Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI just came back from a night out with friends and I cannot believe how low the commentary got on the Saturday morning post that I put up; those of you who were commenting on it today (Sunday) and who got into a pissing match just proved that we’re only as good as our ideals–and yours were pretty damned shabby.
I trashed the post for one reason–bullying on this blog. We’re only going to succeed if we adhere to Rule #5, and you guys didn’t. Quit bullying.
Yeah, I’m pissed.
Update: Let me be clear about something. I trashed the post because I was the original author and I don’t want my name associated with the commentary that happened on there.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Yeah, I’m pissed.
Welcome the club.
LikeLike
I have not seen commentary that occurred on that post since I left yesterday evening, but I too was disgusted with the level of commenting that occurred. And I too perceived bullying. I had not envisioned ATiM as a mini-PL atmosphere.
Perhaps many of us need a short break. Any ideas on a mechanism to discuss commenting issues that is not quite so public?
LikeLike
If anyone wants to discuss the “Best Performance of 2012” perhaps email might be the best way. Otherwise, I’m attending to paperwork here and looking forward to Brent’s Morning Report.
LikeLike
looking forward to Brent’s Morning Report.
Second.
LikeLike
I’ve said what I plan to do.
If anyone shows up and starts posting insults, slights, provocations, or accusations of racism; repeatedly condescends and accuses people of evading his illusory points, being too slow, or insisting on “not hearing” his lectures about the topic; goes on and on about racist Republican candidates and “dog whistles”; or equates other commenters to Holocaust deniers, skinheads, and neo-Nazis, I’m just going to delete them and ask questions later. And that goes for people who call me those things.
A fitting response to those things seems to draw the wrath of certain admins, while the attacks themselves do not, and merely asking the commenter to explain terms is deemed bullying, so there is no point in doing anything but deleting the comments.
LikeLike
The issue here is the definition of “a fitting response” by ATiM standards.
qb, can you clarify what you plan to do? Does this mean you plan to unilaterally delete any comments you do not agree with? (not snark)
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that’s not what I just said above.
Let me read it again… Nope, not what I said. (snark)
LikeLike
Trash one post, you do open the floodgates. I suggest making such posts drafts and calling a quorum, unless there is violent language.
LikeLike
qb–you were one of the founding fathers of this blog, and one of the reasons that I, for one, joined it. But we need to talk about this off-line for a bit, so e-mail me, please.
LikeLike
Later today, Michi.
I’m going to work.
LikeLike
Well that is certainly convenient. All of yesterday’s unpleasantness – and them some, of course – gets scrubbed away, as if it never happened. Harmony and peace is restored with a simple click of the mouse. And all is well.
LikeLike
No, all is not well. And that’s (scrubbing away unpleasantness) not why I deleted the post. Please e-mail me, or if not me, lms or Kevin.
LikeLike
I don’t particularly care either way about trashing of the post. If I want to be called a neo-Nazi, I can always go over to PL.
But i do find this new one somewhat ironic.
LikeLike
Mich:
And that’s (scrubbing away unpleasantness) not why I deleted the post.
Well, don’t worry about the hour I apparently wasted last night drafting my final comment. It was designed to bring the discussion away from personalities and back to the subject of racism, and was, if I do say so, a pretty thoughtful counter to the notion that certain kinds of behavior can be reasonably seen to be racist. You’d have been hard pressed to make a case that it (or, frankly, most of the comments on that thread) represented bullying. But hey, as long as your sensitivities to certain comments has been assuaged, that’s what really matters.
LikeLike
e-mail, please.
LikeLike
So would it be too soon to post a link to the song “Everybody’s a Little Racist” from the musical Avenue Q?
LikeLike
It’s a great time for me to start my racism vs. culturalism argument. 🙂
LikeLike
No levity will be allowed here.
There is a time for everything, and this is the time for recriminations.
LikeLike
I blame the Irish.
LikeLike
Avenue Q is the greatest musical ever. There is a song in it applicable to any situation.
LikeLike
I totally missed it. Dang. So, alas, I really can’t comment, other than to say . . . did it have something to do with Ruk?
