White Supremacy thread

2»

Comments

  • lilbuddha, if I was warned that I sounded as though I had a "white saviour complex", especially by a person of colour, I would take that warning seriously. Over the years I have had comments like that; I don't think they were all correct, but I took them seriously as I don't always know how I come across to others.
    It is hilarious because it is off target. He took a shot and it missed the board entirely.
    Overzealous, preachy, unrelenting, uncompromising, etc.; there are plenty of accusations that come nearer the mark to choose from which to accuse me.
    But white saviour isn’t one of them.
  • RooK wrote: »

    Well now I understand what it is and I'm totally on the sea lion's side.

    Why, after getting caught making a nasty generalisation about sea lions, doesn't she at least have the decency to answer him and say, "Sorry. I can't really think of any real reason to dislike sea lions, I see now that my prejudice against them is groundless and I'm actually very sorry."

    Yes, the sea lion is being childish, but she's being both childish and cowardly, hiding herself and refusing to face the consequences of her thoughtless statement. All she has to do to get him to stop is answer him already.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I think you missed the point. Think about it some more.
  • To shortcut the process, one could look at the previously linked Wiki definition right here.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The practice of sealioning has been mentioned. You could start by summarising what you understand by it in the light of that link, and offer your assessment of whether your posts qualify and why (or why not). Including the one above this one.

    Very well.

    I had thought that I'd addressed that. In reply to MaryLouise's introduction of the term (which I'd never come across before), I replied on Sept 18th
    No, that cap doesn't fit either.

    I've not demanded evidence, nor tried to take the focus of discussion away from the topic. I was just interested in the quality of the argument.

    And I'm not all that persistent- I'll probably give up asking before you give up ducking the question.

    The "either" is because this came just after I'd been mistakenly accused of tolerating violence. (And before I was mistakenly accused of Orwellianism, dishonesty, being a bog and trolling. Being misunderstood is an occupational hazard of posting here...)

    Wikipedia tells me that sealioning:
    consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"

    I plead not guilty to requesting evidence for statements made, not guilty to bad faith, not guilty to undue persistence in questioning those who don't want to answer. And not guilty to having an intent to distract or disrupt.

    Requesting clarification, yes. To know what people mean. But Doublethink specifically invited that:
    if we establish common concepts / language it would be a lot easier to talk constructively
    Amen.

    Wikipedia also refers to trolling:
    In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community... ...with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion

    My intent is not to sow discord, nor to distract from the topic, nor to elicit emotion. Not guilty.

    The argument I was making was that others on the thread were coming up with the wrong answer to the question "how do we tackle white supremacists ?" because of how they conceive of racism. That is on-topic.

    Do you really think I wouldn't be happy to get a straight and unheated answer "I think racism means X" ? So that I can use the word in the same way as others do, knowing that we're singing from the same hymn sheet ? And have a basis for arguing from that to what is and isn't racist ? Of course I would. I'm not pursuing any tangent here,and absolutely not interested in raising the temperature for the sake of it.

    If people are arguing about the properties of phlogiston, then pointing out that it doesn't exist (although the phenomena that the concept is intended to explain do) is a constructive step...
    Including the one above this one.

    You specifically suggested to me that I focus on clarifying why you've seen fit to issue me with an official warning. I did so. By asking whether the issue is style or content. Possibly a little long-windedly...

    I'm not seeing any sealions there either.

    If you think I've crossed a line, then the help I need from you as a friendly and impartial Host is to see more clearly where that line is.
  • Russ wrote: »

    ...
    If people are arguing about the properties of phlogiston, then pointing out that it doesn't exist (although the phenomena that the concept is intended to explain do) is a constructive step...

    ...

    No, it isn't. Comparing racism to phlogiston reads as dismissive of something very real.



  • As @Crœsos has pointed out many times, Russ' posts are not consistent with each other, suggesting a lack of sincerity in POV.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Comparing racism to phlogiston reads as dismissive of something very real.

    There is something "very real" which Commandment 1 rightly prohibits, but it's not the same thing as the word "racism" as used by Doc Tor & lilbuddha on the White Supremacy thread.

    I would like to discuss this with you in order to find the right words, so there is no misunderstanding. But right now I want to be particularly careful to hold such discussions on the right thread on the right board so as not to upset our good Hosts.

