It was an opinion ("I think"); I could be wrong. All opinions could be wrong. So far, I'm just observing how you came onto Steve's substack and said the stuff you have said to him thay seem a bit troll-like. Just my impression.
It was an opinion ("I think"); I could be wrong. All opinions could be wrong. So far, I'm just observing how you came onto Steve's substack and said the stuff you have said to him thay seem a bit troll-like. Just my impression.
"youтАЩre intellectually dishonest, have no curiosity, know nothing, and are racistтАЭ"
Why lie? I have said absolutely none of this. In fact, you kicked off our conversation with the charming, "There are so many errors here it is hard to keep up..."
The closest is that I said it "feels as if you're being wilfully dishonest." I'm explaining how what you're saying seems to me. As Dave pints out above, there's a difference between an option and an attack. And this was in response to you talking as if freed blacks, during slavery, were treated with any kind of dignity because "the law code specifically addressed blacks."
I haven't played wounded at all. In fact, I've largely ignored your many insults and jabs. You, on the other hand, keep trying to twist my words into personal attacks when they haven't been. But I'm not going to continue to ignore obvious bad faith and lies.
If this is what you call setting the table for civil discussion then I'll stop wasting my time.
Yes you can. So go ahead and quote me. Don't just selectively edit a few words. Quote the sentence. If you can't (spoiler: you can't), have the decency to admit the error or become the first person I've ever banned on here.
I very much welcome diverse opinions here. I won't tolerate liars.
p.s. Why on earth do you think I wouldn't say all of this to your face? I haven't said anything rude? You're simply not actually reading what's being said. I'm a writer. I choose my words carefully.
"youтАЩre intellectually dishonest, have no curiosity, know nothing, and are racist"
Still waiting for any of this. Or the admission that actually, I didn't say any of it.
All of the above are opinions, carefully phrased to make it very clear that this is how you're coming across to me and not statements about you, who I know next to nothing about.
"Seem," "it feels as if," "I find it difficult to believe." These are words and phrases used to express impressions and feelings. They're not attacks. They're not ad hominems. And interestingly, you didn't say any of these had missed the mark.
Would you say that your behaviour here demonstrates an interest in gaining understanding?
*Have* you ever had a conversation with a black person with a genuine willingness to change your mind about race and racism? You certainly haven't with *this* black person.
How many black people have you spoken to who think it's easier to be black than white in America?
The definition of ad hominem isn't: "any comment, however accurate or polite, that challenges my thought process."
"But who hasnтАЩt truly considered that some of the pushback they receive isnтАЩt about the colour of their skin but the fact that they do have some racist attitudes."
Yep, I stand by this too. I don't think I've ever had anybody, certainly not anybody here, so unwilling to take responsibility for the things they say and simultaneously so easily offended. And anybody who is so absolutely desperate to minimise racism has some issues. Describing the treatment of black people in the sixties as "a few insults" is some of the most ignorant shit I've heard in my entire life. I don't think you're a member of the KKK. But seriously, take a look at yourself. Try that face to face with one of the "thousands" of black Americans I totally believe you've spoken to...
Alright man, I think we're done here. I'm not going to be able to reset with you. I don't think anybody has ever made such a bad impression on me in such a short space of time.ЁЯШЕ
I think Chris had the right idea. I'm not sure if you really do have good intentions and just had a really bad day today, or if you're a troll as others suspect. Either way, I'm going to ban you. Every single person you've engaged with today has the same opinion of your behaviour. So maybe have a think about that.
If you want to join again, go ahead, I won't keep track of your IP address or anything. Try a new screen name, have a fresh start, and, I don't know, be a better version of yourself.
"Again, you wouldnтАЩt have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it."
Are you denying that you wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation? If so, I completely stand by this comment. If not, it's not directed at you. This isn't complicated.
How many times a day do you think Louis Armstrong was treated with disrespect simply because he was black? You look at him blowing his horn on stage and think that his daily life was like being a rock star? That he was adored everywhere he went? That people didn't still see him as a ni**er everywhere he went?
Here. This is the first result I found by typing "Louis Armstrong racism" into Google.