Probably not what I would do, but that’s the price of many administrators. Why I’m pretty sure egalitarianism is not a great strategy for the governance of countries. 😉
I quote Rule #5 in it’s entirety:
Take it down a notch. People will slip, and say things that are rude, or absolutist, or hubristic. Your role, in that situation, should probably be to talk them down off the ledge, not get up there with them. Just sayin’.
The temptation to get up on there on the ledge and fight terror with terror, so to speak, is almost overwhelming.
Most important rule, IMHO. Take. It. Down. A. Notch. Rule#6: if tempted, refer to rule number #5.
LikeLike
I started with ruk, but I will even say in his defense that he did not really cause the ensuing … exchanges. It took someone to start flinging Holocaust denier stuff, and ruk didn’t help with any of that.
LikeLike
Uhhh Scott, was that really necessary? Any one of you and quite a few others could have helped us out of this mess last night if you so chose. Thanks for the help. I’m not down with Hitler references thrown at one of our own. It’s one thing to try to talk a stranger off the ledge but we shouldn’t have to do it with each other. I wouldn’t have scrubbed the post because clearly now qb is able to share the facts based upon his perception, but it was an embarrassing display of our values here and honestly I’m not sure where we go from here.
It’s interesting that one guy with some cockamamie ideas can take down an entire staff of administrators single handedly and cause us to eat our own.
LikeLike
Technical question: is deleting a post and all it’s comments permanent? Is that how it works? If so, unpublishing the post and calling for a quorum would probably be a better way to deal with these situations. People don’t like to lost their thoughtful commentary, and I can’t say that I blame them.
LikeLike
I restored it from the trash and read it, and then re-deleted it. WP allows you to take it down, but it’s a second step to delete permanently.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that one guy with some cockamamie ideas can take down an entire staff of administrators single handedly and cause us to eat our own.
Sorry I missed it. In any case, that’s why, if there is to be any hope, rule # 5 is most important. And, yes, sometimes the people we most have to talk down off the ledge are going to be our own–at the same time, they do have, I think, an obligation to be the most receptive to that strategy, not the least.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, the post is in the trash, but is retrievable since it has not been permanently deleted. I read it in the middle of the night…
LikeLike
Okee-dokee. I’ll see if I can check it out or the comments later. Well, we always knew this was a noble experiment that flew in the face of human nature. 😉
LikeLike
To read it, you’ll have to restore it to the board. Just so you know.
LikeLike
Can we restore the post and disable commenting? If the many regular commenters who were not here over the weekend (hi, Kevin!) cannot see the comments, they will not have any idea what we are discussing here.
For the record, I object to the Nazi reference, Scott.
LikeLike
Sue, were you able to read the comments? I looked and found the post but not the comments.
LikeLike
Yes, in the restore function, it brings back the whole enchilada including the comments.
LikeLike
I missed most of it too, but I guess the quote of the day is pretty a propos. (h/t Scott/Michi/lms or whoever)
LikeLike
That was me, Mike. Thanks.
LikeLike
they do have, I think, an obligation to be the most receptive to that strategy, not the least
Yes. I was not the one out there on that ledge last night, just the one who kept getting SOS calls and then, when I got a chance to see what had happened, pulled the plug.
Kevin, if you or another admin can figure out how to restore the post feel free to do so; I wouldn’t have pulled the plug as I did except that I was the original author, and didn’t want my name associated with the final commentary that went on it.
I will reiterate what I said above: some members of this blog engaged in bullying. I won’t tolerate it associated with my name.
LikeLike
lms:
Any one of you and quite a few others could have helped us out of this mess last night if you so chose.
I tried, with my final, very long and substantive comment. Which you can no longer read because Mich trashed it.
I’m not down with Hitler references thrown at one of our own.
I’m not down with unilaterally deleting entire threads. And the reference was to airbrushing history, which is exactly what seems to have happened. (Oh…and, it was a picture of Stalin, not Hitler.)
LikeLike
Thanks for pointing that out to me scott. I only briefly glanced at it. Hopefully, someone will re-post so we can read your comment. I made a lot of what I thought were substantive comments last night and yesterday that were ignored, so maybe you’ll have better luck.
LikeLike
To restore:
Go to your Dashboard
Click “All Posts” on the left
Click “Trash” across the top
Hover over the post, you will see the options to “restore” or “delete permanently”
LikeLike
I think we should re-store it if possible. Maybe someone who wasn’t part of the entire debacle can give us some impartial perspective.