    And that means waiting for a time when I've got computer access rather than posting on my phone...
  • It's simple enough to say that your constant questioning of what racism is becomes circular after the first iteration, and that the problem lies with you refusing to accept that it is not a discrete behaviour, but a pattern of actions and thoughts. You can be dissatisfied with that answer, but disrupting an Epiphanies thread that is explicitly on how to counter white supremacy with questions that continually attack the a priori assumptions that everybody else is working on? It's not the place for it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited October 2019
    Russ wrote: »
    There is something "very real" which Commandment 1 rightly prohibits, but it's not the same thing as the word "racism" as used by Doc Tor & lilbuddha on the White Supremacy thread.

    I would like to discuss this with you in order to find the right words, so there is no misunderstanding. But right now I want to be particularly careful to hold such discussions on the right thread on the right board so as not to upset our good Hosts.

    Oh I think Admin are more than capable of deciding what constitutes
    Commandment 1 racism as a part of their general brief to spot incorrible jerks. In any case, it's their responsibility not yours.

    I think you should consider, very seriously (because of the thin ice on which you are treading currently), both your above assertion and your follow up request in the light of this quotation.
    You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum.

    It is not mine of course. It is from the Urban Dictionary definition.

    I make no direct accusation here. But you should consider that if you walk like a sea lion and bark like a sea lion, perhaps people may consider that you are a sea lion.

    Of course you may claim you are being misunderstood. But the quote from your post above is, unfortunately, far too typical of many of your posts. If I give your sincerity the benefit of the doubt (and personally I am finding that increasingly difficult) then the best approach I can recommend to you is as follows. Consider carefully whether you are actually engaging in serious conversation - or just nit-picking. And modify your posting accordingly.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    It's not the asking questions. It's the asking the questions again without engaging with the answers (or at least without engaging with answers that don't fit the preconceived position).

    Also, questions that ask for definitions are inherently tricky, with a certain air of gotcha hanging around them. Good definitions are an art. Even with a concept as simple as 'bird' I suspect a lot of people might at first pass include 'flying' in the definition.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The practice of sealioning has been mentioned. You could start by summarising what you understand by it in the light of that link, and offer your assessment of whether your posts qualify and why (or why not). Including the one above this one.

    Very well.

    I had thought that I'd addressed that. In reply to MaryLouise's introduction of the term (which I'd never come across before), I replied on Sept 18th
    No, that cap doesn't fit either.

    I've not demanded evidence, nor tried to take the focus of discussion away from the topic. I was just interested in the quality of the argument.

    And I'm not all that persistent- I'll probably give up asking before you give up ducking the question.

    The "either" is because this came just after I'd been mistakenly accused of tolerating violence. (And before I was mistakenly accused of Orwellianism, dishonesty, being a bog and trolling. Being misunderstood is an occupational hazard of posting here...)

    Wikipedia tells me that sealioning:
    consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"

    I plead not guilty to requesting evidence for statements made, not guilty to bad faith, not guilty to undue persistence in questioning those who don't want to answer. And not guilty to having an intent to distract or disrupt.

    Requesting clarification, yes. To know what people mean. But Doublethink specifically invited that:
    if we establish common concepts / language it would be a lot easier to talk constructively
    Amen.

    Wikipedia also refers to trolling:
    In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community... ...with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion

    My intent is not to sow discord, nor to distract from the topic, nor to elicit emotion. Not guilty.

    The argument I was making was that others on the thread were coming up with the wrong answer to the question "how do we tackle white supremacists ?" because of how they conceive of racism. That is on-topic.

    Do you really think I wouldn't be happy to get a straight and unheated answer "I think racism means X" ? So that I can use the word in the same way as others do, knowing that we're singing from the same hymn sheet ? And have a basis for arguing from that to what is and isn't racist ? Of course I would. I'm not pursuing any tangent here,and absolutely not interested in raising the temperature for the sake of it.

    If people are arguing about the properties of phlogiston, then pointing out that it doesn't exist (although the phenomena that the concept is intended to explain do) is a constructive step...
    Including the one above this one.

    You specifically suggested to me that I focus on clarifying why you've seen fit to issue me with an official warning. I did so. By asking whether the issue is style or content. Possibly a little long-windedly...

    I'm not seeing any sealions there either.

    If you think I've crossed a line, then the help I need from you as a friendly and impartial Host is to see more clearly where that line is.

    I think I understand what "sealioning" is. I believe the above is another
    (lengthy but unfailingly polite) example of sealioning. Can a host confirm or refute that?
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »

    Well now I understand what it is and I'm totally on the sea lion's side.