"I feel the downtrodden situation the same as any other Negro"
Speaking about marijuana: "It makes you forget all the bad things that happen to a Negro"
When he was criticised for speaking about segregation: "I think I have a right to get sore and say something about it."
So here, I'm going to go with ignorance. To be extremely clear, ignorance doesn't mean YOU are an ignorant person. It means there's something you're ignorant about. This is true for all of us if we have the humility to admit it.
I, for example, was ignorant of the fact that Louis had said these specific things. But I'd have bet my life's savings that he had had negative experiences of racism regularly throughout his life. I would have bet that because I'm widely enough aware of the experience of black people during that time, and the attitudes of that time, that I know no black person, no matter how prestigious or gifted they were, received the basic human respect they deserved.
People can be nostalgic for their homes without being nostalgic for their mistreatment. And I'm willing to bet no Jews are nostalgic for Auschwitz.
"I am uncomfortable speaking about segregation and the holocaust in the same breath."
Man, again, you were the one who did this. I just responded. And you only did it because you wanted to minimise the suffering black people experienced during segregation by comparing it to something totally unrelated. In all my years talking about race, I've never compared black people's experience to anything else. The oppression olympics is gross. So if it makes you uncomfortable, don't do it.
I'm not saying black people aren't happy. Or even that they weren't ever happy during segregation. I'm saying that you wouldn't have wanted to endure the regular mistreatment they did back then. Especially if you knew something about it. It's so goddamned infuriating and insulting to see you describe the treatment black people received during that time as "a few insults." But again, you do this because you seem absolutely determined to minimise racism. You take the truth about racism as an attack on America. It's not. No sane person is saying things haven't changed drastically for the better. I've not condemned Americans at any point. I've just told you truths about American history that you're bizarrely unwilling to acknowledge.
God! I see that you're making at least an attempt to apologise, thank you for that. But a) I do understand the situation, very likely better than you, b) it's impossible to have a conversation if you keep getting triggered by things I haven't said.
And c) I don't care that you called me a "pom." It's kind of funny to watch you try to push my buttons and fail. I don't need you to hand out compliments. I'm not insecure. My issue wasn't the petty insults (that's why I ignored them), it was, and still is, that you've been dishonest about how you've represented me and my comments to you. I love having conversations too. Obviously. But the foundation of any productive conversation is honesty. It's the foundation of respect too. I'm still waiting for you to be honest about the fact that you misrepresented my comments. If you can't do that, there's nothing more to discuss.
Can you not understand how challenging Steve's thought based upon your assumption of his nationality, where he lives and if he has real experience as a black man in America doesn't sound like an invitation to civil discussion? I didn't start with that stuff either.
I'm certainly willing to start over with you. I don't know you or your life experience, it doesn't seem to match up to mine, so we have different views on some things, but I'm not known to walk in lockstep with people and that's OK.
Jason, you are a provocateur. You burst in here throwing insults and goads and most of us instantly regarded you as a troll, not that everyone made a point of saying so.
At this point your welcome is worn out; if you really want a serious discussion, and I honestly don't believe you do, but then I am a clinically angry son of a bitch myself and have little room to judge.
Steve is one of the most equanimous and fair people I have ever run into online, and if he is exasperated with you ... well.
But in the event I am wrong about your veracity, I would recommend you create a new account, make no reference to the Jason one, and start over.
"I only was responding to SteveтАЩs demeaning attacks that I know nothing and have no curiosity."
Once again, I didn't say this. I also told you that I've spent many years living in America. And that most of my family still ives there. My knowledge isn't from the internet. I've had many, many first person conversations with people who lived through Jim Crow. My grandparents on my father and mother's side, many of my aunts and uncles. I've heard countless stories that you won't find on the internet. I'm extremely confident that I've got far more direct experience of racism in America, both past and present, than you have. Plus the fact that I've spent the past two years writing and intensively researching race and race history. Who should be deferring here?
But of course your reductive, ill-informed arguments about me don't count as disrespectful, right?