LikeLike
I suggest we put the post back up, at least for today. Give all authors a chance to see what we are discussing.
LikeLike
Mich:
I will reiterate what I said above: some members of this blog engaged in bullying.
Who, and how so?
LikeLike
Well, levity is all I really have time for at the moment. When I left that thread on Saturday night it was a relatively adult conversation with the rules of this blog largely followed. When I looked back at it yesterday, it was a mess. I only skimmed the comments and from what I read there are plenty of dirty hands.
LikeLike
I’m going to have to deal with work for a while, but I will be back.
LikeLike
I’m probably most responsible for the tone of that post, since I’m the one who started with a rebuke to ruk’s post. I don’t think it should have been deleted.
I’m not in a position to comment this morning due to other obligations, so I’m not trying to avoid anything. I just don’t think there was any reason to delete it.
LikeLike
The post is back up.
LikeLike
My bad. I just wanted to read it, not re-post it. I re-deleted it.
LikeLike
I think that the use of the delete key, whether for a whole post or an individual comment, should be exceedingly rare if it’s used at all.
I don’t think it should ever be used in a moment of anger, frustration or hurt feelings.
LikeLike
I think we should restore the post. Doing so allows people who were not around to read the comment so that they can understand what occurred. We will all be better off if we see how things spiral out of control. We can then avoid repeating our mistakes. Lastly, maybe we can redeem the thread with some thoughtful comments.
LikeLike
There are options for who can read a post in the editing function.
Someone can restore it and make it semiprivate if that is the goal.
LikeLike
I restored it in full. We’ll go from there. We can always make it a draft or delete later.
LikeLike
I suggest people read but comment here if they so choose. As I may have been part of the problem or at least not part of the solution I will refrain from commenting.
LikeLike
okie:
For the record, I object to the Nazi reference, Scott.
For the record, there was no Nazi reference.
LikeLike
Insulting nevertheless. Maybe you should have done what sue did, figure out if the post could be restored first. Michi has a grievance that no one is addressing as far as I know and it was her post after all. All’s well that ends well, we can now read your substantive comment.
LikeLike
Kevin:
I blame the Irish
Me too. This whole episode began just as Notre Dame was raining 3’s down on the number one Syracuse Orangemen, en route to a 7 point victory and ending the perfect season. The connection is undeniable.
Damned Irish.
LikeLike
Oh…so a conservative can insert levity, but a liberal cannot. I see how it is. I will not stand for such a miscarriage of justice.
LikeLike
Typical liberal victim mentality. ; )
LikeLike
It’s not a mentality. It’s a fact…at least in this case. 😉
LikeLike
For the record, I had no objection to your levity insertion, ashot (who, for a moment, I accidentally called ascot. which is a fine fashion accessory).
LikeLike
Of course you had no objection, Kevin. We are kindred spirits. My victimhood would be in question if I acknowledge that you would have no objection.
While I do no own an ascot, I am a descendant of the Black Douglas clan in Scotland. To that extent, I am ascot.
LikeLike
I must have missed something this weekend.
Speaking of levity, when I read the header to this thread, I heard Katy Perry singing in my head ” I Just Trashed a Post, and I Liked It”
LikeLike
That is funny jnc!
LikeLike
Feel like I’m tied … to the whipping post, tied ….
LikeLike
lms:
Insulting nevertheless
I disagree.
Michi has a grievance that no one is addressing as far as I know
I started to and await a response.
LikeLike
Reflections of a “Newbie”
This was my first weekend of posting here on ATIM. FWIW, I realize not much to some of you I thought I’d just share a few thoughts.
First the easy stuff..technical…you guys have done a marvelous job. The layout is very professional, the format is user friendly, and the features like auto email notification and the bar on the right with the recent posts are also terrific. Because of my ignorance of who deserves credit I shall not name names…you know who you are.. kudos to all of you involved.
Now for the more difficult part. I’m beginning to feel like the Peanuts character Pig Pen, dragging a cloud of dust with me to each blog I visit, although that’s only been two so far. It is not my intention to irritate, disrupt, or offend anybody. I have not come here to convince people I’m right, or sway them to my point of view. I have not come here to debate, although there are several here who would make that exercise entertaining because of their manifest abilities in that department and who doesn’t like a challenge. I surrender preemptively to their superior abilities and I say this sincerely without snark. . Again I have selfishly come here simply to learn, as well as participate in a social experience with folks I used to, and hopefully can still, consider “virtual” friends.