    Why, after getting caught making a nasty generalisation about sea lions, doesn't she at least have the decency to answer him and say, "Sorry. I can't really think of any real reason to dislike sea lions, I see now that my prejudice against them is groundless and I'm actually very sorry."

    Yes, the sea lion is being childish, but she's being both childish and cowardly, hiding herself and refusing to face the consequences of her thoughtless statement. All she has to do to get him to stop is answer him already.

    Excuse me, but I couldn't help reading your post about sealioning.

    Do you really think being consistently disingenuous and engaging in bad-faith arguments further discussion on a discussion board? What evidence do you have to support that? Do you find that picking up on some pointless tangent and playing around with that works in real life in furtherance of serious discussion? Would you find it reasonable that hosts of a discussion board want to spend their time addressing a post that is clearly silly and only designed for attention-getting (*cough*) instead of a post directed at the substance of what the board is supposed to be about? Have you ever found that there is a time and place to be facetious, and a time and place to earnestly consider issues? Why would you think that way? What would be an example of this?

    Imagine that your precious time, thought, energy, and pixels are spoons. How many spoons are you willing to use in pursuit of a tangent? Having introduced the analogy, let's now talk about spoons, instead of the real-time DDOS that goes by the nickname of "sealioning." What kind of spoons do you use, silver or some other kind of metal? If silver, what kind of polish do you use? Don't you find it tiresome to have to polish them all the time?

    Kindly answer my questions.
  • Russ wrote: »
    If you think I've crossed a line, then the help I need from you as a friendly and impartial Host is to see more clearly where that line is.

    If the posts between the one of yours I've quoted here and this one don't help you see it, I don't think I can.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    @Barnabas62 ,

    By the definition you quote, I am not a sealion. For example,
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party.
    I don't ask for evidence, or for others to educate me in general. I ask what people mean when they use a word that has multiple meanings. Which seems totally reasonable.
    In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party

    No, neither. Attempting to expose a fallacy in a popular view, yes. Attempting to understand how others use words so I can communicate with them better, yes. But no disruptive motive.

    So why would you think that there was any truth in this accusation ?

    One interpretation would be to do with content. You see any persistence on my part in putting forward my views on racism as being disruptive to the conversation. By "nit-picking" you mean that whilst you cannot deny that there may be something in what I say, you think it's not really important. I'm getting in the way of the conversation of people who seem to have achieved enough of a consensus as to what racism is to be able to have a sensible discussion without needing the precision I'm asking for.

    Is that it - you think I'm being disruptive, regardless of intent ?

    Or the other interpretation is to do with style. The essence of sealioning is insincerity. And because I try to be unfailingly polite (thank you, sionisais) and to state my agreement on the small points even if I know that we disagree on the big ones, you're telling me this comes across as insincere ?

    Maybe I should swear a bit, so as to sound more genuine? Be rude to those I disagree with, as an act of honesty ?

    Style, or content ? Seems to me a fair question...

    Also, perhaps you could clarify where on these boards discussion of the usages of the word "racism" belongs ?

    'cos if I elaborate on the point on this thread and it's not germane to your issues with my posting and reasons for closing the Epiphanies thread, then I'm pursuing tangents, which is one of the things sealions do.

    And if I say I'll reply to that elsewhere then I'm expressing an interest in discussing things, which is what sealions do...

    Of course I know that Soror Magna is from the other side of the political divide. And therefore have no expectation of being convinced or converted by what she may say.
    But I can still hope for better mutual understanding, each realising that what is obvious and/or central to one person isn't necessarily so to another.

    What would I have to believe in order to agree with Soror Magna? Isn't that something worth knowing ?



  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Leaf wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »

    Well now I understand what it is and I'm totally on the sea lion's side.

    Why, after getting caught making a nasty generalisation about sea lions, doesn't she at least have the decency to answer him and say, "Sorry. I can't really think of any real reason to dislike sea lions, I see now that my prejudice against them is groundless and I'm actually very sorry."

    Yes, the sea lion is being childish, but she's being both childish and cowardly, hiding herself and refusing to face the consequences of her thoughtless statement. All she has to do to get him to stop is answer him already.

    Excuse me, but I couldn't help reading your post about sealioning.