And frankly, even if I'd never spent a single minute in America, this idea that "plenty of people identify as black for the 'benefits'" or that Obama being black was advantageous for him in his presidential run, made it immediately clear that you aren't a reliable source of information about race in America.
Man, I've really only been lightly frustrated by your arguments until this point. But outright dishonesty really gets me.
I'm old enough to have born personal witness to a great deal of pre-civil rights racism. I was also the white man at the bid whist table that became well enough known by the black people around me (late 70s-early 80s Georgia) that old people who experienced worse (including cross burnings and gunfire) became comfortable enough to talk honestly to me about it. In the case of one old woman who made her low opinion of white men known to me, I think she got some satisfaction in putting that in my face. She needed that so I listened to her and accepted it.
I think that one reason that I was accepted is that when I showed up at the table a coarse and intimidating man stated his bid and I said, "You can't make that. I pass." He looked me right in the eye and said, "Ain't no white MFer gonna set me." It got quiet. When I slapped the set card in front of him I said, "You're set MFer. Get up!" (hot seat) More quiet. I didn't let him intimidate me and run me off. That's how men gained each other's respect in those days. As equals. There was no white privilege or respect in his challenge. That came after. We weren't going to fight in the break room, but we didn't have a parking lot meeting either.
I just wrote and erased some of it because it's most likely what you were told by reliable witness to Jim Crow. As you wrote, not internet stuff.
"She needed that so I listened to her and accepted it."
Oof, yeah, I've met more than my fair share of angry black people. Especially the older generation. 60s and up. Some of them just went through too much to fully get over it. I have little doubt that if I'd grown up in the sixties it would be hard for me to trust white people.
You've been here long enough to remember my conversations with Ray, right? I'm sad I couldn't get through to him, but I'm also not that surprised. Some of the stories I've heard honestly make me tear up thinking about them.
For the last time, there is a difference between honest feedback and an attack. You have been dishonest above. You are ill-informed about me. It is not an attack to acknowledge this. If you want to be immune from all criticism, be a better person.
It was an opinion ("I think"); I could be wrong. All opinions could be wrong. So far, I'm just observing how you came onto Steve's substack and said the stuff you have said to him thay seem a bit troll-like. Just my impression.
"youтАЩre intellectually dishonest, have no curiosity, know nothing, and are racistтАЭ"
Why lie? I have said absolutely none of this. In fact, you kicked off our conversation with the charming, "There are so many errors here it is hard to keep up..."
The closest is that I said it "feels as if you're being wilfully dishonest." I'm explaining how what you're saying seems to me. As Dave pints out above, there's a difference between an option and an attack. And this was in response to you talking as if freed blacks, during slavery, were treated with any kind of dignity because "the law code specifically addressed blacks."
I haven't played wounded at all. In fact, I've largely ignored your many insults and jabs. You, on the other hand, keep trying to twist my words into personal attacks when they haven't been. But I'm not going to continue to ignore obvious bad faith and lies.
If this is what you call setting the table for civil discussion then I'll stop wasting my time.
You don't tell the host of the forum to go away.
"I can read your words in black and white"
Yes you can. So go ahead and quote me. Don't just selectively edit a few words. Quote the sentence. If you can't (spoiler: you can't), have the decency to admit the error or become the first person I've ever banned on here.
I very much welcome diverse opinions here. I won't tolerate liars.
p.s. Why on earth do you think I wouldn't say all of this to your face? I haven't said anything rude? You're simply not actually reading what's being said. I'm a writer. I choose my words carefully.
"youтАЩre intellectually dishonest, have no curiosity, know nothing, and are racist"
Still waiting for any of this. Or the admission that actually, I didn't say any of it.
All of the above are opinions, carefully phrased to make it very clear that this is how you're coming across to me and not statements about you, who I know next to nothing about.
"Seem," "it feels as if," "I find it difficult to believe." These are words and phrases used to express impressions and feelings. They're not attacks. They're not ad hominems. And interestingly, you didn't say any of these had missed the mark.
Would you say that your behaviour here demonstrates an interest in gaining understanding?
