prior research on Tanton.
7. Brian defends his aggressive tactics against A.S. by claiming the Republicans are forcing Democrats to do this sort of thing.
8. Al tells Brian, "You are charging that Arnold is a 'racist.'" Al continues to use the second person and says, "You know all this. You know that Arnold has no history of abusing people based on race. You don't care though, if you can use it push people's hot buttons." He also says, "You know better." Al uses the word "you," as in, "you're saying and implying things that you know are not true," at least eight times. He flat-out calls Brian a "demagogue." Nowhere in this comment does Al say whether he has read any of the articles that supported the original post. Brian's only prior use of the second person in thread was to say to Al, "you might actually have to read the articles in question."
9. Now Brian gets snippy. To Al: "As usual, you claim that I make claims that I don't make, and your refusal to use quotations to support your accusations is typical. What is it that you have against quotation, Al?" Brian accuses Al of basing his assertions on Al's imagination instead of the record. Brian links to Slate again. Brian says he won't talk to Al anymore.
10. Mac Diva says that anti-immigration groups are often fronts for racists. She also says, "Are you sure you are not just defending Schwarzenegger, an ill-suited candidate for governor, just because he is a fellow Right Winger?"
11. Al says to Brian, "Ya want quotes? How about your TITLE: 'Another Schwarzenegger racist connection.' The clear implication of the title, the only reason for having it, the only reason for this post is to argue that Schwarzenegger is a racist on the basis of guilt by association." This is the second comment in which Al has claimed to have knowledge of Brian's personal motivations.
12. Joe asks Brian, "...was Waldheim ever convicted? Just a rhetorical question, I'm not saying he shouldn't have been, but as you seem to have a command of all the issues involved I suppose you could enlighten us as to why not?" Joe states no opinion on the matter himself, offers no links, offers no suggestion of what Waldheim's not being convicted means. Just asks the question and asks Brian to display his "command of all the issues involved" and "enlighten us."
13. Al says to Diva: A.S. is not "right wing." To Brian: "If Schwarzenegger has in fact had a history of showing hatred and unfairness toward non-Arnoldians, then sure it would be a great public service for Brian to bring them forth. However, insistently smearing him with the label in the absence of significant evidence to support it is a particularly wicked libel." Brian is now in a position where he is being asked to defend a proposition he hasn't made--that Arnold himself is a "racist."
14. Diva: "If he doesn't want to be associated with such views, I believe Schwarzenegger should distance himself from folks with a racist or anti-Semitic taint."
15. Natalie agrees.
16. JR asks, "According to their own website, U.S. English was actually founded by S.I. Hayakawa. Anybody know about this guy? Was he some big racist, anti-immigration activist?"
17. Brian posts excerpt from a Washington Post online chat with the writer who wrote the article Brian referenced in support of the original post. The writer, Terry Neal, says directly to a member of U.S. English, "The founder of your organization, as well as the current spokesman are either white supremacist or at least hold some views that could be considered such." (Side note: Neither Joe nor Al have mentioned the Post article once, even if only to indicate they read it.)
18. Apparent non sequitur.
19. Al: "Wait, Arnold is involved with an organization whose mission statement is 'English should be our common language.' Stop the presses! It's Hitler all over again!!!!" (Have I mentioned that neither Al nor Joe have made any statement about the Post or Slate articles that supported the original post?)
20. In answer to #16, Mac Diva offers information on Hayakawa, a eugenecist. She provides a link.
21. Joe to Diva: "...care to provide any documentation for the eugenicist claim? I didn't find anything with the cursory google search." (Joe expresses no opinion on the matter himself, simply demands more evidence.)
22. Joe: Spelling correction/good joke re: Bustamante.
23. Diva says she doesn't want to do research on the obvious for Joe. She suggests Joe can find plenty of information on Hayakawa if he "search[es] harder."
24. Joe: "Nah, that's ok. Just sort of fits the same pattern of innuendo that Brian uses with such fervor." (As far as I'm concerned, this is iron-clad proof of trolldom: Demand an answer to a question, then get suddenly uninterested in the answer, then throw out a sideways accusation with no evidence to back it up. This is what trolls do--provoke.)
25. Mac Diva gets irritated with Joe for manipulating her. "It is called work, Joe. If you are not willing to do a little of it to learn about Hayakawa that speaks for itself."
26. Sarcastic contribution by Al: "If Mac Diva says that someone is an evil racist, then you should just assume that he is unless you can prove he's not. Now just shut up with this requesting evidence crap. Thank you." (Al does not say whether he actually knows anything about Hayakawa.)