And so to steal the bit from “Morning Joe”…what I have learned this weekend?
First. Never discuss race and politics! It’s too sensitive to mix with politics. While I still hold the same opinion based on MY observations, I was thoughtless and cavalier with how I stated it. I apologize for not being more sensitive to others. IMO my major mistake was the context in which I delivered that opinion…it would have been better suited for a broader discussion, perhaps the one you guys had on MLK day that I missed.
Second…If there is one thing that stands out for me on your blog it’s the admonition at the top of the posting box, especially the first two words. Perhaps because I’m new I SEE that admonition every time before I begin typing…BE KIND. This is something that is missing in our country when it comes to our political discussions. You guys can be trailblazers and regardless of the pace of your success, or the occasional interruptions like this past weekend, I think you’ve embarked on a noble and worthy effort. Again kudos to all of you.
Third..I address this to my progressive compatriots. The second mistake I made was trying to make pronouncements about the R Primary. I used the Golden Rule to think about this, and I realize it is actually rude to our conservative friends. It’s THEIR Primary not ours. If we plan to vote for Obama anyway, what right do we have to muck in their primary? Most importantly we progressives should not be expressing glee because of any perceived problems within the R party. Rove, Steve Schmidt, Joe Scarborough are becoming apocryphal in their assessment of what a Gingrich candidacy might mean.
We progressives do not have a dog in that fight, and we shouldn’t be celebrating “tire fires” or jumping up and down for joy because of perceived or real infighting in the R party.
This is not to say we can’t discuss the R primary unless we are conservative, I’m simply saying we have an additional burden to make sure we do so respectfully. And so I might ask for example…Newt Gingrich continues to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan…from my progressive viewpoint that seems to be a major stretch. I’m simply curious as to how our “Reaganites” feel about that? The line that comes to mind for a progressive at least..is to paraphrase…I knew Ronald Reagan and you are no Reagan.
Lastly, and most importantly from my selfish perspective, I learned that “life goes on” and that one can always cut a path to a new life when adversity strikes. The posts from MsJS and ashot both inspired and humbled me.
And so I close offering my congratulations to all of you for the effort you are making, it’s worthwhile and I support you all completely. It is not my intention to be the “beach” of this blog. I certainly need to leave before any regulars, much less any founders depart because of anything I post. If I truly am dragging a cloud of dust into your marvelous adventure, then simply email lmsinca and she’ll inform me and I shall disappear quietly without rancor or judgement.
Just sayin’
LikeLike
Awesome post, ruk!
LikeLike
RUK, that was well said.
I answered your question to me on that beknighted thread and I hope you saw it.
Mark
LikeLike
Thanks ashot and mark…
Haven’t seen it yet mark but if that threads been restored I’ll check it out. Thanks for your answer.
LikeLike
Never discuss race and politics!
If you do, be prepared to either be misunderstood, or to miscommunicate in ways that you cannot see while you are opining, but will seem glaringly obvious to others, in ways that make them say: well, clearly, he knows exactly what he’s saying, so now I’m going to yell at him. Or some variation thereof. We are not predisposed to imagine that what we say has substantive or tonal aspects that will sound significantly different to the listener than the speaker (and it’s difficult for the listening party to believe that the speaker doesn’t know exactly what they are saying sounds like). Even when talking about this sort of stuff, I’ve clearly come across like a big douche bag, and that’s not my intent. But we make assumptions (I think) in communicating that are natural and intuitive but prone to create compounded misunderstandings. And then we get our dander up and . . . away we go!
But, yes, I’ve left other discussions where I decided I’m tired of both being misunderstood, called names, and beating my head against the wall . . . and race was the primary topic. Although class and poverty can run close seconds. They are subjects that, for some reason, inspire people to start saying, sometimes, broad and sweeping things about others, their character, their background, and the depth of their knowledge that add little to the conversation, but can certainly be offensive.