*Have* you ever had a conversation with a black person with a genuine willingness to change your mind about race and racism? You certainly haven't with *this* black person.
How many black people have you spoken to who think it's easier to be black than white in America?
The definition of ad hominem isn't: "any comment, however accurate or polite, that challenges my thought process."
"But who hasnтАЩt truly considered that some of the pushback they receive isnтАЩt about the colour of their skin but the fact that they do have some racist attitudes."
Yep, I stand by this too. I don't think I've ever had anybody, certainly not anybody here, so unwilling to take responsibility for the things they say and simultaneously so easily offended. And anybody who is so absolutely desperate to minimise racism has some issues. Describing the treatment of black people in the sixties as "a few insults" is some of the most ignorant shit I've heard in my entire life. I don't think you're a member of the KKK. But seriously, take a look at yourself. Try that face to face with one of the "thousands" of black Americans I totally believe you've spoken to...
Alright man, I think we're done here. I'm not going to be able to reset with you. I don't think anybody has ever made such a bad impression on me in such a short space of time.ЁЯШЕ
I think Chris had the right idea. I'm not sure if you really do have good intentions and just had a really bad day today, or if you're a troll as others suspect. Either way, I'm going to ban you. Every single person you've engaged with today has the same opinion of your behaviour. So maybe have a think about that.
If you want to join again, go ahead, I won't keep track of your IP address or anything. Try a new screen name, have a fresh start, and, I don't know, be a better version of yourself.
Let's try that again with some context shall we?
"Again, you wouldnтАЩt have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it."
Are you denying that you wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation? If so, I completely stand by this comment. If not, it's not directed at you. This isn't complicated.
"Yes, I disagree."
How many times a day do you think Louis Armstrong was treated with disrespect simply because he was black? You look at him blowing his horn on stage and think that his daily life was like being a rock star? That he was adored everywhere he went? That people didn't still see him as a ni**er everywhere he went?
Here. This is the first result I found by typing "Louis Armstrong racism" into Google.
https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-louis-armstrong
A couple of choice quotes:
"I feel the downtrodden situation the same as any other Negro"
Speaking about marijuana: "It makes you forget all the bad things that happen to a Negro"
When he was criticised for speaking about segregation: "I think I have a right to get sore and say something about it."
So here, I'm going to go with ignorance. To be extremely clear, ignorance doesn't mean YOU are an ignorant person. It means there's something you're ignorant about. This is true for all of us if we have the humility to admit it.
I, for example, was ignorant of the fact that Louis had said these specific things. But I'd have bet my life's savings that he had had negative experiences of racism regularly throughout his life. I would have bet that because I'm widely enough aware of the experience of black people during that time, and the attitudes of that time, that I know no black person, no matter how prestigious or gifted they were, received the basic human respect they deserved.
People can be nostalgic for their homes without being nostalgic for their mistreatment. And I'm willing to bet no Jews are nostalgic for Auschwitz.
"I am uncomfortable speaking about segregation and the holocaust in the same breath."
Man, again, you were the one who did this. I just responded. And you only did it because you wanted to minimise the suffering black people experienced during segregation by comparing it to something totally unrelated. In all my years talking about race, I've never compared black people's experience to anything else. The oppression olympics is gross. So if it makes you uncomfortable, don't do it.
I'm not saying black people aren't happy. Or even that they weren't ever happy during segregation. I'm saying that you wouldn't have wanted to endure the regular mistreatment they did back then. Especially if you knew something about it. It's so goddamned infuriating and insulting to see you describe the treatment black people received during that time as "a few insults." But again, you do this because you seem absolutely determined to minimise racism. You take the truth about racism as an attack on America. It's not. No sane person is saying things haven't changed drastically for the better. I've not condemned Americans at any point. I've just told you truths about American history that you're bizarrely unwilling to acknowledge.
God! I see that you're making at least an attempt to apologise, thank you for that. But a) I do understand the situation, very likely better than you, b) it's impossible to have a conversation if you keep getting triggered by things I haven't said.