27. "Yes, well, I'm chastened. Actually, I was willing to do a little work and when I didn't find anything, I returned to the source. So, while Brian says he never called AS a racist but did call him a member of a white supremacist group and you called SH a a eugenicist but are unwilling to provide any background, I just have to wonder, why do you expect people to take you seriously when you make serious allegations but don't back them up?" (The allegation that U.S. English is a white supremacist group is backed up by the quote in the original post and in Terry Neal's original Wash. Post article. Joe still has not indicated if he has read this article and, if so, why he disagrees with Neal's analysis, which has also been posted directly into the comments thread in the form of the online chat excerpt.)
28. Brian gets snarky: "Mac Diva, A valiant effort. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to feed the trolls, does it?"
29. Joe responds: "Ouch! Namecalling? I don't think you could characterize my behavior as particularly vindictive or abusive. I'm just asking questions, which, of course, you've failed to address." (Yeah, Joe--asking questions is just about all you have done.)
30. Eric: "...belonging to an organization that wants to tighten immigration laws does not make one a racist - the broader the brush, the more easily the paint washes off, or something."
31. Dew: says A.S. is a hypocrite for being an immigrant and being anti-immigration.
32. Brian to Eric: I never said A.S. was a racist. Says racist connections are nonetheless troubling. Offers another Slate link on A.S./Waldheim.
33. Mac Diva: "Take some truth serum, Joe." Does some research for him. Offers connection between Hayakawa and racism via Google search link.
34. Joe, "I beg your pardon, I asked for info on a link to Hayakawa and eugenics which was in relation to your claim. You are providing a link for Hayakawa and racism. And while they're only different shades of ugly, don't really mean exactly the same thing." (Joe does not explain what this distinction means in context of the discussion.)
35. Joe says to compare and contrast Brian's statement that he has not alleged A.S. is a racist with his statement that A.S. is a member of a "white-supremacist group." (The "white supremacist" label has been defended in the original post (quote from Tanton) in the Wash. Post artice and in the online chat transcript. Joe has yet to acknowledge any of these sources.)
36. Diva: "Oh, stop nitpicking, Little Joe. Anyone with common sense knows the eugenics movement is a form of racism. So, searching 'Hayakawa + racism' is an obvious thing to do. It is revealing that you did not do it."
37. Joe: "Indeed it is, but the question I asked was pretty specific as was the statement you made. Forgive me for crediting you with the intellect to tell the difference."
38. Mike describes A.S.'s liberal views.
39. Diva says she will laugh if Bustamante is elected.
40. Brian agrees that A.S. is a liberal. Says the problem with A.S. is his "insensitivity," and that's what the racist connections reveal--by not severing them, he proves he is insensitive to race issues. Also posts link to Premiere article detailing A.S. insensitivity to women.
41. Joe says, "If it isn't the racism as much as the insensitivity than why isn't the post titled 'Arnold Schwarzenegger insensitivity connection'?" (This virtually ignores the above comment, which said, basically racist connections = insensitivity.) Joe demands clarification on the following: "Is support for Proposition 187 directly correlated with racism? Are you accusing the current or former leader of US English of racism, or both, or does it matter to you? Did the UN ever formally repudiate Waldheim? If no, then why should it be required of anyone else? If yes, then what is the established standard for adequate repudiation?" Adds: "Feel free to ignore my trying to engage you in actual civil discussion."
42. Natalie posts another link to WaPo.
End.
One could look at that comments thread and say, "Well, everybody got a little snarky here and there." Which is true. However, Al and Joe did consistently ignore evidence highlighted by others. Al slipped into the second person very quickly (you are this, you are that). And Joe repeatedly peppered others with questions while offering little of his own to the discussion.
I'm sure that Mac Diva left the conversation as frustrated as I did, and feeling not a little like she was used for entertainment. Getting bombarded with ad hominem attacks, being asked to jump through hoops for no apparent purpose that furthers the discussion, being asked to defend propositions that someone else invented in their imagination and projected onto you...it gets old. It really does feel like one is simply being made sport of, and one's adversaries in the discussion are not participating in good faith.
Rather than, "Let's try to find the truth together by sharing evidence and experience, and see where reason takes us," it often seems like Joe's and especially Al's approach is, "All right, I'm gonna call you some names and watch you explode."
It happens a lot here on Blogcritics. It sucks. And it's why people leave.
105 - Al Barger
Puh-lease, Brian. It strikes me odd that you would pick the post "Another Schwarzenegger racist connection" to try to make an argument against ME.