But the goal was, at the outset, to try and find a way to have sometimes hard conversations, but have everybody (me included, not always easy) keep a civil tongue. And I think we knew at the start (I certainly did) it was going to be challenging, and probably doomed. 😉
I’d like to think the answer is not pissing contests, or bannings (unless absolutely necessary) or willy-nilly deletions (although the warning about many moderators always stands–so many people having admin powers is part of the grand experiment). But we’ve definitely got our share of pot-stirrers–now, if we could only find a few more calm and soothing voices. 😉
LikeLike
Hi Ruk.
LikeLike
HI Nova….good to find you here.
Kevin I agree with your observations totally. Especially the part about miscommunication and misunderstandings when addressing certain topics.
Ironically I came here to escape being a “pot stirrer”…hopefully I can still shed that moniker. 🙂
LikeLike
lms:
All’s well that ends well, we can now read your substantive comment.
And don’t you feel better for it?
LikeLike
jnc:
I must have missed something this weekend.
Not much. Only the most commented upon post in the history of ATiM. It will surely be legendary in ATiM lore. For one reason or another.
LikeLike
My name did get unjustly mentioned in passing but I refuse to take umbrage. I have my very personal theories about what went down but in the spirit of the blog they are not for me to share publicly. Anyone who wants to know them can e-mail me privately.
LikeLike
Unjustly how?
LikeLike
I have never called you a racist, here or anywhere else. If you feel I have, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
LikeLike
I’m slowly working my way through the Post That Will Live in Infamy. I’m sorry I missed it, because just the other day I found out someone I know is a racist (self-confessed, provided the necessary bona fides) and it turns out he hates Reagan and is a registered Democrat. But he is Southern, so I guess he’s not entirely out of the stereotype. 😉 He’s also more Ruk’s age, which is consistent with numerous generational observations I’ve encountered.
I gotta confess, it confounds me. I’ve gotten into arguments for underplaying the prevalence of racism in the past. But (note above), I encountered countervailing evidence just recently. So, perhaps my detractors were right, after all. Would have liked to participate in the conversation, though, of course, discussions of race probably ought to avoid (if for reasons of palpable irony, if nothing else), tarring and feathering of groups or portions of groups as racist, or of ideological points we disagree with as having racial motivations. I expect I haven’t waded into the worst of it, yet, but I still find the overall tone about 100 meters above a typical thread on Plum-Line, so we shall see.
LikeLike
Don’t get up on the ledge with him though, it’s cold up there.
Lmsinca, from the Benighted Thread of Doom. Yay, Lmsinca.
Another observation: Troll was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. I agree, that’s getting up on the ledge, but I see the point he was trying to make. At least, that’s the case . . . half-way through this gigantic-ass thread that I completely missed and now feel obligated to catch up on.
Tao, quoting my Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world. You are also beloved of me, go forth and prosper. I am projecting excellent karma at you right now (karma blast!) that will benefit you mightily in the week to come. Just see if it doesn’t. Whoever reinstituted the Comment Guideline here, good show. Typeface is just a tad bit large. Understand, but understatement works, sometimes, too.
Further on, I’m glad I’m not married to Scott. I enjoy Troll’s ripostes, and personally find them well-aimed and and admirably cast. Scott is just an indefatigable debater. Reminds of Kyle Reese explaining the Terminator to Sarah Connor: “He’ll debate you. Endlessly. And he’ll always win. He’ll always be right. He can’t be stopped. He won’t be stopped!” The only option when Scott gets his dander up is pre-emptive surrender. 😉
mCurtis: It’s time to pull back and take a breath. Please.
Wisdom. Kudos to you.
qb: It’s quite an intellectual feat to turn a vote for one of three white candidates into a racist vote.
I gotta put my 100% agreement with that observation in there. In part because I am often called out by some people who rename nameless (qb and Scott) as favoring (or attempting to curry favor with) my liberals frenemies. 😉
Also, I observe (quoting QB): I think you underestimate some things, including the degree to which many of us are fed up with accusations and insinuations of racism
This is a comment that gets papered over, but I think is at the crux of the matter as to why certain issues, race included, become so difficult to discuss. While perhaps there is no reason or value to debating how many racists can fit on the head of a pin in South Carolina, I think QB points to an issue worth further discussion at some point. Why do we feel the need to affix racism to a group (if I were doing it anecdotally, I would assume all racism is exclusive the province of Democrats and Northerners, but my experience is probably not good for determining group dynamics). Is there value is saying everybody is racist, and, if so, what do we mean? It’s a big and worthwhile discussion, but I think constantly saying that “I know you or your friends heart of hearts, because of your group affiliation, and that means racism, a racism that I may share (because my belief indicates that we are all racist), but that yours is clearly much worse” is functionally no different than racism, and as efficacious.
lmsinca: I want to say something funny here but I won’t because I think this is a serious discussion and maybe one that’s long overdue.
