FreeDuck wrote:Setanta wrote:The comment attacked black people, the comment attacked women, ...
Setanta wrote:Strawman--i didn't say that they were attacks on all blacks and all women--but when a remark attacks more than one woman, and more than one black, that remark attacks women and blacks.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept that while I thought you meant "all" that you did not. So while maybe you thought snood meant "all", possibly he didn't. I'm just asking that you confer the same benefit of the doubt on him as you would like for yourself, and I would like for myself. There's no point quibbling over something that he didn't really mean to say, is there?
You've failed in your attempt to claim that i hold Snood to a different standard than i do myself. This probably results from you having jumped in well after this "discussion" started. Snood stated:
snood wrote:Well, I know of some people who would tell you that being african-american doesn't grant you any special insight or perspective or voice about issues specifically involving african americans.
Lash responded that that were only true if all black people have the same opinions. I responded to that exchange by pointing out that i did not have any real problem with the core statement by Snood, but that there is a significant quibble in that it cannot be absolutely true--that Snood cannot reasonably claim to have his special insight into the lives of
all black people--otherwise, i considered the contention reasonable. I've stated that again and again in this thread, so i can only assume that you have jumped into the mud pit which Snood has recently dug without having reviewed the entire discussion.
It doesn't matter if Snood meant
all blacks, because my comment was only to the effect that
if he meant all blacks, the contention is indefensible. In fact, in this discussion, i concentrated on the second statement which he made:
Quote:I had someone on this forum tell me that being an african american man gave me no better idea about how african american men are regarded in america. Still trips me out to this day...
And i will continue to insist that being black does not give Snood any special knowledge of how he is regarded by others in this society. That was the contention on Snood's part to which i took especial exception.
During the course of that discussion, the Mountie came along to sneer at those arguing with Snood with a comment about Foxfyre and motor cycle gang members, to suggest that if was being claimed that anyone here said they knew better than Snood how black men experience America. No one said that, and several nasty exchanges succeeded before the Mountie decided he had had enough. Then, long after the discussion had ended and the discussion had moved to other things, Snood's buddy KW shows up, with Snood acknowledging that he sent for him by PM, and KW immediately claims that people have said that they know better than Snood what it means to be a black man in America.
No one said that.
Snood is now whining about things being twisted. But he used the language special insight, as the quote above shows. He used the verb "to regard," as the quote above shows. He wants to squirm out of those statements, and to claim that what he wrote has been misrepresented. That simply is not the case. He is also getting personally nasty because his ploy of bringing in reinforcements hasn't worked out as he planned, and his bulldog, KW, is now lashing out with vicious personal remarks about O'Bill and about me. It's a measure of what's going on here. Snood is pissed because he was justifiably called on some dubious comments, so he's flinging out accusations which are better applied to him than to men, and he's brought in his online thug to help with enforcement. He's attempting to raise the level of hysteria now by claiming that i made remarks about "PC" which i did not make.
Your quote of me fails to accomplish what you intended. If you want to argue that, i'm more than willing. I suspect, though, that you'll simply allude to that as "Setantawar," and claim it's not worth it.
Snood is whining because he was called on what he wrote, and i can and will continue to quote what he wrote, and to advance the same objections to it which i originally advanced. And if anyone wants to take me to task for that, i'm more than willing to engage them, even it it entails snotty remarks about Setantawar--if you start it, don't whine about being involved in it.
Setanta wrote:
You presumed to claim that you could speak, uniquely, to the experience of every black person in this country.
snood wrote:Well, I know of some people who would tell you that being african-american doesn't grant you any special insight or perspective or voice about issues specifically involving african americans. I had someone on this forum tell me that being an african american man gave me no better idea about how african american men are regarded in america. Still trips me out to this day...
Unless there are other quotes of snood's that say what you indicated in your first post, then his words don't say what you seem to think they say. And in any case, do you actually think that's what he meant? We all sometimes choose words unwisely. Instead of locking onto one and arguing to death how it's the wrong one, why not just acknowledge what he was clearly trying to say.
Quote:You don't need to throw "black man badge" up in my face. I did not use the term, and i have not attempted to defend its use.
Nor have I said you did. It's not always about you, Set. There was a whole lot more to that section than the words "black man badge".
Quote:It is reasonable for him to say that he knows more about how most black men experience America, but not all. And that is the only point i made with regard to that part of his statement. It is completely unreasonable and illogical for him to assert that being black means he knows how he is regarded--the point to which i most specifically objected. In my objection, i was careful to point out precisely why that claim is unreasonable.
As for racist thinking, Snood is no more immune from that pitfall than are either you or i.
Ok.[/quote]