Again, I stand by my comments. That post absolutely does not constitute any kind of seeking after truth, but as clear and straightforward a cheap hatchet job as could be imagined.
It is three steps past disingenuous for you to claim that you weren't saying Arnold is a racist. No, there are just "racist connections." For your purposes of smearing an opposition political candidate, "racist" and "racist connections" are the same thing.
You make this vicious smear despite Arnold's well-known efforts to do absolutely right on these type of issues. He has given money for years to Jewish causes, among others. He voluntarily sought out counseling from the Simon Wiesenthal center. He refused even to go to his own Nazi father's funeral.
Knowing these things as you no doubt must by this point, yet continuing to try to nail the tag "racist" on him constitutes demagoguery.
Demagogue: one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience
Damn, but this sounds like just a perfect description of what you are doing in the "Racist Connnection" post. You KNOW that Arnold has been nothing but scrupulous on racial issues, yet you maliciously insist on trying to call him a racist because that might hurt him with (stupid, illiterate) voters.
If you wanted to find racism in the CA governor's race, then you'd be looking into Bustamante's membership and continuing support even now, apparently, for the avowedly racial supremicist Mecha group.
Such truth, however, does not concern you. Pure political partisanship does, on the basis of your writing. It might be spurious, but you're happy to blast Arnold for "racist connections" because he somehow knows someone who at some point has said something that might be perceived as racist.
Boy howdy, Brian, thinking again, I'm just flabbergasted that you would pick that overtly cheapest of cheap shots to represent your intellectual highmindedness. Still, this does represent a variety of honesty in that this nonsense represents pretty well the level of honesty and seriousness in political discourse that you bring.
106 - Joe
Dangit Brian! I was just about to call it a night. Look, I wouldn't ask you questions if I didn't care what you thought. You and I differ politically (although, probably not as much as you think) I'm interested in why you think you what you do. If you don't think I'm offering something substantive why don't you ask me questions? I don't share your opinion that Blogcritics is tilted to the right, thanks to you and others, and I think that's a good thing. I think it sets it apart from someplace like Indymedia or Free Republic. Folks can go there if they want one-sided discussion. I'm pretty thick skinned, if you think I'm being a dick or am out of line, go ahead and tell me or email me.
107 - Joe
Wait, Al you were supposed to be the good cop and I was supposed to be the bad cop.
108 - Al Barger
What, was comment #106 supposed to constitute your attempt at being a BAD cop, Joe? Jebus, those comments were only about an inch short of constituting fellatio. Granted, Brian is kinda cute- even if he's a damned fool. Still, you should probably leave bad-copping to a professional.
109 - Thought Process
Is this site for arguing or debating?
110 - TDavid
Boy has this conversation switched gears :) (which is not necessarily a negative thing)
Forgive me in advance Brian for seeking a little balance for I am a Libra and, as you might already know, it is within a Libra's nature to succumb to these emotions. The following is not a lecture but merely a friendly observation.
Brian, I'm not entirely certain how overall, from reading your above comments anyway, that you feel about those who comment on your writing. I know that a comment on something I've written is much appreciated. And whether that feedback is positive, negative or "troll"-like as you've defined above, well it still means that someone has taken the time and energy to peck away at the keyboard presumably (?) on the writer's behalf.
Now I will admit that comments which have little to do with what was actually written don't seem at the surface of much use, but it's sort of like looking at one of those ink blots and commenting on what one sees. I will comment on what I see, if anything, or if I think I have something of potential use to the writer, or to compliment him/her if I can (not to brownnose, but if I legitimately liked the piece) or maybe just to spontaneously react to what I just read.
I also think that in addition to, or possibly instead of, contributing to discussions which already have many comments (as I'm doing here, so doh!), there are several pieces on the site with zero comments and written by critics who do not get much commenting action, so personally I will try from time to time to seek out those situations and leave some feedback. Sort of like a virtual wave, yanno?
A few words, just so these critics know that yes, someone in this gigantic, luminous virtual world is not only reading their work but also cares enough to take the time to respond. And please anybody reading this put down the flamethrower if you think I'm saying that if one does not leave a comment then he/she is being disrespectful or uncaring, because that's absolutely not what I'm saying,
It isn't a sympathy comment, no, it's more of a thank you type thing for and to the writer taking the time to contribute something to the collective. I will also try and visit the blogs of the various writers, especially newer ones, and see what they have brewing. Maybe it will turn out to be a b-roll opportunity.
If this site -- any website really -- is to continue to grow, IMHO, then many different folks need to have interaction, feedback and share their voices.