Again, I second that.
ashot: Since we’re discussing decorum, I think it’s only fair to point out that I think Scott’s response was picture perfect. He asked for clarification which seems to be the perfect thing to do when you think someone may be….shall we say…overstating their point.
Absolutely! Also, it’s the most beneficial thing to do when someone is overstating their point: attempt to get them to clarify their own thinking. I often only realize how befuddled my own thinking is when I’m persistently asked for clarification.
One of the problems that I see here in small part and elsewhere in larger part is the desire to defend “our team”, even when we really do know they’ve crossed a line.
I’ve mentioned perspective before, but I think it’s worth pointing out that our perspective affects where we believe the line to be. Put simply, our friends see the line as being much further out than the opposition, and vice versa. This leads to much conflict. Why the clarification approach is so valuable.
But we should keep in mind that an obvious foul to us looks like a legit play to the other side, and I think we might approach the discussion a little differently if we didn’t start out thinking the other side knew it was a foul and was just trying to cover up.
RUK: I do not consider any of the posters here racist FWIW.
And some of my best friends are . . . you know. My immediate reaction when I read that was *facepalm*. For what it’s worth. 🙂
Scott: I am quite happy to say that race will play absolutely no role at all in a primary between 3 white guys who largely agree on their politics.
Again, this seems self-evident to me, and that it would be at all controversial confounds me. But I think it’s another place to look for where the communication is getting derailed, because it seems to me that either there is some radical redefinition of racism involved, or we really don’t agree at some fundamental level about what the meaning of certain terms is.
I have to go to lunch and check on a puppy (wife has jury duty this week). Will continue later. Other admins, feel free to put my comment in moderation if it’s too inflammatory, I will not let that hurt my feelinsg, or vow secret revenge on you all. All of you! 🙂
LikeLike
I was the one who re-instated your advice about commenting, Kevin, but can’t for the life of me figure out how to change the typeface/size!
Although, maybe for now, it should stay the size and boldness that it is. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin Face palm accepted. May I add in an extenuating circumstance that may mitigate my offense…ignorance.
Viewed from the perspective you’ve just pointed out I can see how you might view that as condescending.
In reality it was a remark written not in condescension, but rather total panic. I was afraid I had sewn the wind and I was desperate to avoid reaping the whirlwind….ahhh but it was obviously too little and now as you point out came across as condescending. Mostly I felt just horrible that this might reflect on lmsinca because of her invitation for me to join the group.
If I’m honest that is the largest single regret I have about this thread. I’m sorry if I embarrassed lmsinca.
LikeLike
From Sue
I think that the use of the delete key, whether for a whole post or an individual comment, should be exceedingly rare if it’s used at all.
I don’t think it should ever be used in a moment of anger, frustration or hurt feelings.
I don’t think her comment received the attention it deserves although a few of you have touched on it.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. We should not delete posts or comments. We need to sink or swim on our merits and not alter the dialogue in any way. Let people decide for themselves if we are worthy of their time or not. I understand the inclination and even the motives occasionally but it is still not the correct avenue to take. If we have a grievance we can air them in public or private but in general the blog should stand as is unless a vote is taken first and for the record I will always vote no on the deletion of an entire post.
The occasional comment that is objected to can be shot down via constructive dialogue and if that doesn’t work or it is an obvious racial or death wish laced slur, then I think we could individually make the case for removal. Even then it’s best to put the offense in moderation awaiting a consensus.
LikeLike
I second, with the ongoing caveat: comments that suggest anybody needs to get lined up and shot, or advocates violence, etc., are treading on thin ice, and I’ll support anybody who decides to pitch them in the memory hole for all eternity without equivocation.