And c) I don't care that you called me a "pom." It's kind of funny to watch you try to push my buttons and fail. I don't need you to hand out compliments. I'm not insecure. My issue wasn't the petty insults (that's why I ignored them), it was, and still is, that you've been dishonest about how you've represented me and my comments to you. I love having conversations too. Obviously. But the foundation of any productive conversation is honesty. It's the foundation of respect too. I'm still waiting for you to be honest about the fact that you misrepresented my comments. If you can't do that, there's nothing more to discuss.
I'll have to Google braver angels.
Can you not understand how challenging Steve's thought based upon your assumption of his nationality, where he lives and if he has real experience as a black man in America doesn't sound like an invitation to civil discussion? I didn't start with that stuff either.
I'm certainly willing to start over with you. I don't know you or your life experience, it doesn't seem to match up to mine, so we have different views on some things, but I'm not known to walk in lockstep with people and that's OK.
BETTER angels of our nature. Lincoln, first inaugural address.
Jason, you are a provocateur. You burst in here throwing insults and goads and most of us instantly regarded you as a troll, not that everyone made a point of saying so.
At this point your welcome is worn out; if you really want a serious discussion, and I honestly don't believe you do, but then I am a clinically angry son of a bitch myself and have little room to judge.
Steve is one of the most equanimous and fair people I have ever run into online, and if he is exasperated with you ... well.
But in the event I am wrong about your veracity, I would recommend you create a new account, make no reference to the Jason one, and start over.
Much appreciated Chris.
"I only was responding to SteveтАЩs demeaning attacks that I know nothing and have no curiosity."
Once again, I didn't say this. I also told you that I've spent many years living in America. And that most of my family still ives there. My knowledge isn't from the internet. I've had many, many first person conversations with people who lived through Jim Crow. My grandparents on my father and mother's side, many of my aunts and uncles. I've heard countless stories that you won't find on the internet. I'm extremely confident that I've got far more direct experience of racism in America, both past and present, than you have. Plus the fact that I've spent the past two years writing and intensively researching race and race history. Who should be deferring here?
But of course your reductive, ill-informed arguments about me don't count as disrespectful, right?
And frankly, even if I'd never spent a single minute in America, this idea that "plenty of people identify as black for the 'benefits'" or that Obama being black was advantageous for him in his presidential run, made it immediately clear that you aren't a reliable source of information about race in America.
Man, I've really only been lightly frustrated by your arguments until this point. But outright dishonesty really gets me.
I'm old enough to have born personal witness to a great deal of pre-civil rights racism. I was also the white man at the bid whist table that became well enough known by the black people around me (late 70s-early 80s Georgia) that old people who experienced worse (including cross burnings and gunfire) became comfortable enough to talk honestly to me about it. In the case of one old woman who made her low opinion of white men known to me, I think she got some satisfaction in putting that in my face. She needed that so I listened to her and accepted it.
I think that one reason that I was accepted is that when I showed up at the table a coarse and intimidating man stated his bid and I said, "You can't make that. I pass." He looked me right in the eye and said, "Ain't no white MFer gonna set me." It got quiet. When I slapped the set card in front of him I said, "You're set MFer. Get up!" (hot seat) More quiet. I didn't let him intimidate me and run me off. That's how men gained each other's respect in those days. As equals. There was no white privilege or respect in his challenge. That came after. We weren't going to fight in the break room, but we didn't have a parking lot meeting either.
I just wrote and erased some of it because it's most likely what you were told by reliable witness to Jim Crow. As you wrote, not internet stuff.
"She needed that so I listened to her and accepted it."
Oof, yeah, I've met more than my fair share of angry black people. Especially the older generation. 60s and up. Some of them just went through too much to fully get over it. I have little doubt that if I'd grown up in the sixties it would be hard for me to trust white people.
You've been here long enough to remember my conversations with Ray, right? I'm sad I couldn't get through to him, but I'm also not that surprised. Some of the stories I've heard honestly make me tear up thinking about them.
"Those are not a personal attack"
For the last time, there is a difference between honest feedback and an attack. You have been dishonest above. You are ill-informed about me. It is not an attack to acknowledge this. If you want to be immune from all criticism, be a better person.