Affirmative Action

I see you are the gullible type and are so easily confused and persuaded by the slightest of suggestions. FYI... I know Noah The African from another site. And it's obvious you carry your paranoia from one site to the next. I purposely used Noah's name to see what the reaction would be to it.

Noah's Hook, Pardon my manners. I should have said 'WELCOME to A2K.' c.i.

Yeah, right. You got some swampland in Florida you want to sell me too?

Noah's Hard Left Hook!,

Nobody "fears" your friend Noah. But he had a tendency to start calling people white supremacists (even if they were not white) simply because they disagreed with him.

Craven, perhaps you can tell me how to characterize such paranoia?

Also, could you tell me why posters would rather comment on 'personality' than on say the content of my post?

And beyond that... I'm a bit puzzled??? If perchance the 'name-calling' and the title of "white supremacist" doesn't fit either the posters here that are white and, perhaps, more readily those that are black or non-white then what is so alarming about it?

Perhaps you can shed some light on what is so offensive about being called a 'name' like that.

I've been on plenty of message boards and have been called plenty of names but I think there have been very few if any that offended me to the point to where I could not take it. As the saying goes, "Sticks and Stones... but [names] will never hurt me!"

I guess that's sort of a moto for me. I'm sure I have my limit but for someone that I think is incredibly off base with their reasoning and who actually take the time to explain theirs, however contrived, I hardly ever feel 'offended' to the point that I can't brush a petty name if not one that could never apply to me aside as if it is a joke with non-starter potential.

I don't know whether you follow me but for me (and I am black) I don't understand what it is about that term - white supremacist - particularly in the way Noah used it (from what I read) that would be offensive to whites or blacks especially if it doesn't apply.

Especially if the person using it is an illogical joke, that most have regarded Noah as. Perhaps you could explain.

It all sounds rather PC to me rather than about substance but that all stems around me not know what makes that so offensive to perhaps you or others who have taken offense to it.

I mean, there are plenty of times on message boards where 'names' and ideas are ascribed to someone that misrepresents what they believe and what they are about that have never resulted in such "outrage" (for lack of a better term).

Political forums in particular hardly ever result in such 'outrage' over someone feeling offended to the point of no return because they feel they are being personally mischaracterized/misrepresented even by comments that were purposefully and personally directed at them by name much less a part or whole of a message board.

What is it about race and that term - white supremacist - that causes what I see as something somewhat inconsistent with the nature of message boards?

Noah would mix up people's arguments and insult people while attributing things to them that they didn't say.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Quote:

Noah would mix up people's arguments and insult people while attributing things to them that they didn't say.

Aside from the "insults" which apparently are very subjective (given that you said you were not 'alarmed' or bothered by what Noah had to say)... those very things I highlighted are, in fact, what I see as almost endemic to the nature of message boards... all messages boards.

Any time two people express their ideas on a topic like, race, politics, religion, etc. I don't think it is a stretch to say that even on this board, absent Noah, absent the topics he brings up that posters:

• mix up [other] people's arguments - even by generalizing, labeling, typecasting, stereotyping, etc. and
  
• attributing things to [other posters] that they didn't say

... are part and parcel of debates on message boards.

The amount of decorum has very little prohibitive effects on stopping either of those. Matter of fact, getting past those exact things would be, IMHO, what the "higher" goals of such boards would be.

Not that I'm here to defend Noah but in all honesty if you are going to promote the sanctity of this board on those terms then you can't excuse that behavior from others who are guilty of the same thing whether 'provoked' or not.

Whether someone had it coming or could only expect those types 'insults', etc. in return for their own is not the issue you seem to be bringing up. You act like Noah has some unique license on that.

Case and point, whether you agree with it or not, the very post I initially responded to here Centroles take on MLK, affirmative action, etc. His second post with his (conservatively skewed, IMO) interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement is full of generalizations about every group of people he mentioned.

BTW, quibbling over semantics is also endemic to message boards, IMO.

Anyway, I would like if you could at least explain what you feel is 'insulting' about the term and/or the discussion of white supremacy.

How is it that you regard that as "spamming"?

I ask that because that also seems very subjective and I guess really hinges to some degree on the 'consensus' of said board (although there are some absolute 'spamming' instances).

I guess I suffer to see what your definition is... and I am also not phased by ad hominem's or whatever logical fallacies people use in debates/discussions.

That seems rather pretentious, to me, because I rarely see sound, rational and logically constructed arguments, IMO, but none of that raises to the point to where I won't engage a person in a debate or discussion let alone ban or favor banning someone.

I guess we do see things differently.

Quote:

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Noah specified (however, incorrectly by whoever's opinion) the *character, *circumstances and/or *actions wherein he threw-out the label of (or defined) those who accept or support white supremacy.

Matter of fact, I just reviewed one rationalization with some ridiculous "If God Put You and Your People On Top? What Would You Do?" charge that I can only assume serves as justification by virtue of some ill-concieved concept of what human nature is to excuse so-called white privilege.

Are you really just here to discuss Noah?

I only glossed over your post (the way you made whole paragraphs links got distracting) but my initial take was that you were correct, if uneccessarily abrasive to whomever you were addressing.

If you are, in direct contradiction to one of your earlier statements, trying to question his banning and defend him I'll note that he wasn't banned for calling anyone a white supremacist.

I don't think a discussion about white supremacy is insulting. I do think being called a white supremacist is. The reason I feel this way is because I do not believe in inherent white supremacy and think such beliefs have caused great harm.

Now if a fool wants to ascribe such beliefs to me I'd not take serious insult at it. But I do consider the label to be defamatory, all the more so when innappropriately used (because the epitome of a white supremacist is actually proud of it, those who revile that kind of thinking obviously are less enamoured by the term).

Why the unnecessary focus on how my links were posted?
I do think I explained it and I don't think it matters how...
They all reference the source from where I referenced those ideas.

If you are curious about the authenicity or if I just completely made any one word of it up then all you have to do is, of course, point to that word, sentence or paragraph that you might question.

Also now, abrasiveness is a part of the criteria...

Okay! But you wonder where I get these "wild" assumptions, well I wonder how you can continue to act like what I have said is not born from what you have laid out, not to mention your ever expanding list of items that meet this criteria.

See, it's all about semantics...

You don't like a particular word I used so then all of a sudden what I say becomes a "wild" assumption.

No... Simply no. You raised the white supremacist thingy as evidence of what Noah did to earn disfavor here. So, if you please, instead of partial information why don't you share what it was all about since I guess you know exactly why.

Well, that would be all about semantics or rather your own self-definition (and perhaps the popular one) of the term, white supremacist. You and I both know that Noah defined what qualified someone as believing in that. You thoughts above seem to ascribe and attribute something to his argument something that wasn't there.

For sure, he and plenty of people I have read, do not seem to attribute white supremacist attitudes solely to the KKK types that you seem to be alluding to (you can offer your examples of who you were alluding to for clarity, if I am mistaken).

So taking offense to essentially a definition and thereby an argument you ascribe to someone simply because they use an undesirable term is less than honest or at least less than observant.

So, in that sense, you have mixed up Noah's argument. A complete contradiction of what the "higher" goals you have said this forum is about.
And FYI, I have read opinions from white, black and other authors that speak about white supremacy in much the same way Noah has.

It seems you are hung up on a word.