The Study of Racialism

lsgh2 · Suspended Joined: 22 May 2008 {Posts: 84 }

this whole thread oughta be put in book format. Surprised

fwsweet · Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 11:22 Post subject:

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

sagascend · Moderator Joined: 17 Jun 2006 {Posts: 2087 }

The direction this thread took is classic example of why site rules exist. Rule 2.1 is the directive that challenges anyone with a passionately held perspective who believes that he or she has been maligned or attacked by another poster. No matter how one has been wronged, one should not retaliate with personal attacks. No respondent should expect leniency even if the original statement was obviously no more than verbal bait.

In the case of A.D. and Jaime, longstanding animosity makes moderating a discussion rather like negotiating peace talks between Irish Catholics and (English)Protestants. Any episodic flareup exists within historic, ongoing tensions. I can't insist that you ignore one another, but I would suggest that if the impulse to interact has to be followed that you focus your response only on the current topic, post or violation and leave the past out of it. I don't want to suspend either one of you, despite the fact that in this case you seem to be using me as a proxy to fight with one another. I get myself into enough trouble on my own, thank you very much.

I also don't see any good reason to distinguish gurus from other members. If anything, gurus should be held to a higher standard given their public personas as cultural critics and researchers. Such rhetors often do not hold back a verbal punch, and anyone throwing punches ought to be able to take one too IMO.

Looking to root cause of this situation, perhaps it would be prudent to ask any guru for approval prior to posting or re-posting their writings here. After all, A.D. did not post the article that started this thread. Who is to say that she wanted to bring it up again?

sagascend · Moderator Joined: 17 Jun 2006 {Posts: 2087 }

fwsweet · Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 13:35 Post subject:

Powell · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2125 }

gemini072 · Moderator Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2678 }

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

Can we make a rule that somehow addresses "groupie" posts? Where most of the posts seem to be not about the subject matter at hand but on how great any poster is and how others aren't as good as the person. In other words, blatant cheerleading of the poster, not just agreement with a post?

I think stopping what we would call 'carbonero' posts, would aleviate many of these clashes.

Carbonero: el que le suma leña o carbon al fuego para que cresca, an instigator.

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

Powell · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2125 }

sagascend · Moderator Joined: 17 Jun 2006 {Posts: 2087 }

Powell · Guru Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2125 }

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

pianoplayer111 · Mentor Joined: 16 May 2007 {Posts: 379 }

Ladies, please!!

I'm not trying to interject myself here but this is silly.

Like I said, you both have opposing viewpoints. We can all agree to disagree.

I believe that some people feel personally attacked by Ms. Powell's comments. I don't believe she says things with malicious intent. I'm not her cheerleader in any way...but I can somewhat relate to her perspective in a way that others cannot. I have no problem with making it clear if I happen to disagree with her on anything she says.

We will all express views on occasion that will offend others or p*ss them off. I've been guilty of this despite the fact that this was not my intention. We're all adults here. Let's stop the accusations, finger-pointing, and attacks. We're all better than that.

I'm not a moderator but it bothers me to see all of us having these problems with one another. Sometimes over the Internet, communication can be difficult because you cannot always see the expressions of the people you interact with. Sometimes if a person happens to agree with another poster's ideas, it doesn't mean they are trying to add fuel to the fire. We all say things that violate the rules sometimes. We all have our own views based on research, studies, and plain old personal experience.

Ms. Powell frequently comes under fire for the way she writes. I don't understand what the problem is. However, in accordance with the rules of this forum, I can see why certain people might be offended. I think that sometimes we choose our battles. We need to respect one another despite conflicting views. We need to handle conflict and disagreements appropriately. We all have one common interest...that is why most of us are here. If somebody wants to tell me to speak for myself, feel free to do that. All I'm saying is that instead of bickering we should be having discussions that help us to understand one another.

Thank you. Neutral

pianoplayer111 · Mentor Joined: 16 May 2007 {Posts: 379 }

Sorry, Jaime...I wasn't calling you a lady. Laughing

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

Melani23 · Superuser Joined: 30 Aug 2005 {Posts: 1059 } Location: USA

IMO, the 3 involved are just 3 stong-willed individuals who refuse to back down from their own personal feelings, convictions, experiences and PWV (personal world views). Alllriighty then. Laughing

I'd say: 'just agree to disagree and move on', but hey.... Laughing

My outside-looking-in opinion into this continous fracas and/or never-ending melee' is:

One member likes to instigate another, hoping to trap a certain somebody into getting suspended. Hoping for validation....

One member has a certain mindset they are refusing to let go....

I also think the other member of this unholy alliance Laughing

is just offended by what the another member says often......

Razz