Still being relatively new here, but I can honestly cite really only a handful of folks who dominate the commenting sections. It would be nice to hear from more folks out there (so this message isn't to those who already are leaving comments, it's to those who leave very few to no comments).
And it's early, btw, and no I'm not going to preview these comments, lol. My comments usually come from the heart, not from an editor's polished mind and thus they can contain spelling, typos, grammatical and other germane errors (so there, Natalie lol j/k) Naturally when I contribute a piece, I will have a much keener eye on what's being contributed ;)
So, what do you folks say? Can we look out for those with zero comments? I am not saying that anybody here doesn't already do this, but maybe a lurker or two reading this will pick up on this and add their voice. Hopefully ;)
Here's to a great 3-day weekend, for those who are celebrating, anyway :)
111 - Natalie Davis
Brian, thanks for posting that; you've given me much to think about. I still think Joe is quite good at snark, but don't see him as a troll (a tally of this thread shows that MD, Dawn, and you consider Joe a troll or guilty of troll-like behavior; if anything, I suspect he can be Barger-like at times). I'm still awaiting MD's evidence from other sites.
Al, if you were not saying that you think me a racist (which, sorry, is what I saw in your words), I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though I still have serious problems with you citing my melanin challenge as having anything to do with this at all, and even though I criticized MD long before #94, as well as in other threads here. Either you are not reading my words thoroughly, are ignoring them willfully in an effort to smear me (oops, poke gentle fun), or insist that I feed upon her as a carrion crow would his perished prey. Sorry, that's your bailiwick: I refused to play along with your unnecessary, inhumane pile-on. Speaking of this thread only, you are the one who started this. It wasn't necessary. And it is obvious that the only reason you did was to go after another human being. You said so right up front. If you now expect anyone to believe that your intent was to make "gentle fun," I respectfully suggest anti-psychotic drugs.
As far as love goes, noting that you have some good qualities is the best I can do. Take it or leave it. Thank the good lord that I am a pacifist and would never poke you in the eye with anything.
TDavid: Don't mind me, I am an editor by trade and have to learn to restrain myself. (I am also guilty of making grammar and spelling errors, as my writings demonstrate. Joe gave helpful advice: Preview!)
Took a look at the Leaderboard at Phillip's suggestion. Promise: You will see my commenting drop precipitously.
112 - Thought Process
Technically race is valid but there are only three: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. African American is also valid, it applies to Africans who have migrated here to the States (America).
Black is the classification which people of African descent here in America trying to fight for a name, chose for themselves in opposition of Colored and Negro. I am inclined to agree(with the mindframe) that as off base as it is, it is better than the alternatives.
The fact of the matter is that we are all different hues. We are all colored. But the mind recollects what the eyes see first, in most instances thats your sex and then your hue. So of course thru natural courses of rationalization once the mind comprehends hue it then sees color not as hue once more but as a state of mind. Natalie it seems has conquered the difficult task of deassociation. Kudos to her, everyone hasn't the skill. Appreciate that and move on. Drilling a hole into everyone's head about it takes away from the potency of your point.
Hence Al. Though it seems he's only playing Devil's Advocate most of the time (and mostly for kicks to see others get roused i.e Brian Flemming) his past(Blog past at least) has caused Mac Diva to have much to hold against him. To prove this point would be to referencee too many posts. It is quite possible she knows something about old Al that we dont, but from the four or five posts centered around these
debatesarguments Mac Diva just lost her cool when no one jumped on her 'hate the racist'crusade. She was in a corner, eyes closed, fist up and swung at anything and anyone who approached. Opinion? Indeed.TDavid says it best, relating to color only, green would be the most important and I am inclined to say the nexus of us all.
By the way, I noticed Dew wrote an interesting post on her blog pertaining to these little tiffs that she didn't bother posting here on Blogcritics. Hmmmm wonder why?
Golly, I hope that wasn't mean of me...lol
113 - Natalie Davis
ThoughtProcess writes: "Technically race is valid"
Your opinion. You're entitled, but don't expect that everyone will suffer that view silently or agree with it. And I am not alone in sneering at this vile, useless, demeaning, damaging social construct.
From infogettable.net, a humanistic learning community:
From Jacklyn Cock and Alison Bernstein's Melting Pots and Rainbow Nations:
From journalist Faye Flam of the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Several cites for folks willing to do some digging through microfiche collections at the library (I could find only one cached Google page on the 'Net):
1. MEN LINKED TO ANCIENT `ADAM' (USA Today) Tim Friend; 05-26-1995.
2. Racial Differences May Be Nonexistent. Vol. 127 n, USA Today magazine, 04-01-1999.
3. Delthia Ricks and, Bryn Nelson, The other genome project, The Toronto Star, 06-30-2000.
4. HUMAN GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSIS REVEALED FOR FIRST TIME (Xinhua News Agency); 02-11-2001.
