I started the topic of citation analysis. I’ve explained to you, twice now, exactly what my argument was, is, and will continue to be as the discussion progresses.
You keep arguing a completely different matter. You keep going off on irrelevant tangents and failing to address my argumentation. You refuse to engage in a rational discussion, and instead employ logical fallacies to obfuscate the topic. You also have multiple times resorted to personal attacks.
I’ve made repeated attempts to explain myself and my argumentation to you, but you refuse to listen and insist upon making further personal attacks. At this point I am content to let my argumentation stand for itself, and as always I welcome rational discussion of my concerns.
You alone, Nelsie, I will no longer be responding to - sadly, my patience has limits, especially in the face of open hostility and willful malice.
There might be a useful discussion to be had about what point in the mechanism of giving offence that it becomes one type of offence or another, but I doubt that this is the venue. Tit-staring and calling someone an ‘urban whore’ are both offensive, regardless of intent. Lack of intent might be a mitigating factor, but it doesn’t mitigate anything if the offence is not admitted first. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse.
One thing you just made perfectly clear. [quote=“Glitch, post:164, topic:12021”]
I’ve explained to you, twice now, exactly what my argument was, is, and will continue to be as the discussion progresses.
[/quote]
Your argument is not going to change as the discussion progresses.
A little intransigent, perhaps?
In my world, failing to persuade someone of your argument leads to some introspection. Either your argument is so flawed as to be useless, or your capacity for persuasion is so flawed as to be useless.
You’re clearly somewhat versed in the workings of the blogosphere. You’ve got the pat reference to rules and culture. You have an understanding of rhetoric and argument, but you’re not deploying it convincingly. You’re not the only one.
Be pithy, be funny, win people over. It’s easier than it sounds.
Where did I impute “malice” to you? Your comments on this topic – specifically, what I’m reading as your focus on intentions rather than on effects – strike me as wrongheaded, but not malicious.
As for me being “incredibly dishonest,” and thus a liar, no, wrong. I’m not lying about anything here.
Well, who knows if he search-replaced or not, except him? Again, what strikes me as important is his improper usage while writing to a black woman of the term “urban whore.” It’s sexist and racist, whether he meant it to be or not.
It’s not a new term. It’s quite possible there was no racist intent at all. It’s quite possible there was. The guy’s down and bleeding. He’s an idiot. He shouldna writ it.
Wow, this is a pretty… amazing thread. Good thing I still have like, three pounds of stale, uneaten popcorn left over from Saturday’s Gravity showing.
Pure logic is a severely limited peg to hang an argument on. Humans are not purely logical beings. We do not win or lose debates based on logic alone. We win them through a combination of logic and appropriate emotional appeal. (And it is entirely common for people to win them by relying only on emotion, depending on the audience.) If @Glitch employs this sort of approach in their real-world arguments, I would be surprised to learn that they have ever “won” a debate. Unless “winning” is defined as causing the other person to hang up the phone, or walk out of the room in sheer annoyance.
There are two ironies in this gigantic clusterf*ck, as I see it. The first is that I actually agree with @Glitch’s underlying/initial premise; i.e. that there is a possibility that extending racism to the offending comment may not be warranted. (That said, anyone demanding definitive proof that “urban” isn’t a commonly-used dogwhistle is just being an obtuse dipshit.) I too have been bothered by a trend towards sensationalism in BoingBoing’s editorial comments/choices, of late. But that’s kind of irrelevant, at this point. This pedantic, superior, self-satisfied tone is not doing any favors toward the goal of actually advancing that argument. Throwing around freshman-year debate terminology does not impress me, and I doubt it’s impressing anyone else. A purely logical person might somehow have not grasped this by now, but a reasonable one certainly would have.
The second irony is that by clinging so desperately to their elevated concept of logic, and by arguing their point so doggedly/stridently despite numerous social cues to hang it up, @Glitch is evincing a rather unhealthy emotional investment. There is no logical reason to keep digging like this. None at all. (Unless alienating all the people has a logical benefit that I’m not aware of.) Stubbornly persisting in expending previously-earned social capital at this alarming rate isn’t very logical, now is it?
I completely agree with what you’ve been saying, Glitch, and am stunned at your staying power in the face of this nonsense. I would like to point out here, though, that while terms such as “Urban” and “Muslim” do not refer to race, they are frequently used as euphemisms for race by those who wish to perpetrate racist ideas without being explicitly racist. That being said, I also see no evidence that this is what happened here. He was being a petulant, sexist asshole.
Obviously “Urban” is a common reference to African or Latin Americans - especially in the media. The sentence “are you an urban scientist or an urban whore” is a terrible play on words that is purposely portraying a female professional seeking compensation as undeserving. I will never see this sentence as explicitly racist, or even intentionally racist, when the intent is clearly a male attempting to bully a female into compliance because he feels that she should. This is the classic “good ol’ boy” type of “joke” that he thought was both funny and good natured, and I bet his reaction has been to think something along the lines of women and women like sissy men just don’t have a sense of humor.
Based on the reactions I have seen in comments just about anywhere race continues to be the highlighted subject in any case like this, and the sexism really falls into the background. This is a perfect example of the attitude that chases women away from an interest in STEM fields, and the bullying that goes on within many male dominated fields to female professionals that is telling them they can’t compete with their male colleagues and that they have less to contribute.
It’s a thing Americans do, at least some of them, I’m not sure of the distribution of the habit. I think it’s possible to interpret it as a more personal, more heart-felt salutation than a formal “Dr Lee”.
Well, I agree that it’s right to examine it for racism. It’s not out of consideration that it’s racist in and of itself. I definitely agree that it’s improper.
As a personal point, I wish to re-iterate that I never “compar[ed] people of color … to delusional schizophrenics.” It seems that I have at least as much reason to call you a liar, as you have to call Ofek a racist.
Take it to the world mate. Whether it’s fair or not, right or wrong, it’s fact. Sitting in this corked glass jar jawing about it till kingdom come isn’t going to change that.