    Do you really think being consistently disingenuous and engaging in bad-faith arguments further discussion on a discussion board?
    I'm not sure why you've assumed my remarks about the comic strip posted were disingenous or in bad-faith. I meant every word.
    What evidence do you have to support that?
    Just my word.
    Do you find that picking up on some pointless tangent and playing around with that works in real life in furtherance of serious discussion?
    I don't think discussion about what sealioning actually is , is a pointless tangent. Sealioning seems to have been at least one of the main reasons the thread was closed., so I think it's important to understand it.
    Would you find it reasonable that hosts of a discussion board want to spend their time addressing a post that is clearly silly and only designed for attention-getting (*cough*) instead of a post directed at the substance of what the board is supposed to be about?
    No I don't think they would want to spend their time with such a post so I'm wondering why you took so much time to write it.
    Have you ever found that there is a time and place to be facetious, and a time and place to earnestly consider issues?
    Absolutely.
    Why would you think that way? What would be an example of this?
    Your post.
    Imagine that your precious time, thought, energy, and pixels are spoons. How many spoons are you willing to use in pursuit of a tangent? Having introduced the analogy, let's now talk about spoons, instead of the real-time DDOS that goes by the nickname of "sealioning." What kind of spoons do you use, silver or some other kind of metal? If silver, what kind of polish do you use? Don't you find it tiresome to have to polish them all the time?
    If this is your example of sealioning it bears very little resemblance to the sea lion in the comic strip. He was asking bascially the same question. (Why don't you like sea lions?) it wasn't shown to be as random as your spoon questions and if their was a far more serious discussion going on about another topic before he came along it ws not shown.
    Kindly answer my questions.

    [code tweak for a friend]

  • Sorry my edit button isn't working so I had to leave the above sort of messy. The last line is Leaf's.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited October 2019
    I have to say, Russ, your previous post looks like (to me at least) a sealioning post.

    You may need to consider that even if sealioning is not your intent, it is the perceived effect, and Hosts and Admins can only judge your intent from what you post.

    Where you have a valid question, which is not the main focus of the thread, that suggests that you might need to start a new thread for it.

    Given the remit of Epiphanies, it is, in my personal opinion, more necessary to be aware/careful of the impact of tangents than on some other boards?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Twilight wrote: »
    the sea lion in the comic strip

    @Twilight, you've made a category error. The comic strip was the origin of the idea, but the functional definition is not wholly contained therein.

    Please consider accepting the idea that circular and undermining questions are not often constructive, and will be generally considered jerkish in some contexts by the Crew.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    @Russ, the Active Admins have clearly stated that the modality you demonstrate that they have indicated as being problematic may result in there being Official Actions™. They do not need you to agree.

    Do as you will. I personally hope you don't change at all.
  • Russ, there was/is an entire thread in Purgatory of people explaining to you over and over again what racism is and does. Your problem is that you disagree with all of the congruent definitions. Our problem is that you keep coming back wanting further 'clarification'.

    No one wants to engage with you on this subject. We know that if you haven't been satisfied with the answers so far, you never will. There's never going to be a moment where we find the magic words. We accept that. You don't. We'd like to move on and actually discuss things. You won't and you keep bringing it back to definitions.

    Personally, I'd much rather not post on threads that you do this on. I can't be the only one.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    the sea lion in the comic strip

    @Twilight, you've made a category error. The comic strip was the origin of the idea, but the functional definition is not wholly contained therein.

    Please consider accepting the idea that circular and undermining questions are not often constructive, and will be generally considered jerkish in some contexts by the Crew.
    Okay, yes, I thought the comic strip was supposed to be the definitive example, not the origin. Sorry.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you've assumed my remarks about the comic strip posted were disingenous or in bad-faith. I meant every word.

    I did not refer to your remarks, so it's interesting that you thought I meant that personally. I did not.
    If this is your example of sealioning it bears very little resemblance to the sea lion in the comic strip.

    As RooK has pointed out, there are many ways to derail a discussion persistently and deliberately; this includes redirecting the discussion toward a thousand fruitless analogies. I had thought you understood that. I guess we both learned something today!

    If I were to persist in this dialogue, it would continue to provide an example of sealioning, so I will desist.
  • @Russ the warning you received said nothing about your views, it focused on your posting style. If you really want to change (and stick around), here are some practical suggestions.

    - make your posts a lot shorter
    - respond to one thing said by one person per post
    - in that post, attempt to reformulate what that person has said before giving your own view or asking for clarification (one question per post)
    - display more empathy for the general environment of the thread and for where the other posters are coming from
    - wait for a response before posting again unless you are personally addressed or quoted.