5. "Genetic code doesn't reveal distinctions in race", Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service ) Lisa M. Krieger; 02-21-2001.
And check out this interesting debate at Interracial Voice. (BC does not have a monopoly on housing snarky sorts.)
As for "green," it's a pretty color with many wonderful variations, but if you mean money (the love for which is the root of most evil), no, not all of us.
114 - Thought Process
Caucasoid: of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features b : of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No. African, or southwest Asian ancestry
Mongoloid:of, constituting, or characteristic of a major racial stock native to Asia as classified according to physical features (as the presence of an epicanthic fold) that includes peoples of northern and eastern Asia, Malaysians, Eskimos, and often American Indians
Negroid:of, resembling, related to, or characteristic of the Negro race
All of what you said still does not dispute that we are one, if not all of the above.
115 - Natalie Davis
Perhaps not, but it does say that those groupings are scientifically meaningless (not to mention stupid, tiresome, harmful, etc.), as DNA of all human beings is 99.9 percent identical. And if all human life originated from the same source, as many scientists contend, we are all ONE family, ONE race.
116 - The Theory
i don't know about the rest of you, but with my short attention span I'm having trouble with some of these long posts... arrg!
That said, humans categorize themselves from each other. There are different ways, social standing, money, religion, and, yes, skin color. The day people stop categorizing themselves is when people will ignore skin color.
peace.
117 - JR
As long as we’re revisiting this, I think a point should be made.
16. JR asks, "According to their own website, U.S. English was actually founded by S.I. Hayakawa. Anybody know about this guy? Was he some big racist, anti-immigration activist?"
20. In answer to #16, Mac Diva offers information on Hayakawa, a eugenecist. She provides a link.
21. Joe to Diva: "...care to provide any documentation for the eugenicist claim? I didn't find anything with the cursory google search." (Joe expresses no opinion on the matter himself, simply demands more evidence.)
…(further exchanges)…
33. Mac Diva: "Take some truth serum, Joe." Does some research for him. Offers connection between Hayakawa and racism via Google search link.
I did go back and Google Hayakawa racism. Now I only followed the first few links, but all I found were more assertions. Nothing about how he, for example, ever owned a plantation or funded a sterilization program or even tracked minorities at SF State.
Then I realized the problem with the search parameters: it’s an a priori assumption. Of course you’re going to read that Hayakawa was a racist, you’re selecting for sites that already assume that. What you aren’t likely to find are the kind of unbiased accounts that some of us are looking for to establish whether S.I. Hayakawa was really a racist or he just pissed off a lot of people who were then willing to label him a racist.
Try this Google search: flat earth.
Again, I only read the first few links. The first one was the Flat Earth Society. Not surprisingly, they will tell you that the Earth is flat. The second link seems to be some role-playing game. The third contained the provocative statement, “You can’t orbit a flat earth…” I clicked on that. Turns out, the statement was used as proof that the moon landings were faked.
Okay, I’ve done some work, are we satisfied the Earth is flat?
118 - The Theory
the whole "round earth" concept is a load of hogwash! It was and idea conceved and enforced by insecure governments and scientists wanting to make a name for themselves. There is not one grain of truth to a "round earth" any more than the grass is greener on the other side of the hill.
119 - TDavid
Mars sure looks round, have you seen the picture?
;)
120 - The Theory
hahaha! it's like a plate!
phillip winn: thank you for pointing out how much I lack a life. Good lord, it's sobering. #4 commenter all time... #10 poster all time. I'm sick sick sick.
121 - Phillip Winn
Re: #120 - Sick, TT? I'm just jealous that I haven't been able to break onto the top 10 all-time commenters yet. Argh!
122 - Mac Diva
Natalie, Joe seems like the same Joe who has been following me around for months to me. The person expresses the same doltish opinions in the same hopeless writing style. If that is a coincidence, it is one hell of one.
I realize Joe is trying to change his footprint by suddenly posting content to the site. That is supposed to make us forget he is a troll. However, that seems like the Joe I know, too. His content is just as mindless as his comments.
As someone who labored three hard years in law school, I am aware of the difficulties of proving things. But based on the evidence, I believe it is the same Joe.
123 - Eric Olsen
Whoa - this is the new Dixie Chicks
124 - Natalie Davis
What evidence? I'm still waiting to see it.
125 - The Theory
pwinn: that's because you don't comment enough! :-P
peace.