LikeLike
If that is your point of view, lms, then you should be prepared for pointed talk when someone like mcurtis shows up and starts insulting people and calling them racists and bigots and holocaust deniers.
This goes back precisedly to my comment at the top, and the one near the end of the disputed thread. As I see it, there is a faction here that contends that a pointed response to such abuses is “bullying”– in fact, just asking for definition of terms apparently is bullying — and now as I predicted you apparently also object to deleting them.
Perhaps we should recruit some righties who will be prone to impugning you, michi, and okie, and we could then see how you deal with it. It’s sort of like Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
LikeLike
qb, please leave me alone. Mcurtis tried to apologize several times and clarify his comments, not necessarily very well, but he made an effort. You have made similar comments with minor carve outs for my family in the past which I objected to but I didn’t suggest your comments be deleted or wish you banned from ATiM in any way. We dealt with our differences in a rather more mature way I thought. I have always defended your right to be here and will continue to do so. I objected to you getting up on the ledge with him as I thought I made clear. I did not agree with his comments and I think you’ll be hard-pressed to see where I did that. And then you started pulling old grievances and assumptions in from the Plumline which was not in the least helpful.
I’ll let everyone else judge the dialogue between us as I don’t think either of us can be objective right now. But I will not let your comment stand as is.
LikeLike
BTW, one the goals in further conversation I think should be to forgive (but never forget!) and work to tone it down, not continue to stake out our turf as being conversationally wronged. I haven’t seen the mcurtis apologies, but I will, so I’m talking out of my ass, but still. My instinct is to say: okay, look, I’m letting it go. But I really don’t like that stuff.
I don’t think ill-considered words by others is a good rationale for increasing the inflammatory nature of our own rhetoric, or for wishing that the lefties spent more time being impugned by righties. That’s not the direction to head in. I’m telling’ ya. 🙂
LikeLike
Perhaps we should recruit some righties who will be prone to impugning you, michi, and okie, and we could then see how you deal with it.
I wouldn’t use the word “impugn”, but you’ve never pulled any punches yourself when telling us that we’re misguided, qb. I think you read more into mcurtis’s remarks than he meant, and then ignored his explanations/expansions.
LikeLike
Just to be clear qb
As I see it, there is a faction here that contends that a pointed response to such abuses is “bullying”– in fact, just asking for definition of terms apparently is bullying — and now as I predicted you apparently also object to deleting them.
I have never objected to pointed conversations, I never used the term or agreed with anyone who used the word bullying, I was the one who put the definitions of both racist and bigot into the dialogue last night as I thought it might be helpful, the post was taken down without my knowledge, and I have never suggested we should nor have I deleted anyone’s comment because I disagreed with it or found it offensive in some way. You have managed to insult me though…so good job.
I was attempting to appeal to your status as an administrator/founder/moderator last night rather than an aggrieved commenter, but as I said I was unsuccessful.
LikeLike
I have never suggested we should nor have I deleted anyone’s comment because I disagreed with it or found it offensive in some way.
Which is the opposite of what I said. It’s becoming apparent to me that this is a situation where it will be impossible to be understood, because it is possible for someone to read words and give them their opposite meaning.
You have managed to insult me though…so good job.
If I did, I didn’t intend to. On the other hand, you repeatedly insulted me last night, and the intent seems apparent.
qb, please leave me alone.
With that, however, your wish is granted.
LikeLike
qb, I’ll just let my previous comments stand, the record is there.
LikeLike
QB: when someone like mcurtis shows up and starts insulting people and calling them racists and bigots and holocaust deniers.
I’m not all the way through the thread yet, and have to go, but did this happen? I saw mcurtis commenting about his work with skinheads (and interest career choice), but I’m not sure I interpreted it as an indictment of anybody here, or conservatives or Republicans.
I would hope it would be accompanied with a citation, as that could be informative as to what sorts of things either get misinterpreted–or unfortunately get interpreted correctly.
LikeLike
This response by me to ruk:
I don’t really see the need for your surrender comments. I have a lawyer’s training and experience, so I would be lying if I said I didn’t think I was pretty good at argument, but I have never claimed any privilege and try fairly hard not to treat people as opponents to be defeated (although some folks do seem to cry out for it at times).