    It's your overall tendency not do to these things that is wearing and disruptive, and as others have noticed, you're still engaging in it here. The admins' view is that you are intelligent enough to be capable of realising this and persisting nonetheless, which goes a long way towards our finding of jerkdom and a Commandment 1 breach. @RooK has spelled out the potential consequences for you of not adjusting.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    in that post, attempt to reformulate what that person has said before giving your own view or asking for clarification (one question per post)
    I am not sure about this particular piece of advice. If a certain poster has a habit of reformulating the views of the posters he's arguing with in such a way as to make them fit his views of what he expects people like them to say, that can be wearing and contributes to an overall sealioning effect.

    As I take it, the peculiar problem of sealioning is that no single act in isolation amounts to sealioning. Everything the sealion does would be legitimate or even constructive if it weren't part of a pattern.

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If you really want to change (and stick around), here are some practical suggestions.

    - make your posts a lot shorter
    - respond to one thing said by one person per post..
    ...
    - wait for a response before posting again unless you are personally addressed or quoted.

    Thank you Eutychus. That's clear. I'll try to be briefer and more wait-and-see.

    But I'm struggling to see how I can best apply that to a situation where I'm arguing a minority position against six people who pick up on different aspects of an earlier post.
  • If six different people put six different holes in just one of my posts, I'd seriously consider my line of argument.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If you really want to change (and stick around), here are some practical suggestions.

    - make your posts a lot shorter
    - respond to one thing said by one person per post..
    ...
    - wait for a response before posting again unless you are personally addressed or quoted.

    Thank you Eutychus. That's clear. I'll try to be briefer and more wait-and-see.

    But I'm struggling to see how I can best apply that to a situation where I'm arguing a minority position against six people who pick up on different aspects of an earlier post.

    In that case Russ, the struggle is yours. Eutychus could not have been clearer! Review your posts against those criteria.
  • The strip is funny because the character dislikes sea lions because they sealion. The sea lion then goes on to demonstrate exactly why sea lions are so dislikable.
    Russ wrote: »
    ...

    What would I have to believe in order to agree with Soror Magna? Isn't that something worth knowing ?

    You could start by simply accepting that other people know more about their lives than you do.
  • The strip is funny because the character dislikes sea lions because they sealion. The sea lion then goes on to demonstrate exactly why sea lions are so dislikable.
    Russ wrote: »
    ...

    What would I have to believe in order to agree with Soror Magna? Isn't that something worth knowing ?

    You could start by simply accepting that other people know more about their lives than you do.

    If the comic strip is the origin of the term then your explanation doesn't make any sense. She couldn't dislike sea lions because they sealion if the term had yet to be invented.

    You might have to accept the fact that I am now the ship's resident expert on sealioning, having given it the most thought.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    The strip is funny because the character dislikes sea lions because they sealion. The sea lion then goes on to demonstrate exactly why sea lions are so dislikable.
    Russ wrote: »
    ...

    What would I have to believe in order to agree with Soror Magna? Isn't that something worth knowing ?

    You could start by simply accepting that other people know more about their lives than you do.

    If the comic strip is the origin of the term then your explanation doesn't make any sense. She couldn't dislike sea lions because they sealion if the term had yet to be invented.

    You might have to accept the fact that I am now the ship's resident expert on sealioning, having given it the most thought.
    The author* was making a point about behaviour. The term sealioning became shorthand for trolling because trolling is an example of such behaviour.

    *
    Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors —

  • If six different people can find six different aspects of one's post to argue with, perhaps the post is trying to make too many points.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »

    The author* was making a point about behaviour. The term sealioning became shorthand for trolling because trolling is an example of such behaviour.


    You know I finally saw that when I went back to the comic and focused on what the man is saying instead of just thinking about what a stubborn bitch the woman was being.

    She reminded me of the mothers you see out with their child, when the little one is asking the same question over and over and she just refuses to ever answer.

    It's through the mutterings of the man that you can see he already knew you never wanted to engage a sea lion in any way.

    She's still a bitch and if she had said something like, "I don't mind gays, except for a certain type of gays." You'd get why I thought she was far worse than any gay person who might have heard her and kept asking for an explantion.

  • ISTM, you are still reading it a bit literally. But it doesn't matter, the wiki definition is the accepted definition and that should be enough to demonstrate why the practice is detrimental.
    Especially on a topic such as race where people are being asked to defend why we should be treated as equal.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    You could start by simply accepting that other people know more about their lives than you do.

    Of course you know most about your life. Doesn't everyone ?

    What I thought we were disputing here is what's going on in the minds of those who are causing you race-related grief.

    They know more about that than you do or I do, but they're not here. So we're both imagining their motives and feelings & self-justifications.
Sign In or Register to comment.