… received a reply by mcurtis that said:
This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
This is in the context of a thread in which mcurtis has been lecturing that people who deny they are bigots are just lacking self-awareness, that people who don’t accept that Newt’s campaign is racist just don’t want to “hear” the truth that he can authoritatively declare on personal experience, and that he knows racism when he sees it, because he has dealt with white supremecists, Holocaust deniers, et al.
Let me put it this way: I know when I’ve been compared to a Holocaust denier, and that was it. Google history on trial and see what you find. This guy simply distorted a comment I made to ruk and seized upon my reference to being a lawyer to equate me to that crowd. I found it astonishing but not surprising that he would so casually post such a slander.
As if I did not get the point, he followed up with more stuff like this:
Deal with waht is being said about Newt’s claims rather than attack me. I’ve been attacked by the best of them, Quarterback. That what I get for battling with real racists.
He later said he didn’t mean to call me a “real racist,” and I accepted that (which I see lms still refuses to acknowledge), so I guess he was just saying I behave like a neo-Nazi “real racist.” That’s apparently totally different than being one.
I am equally astonished that any of you can read those comments and not see what is staring you in the face.
LikeLike
Dude, I think there are at least two interpretations, and that’s being charitable. The most obvious one to me is that mcurtis is whining that he’s getting misunderstood because he’s spent a lot of time in the noble cause of fighting neo-nazism. Or something like that. That, and he’s puffing out his chest, like a challenged rooster. But I don’t read that (and, sorry, perhaps I am blind) that he’s calling you a real racist. And that’s before he repeatedly says that’s not what he did, which, given the context, I think is entirely credible.
Given your amplification about history on trial, I see what you are saying. And I don’t disagree with the poorly chosen references to his experience battling neo-Nazis being non-starters in a sincere conversational context. I read this as over-excitement about introducing a subject that he thinks reflects well on him and that he likes to talk about too much into the conversation too early or without sufficient context, but I can certainly be wrong. This is armchair psychoanalysis, yes, of which I am as guilty of (if not more so) as anybody. But, since mcurtis bailed after one bad tumble, I feel justified. Ah, the power of justification. 😉
If it were me, I wouldn’t take it as a personal slam. Or, I’d try not to, and given his amplification, I think I’d succeed.
Re-reading what I said (always a good idea), must clarify. Thought this in my head, didn’t say it (yet, would have thought I did when you responded, would have had to check to realize I didn’t) . . . I see exactly what your saying with the “history on trial” nonsense, and the clear conflation of you, personally, with holocaust deniers and, as well as poo-pooing your credentials (a bugaboo of mine, as you know). Completely inappropriate. And, yes, I see how that would color your entire perception of the conflict (a good lesson for mcurtis, were he still here, which he is not, alas).
I’m not quite as Judge Dredd as you, however, and would put that in a “strike 1” context. Time for a talkin’ to. Ah, well, not necessary now.
You’ll note, even as someone who has abandoned groups before based on my own exhaustion with the back-and-forth, I don’t shed many tears for people who give up the ghost after one rough weekend. 😉
LikeLike
people who deny a certan history
QB- Did you interpret “certain history” to mean the holocaust? I just thought it was a poor way of saying people attack the messenger when they can’t attack the message. ***I’m leaving my original post up, but I’m adding this comment that I missed part of a comment that makes that connection more clear. Sorry, QB.***
I’ll largely just say ditto to Kevin’s take. But I will address mccurtis’ denials of calling anyone here a racist, I find it weak. If you make a point and then say “present company excepted” your hardly making any point at all. I will say that you did the same thing when talking about the OWS protesters. You carved out lmsinca’s family then ranted about various negative qualities OWS protesters had.
Lastly, other than Scott’s and Mark’s final comments (and a few of Scotts in between) I am having trouble remembering a single thing of value from the other posts I read (*I didn’t read every single post). Everyone here is far too smart and thoughtful for that to be the case, especially you QB.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any question whatsoever what that statement meant. If you read the thread and his statements about battling deniers and supremicists etc., there simply isn’t another plausible interpretation.
I don’t happen to pay a lot of attention to the battle of deniers and their watchdogs, but I knew the phrase history on trial when I saw it, and the context made it unequivocal.
Now, I’m sure that mcurtis is one of those folks who would say, again, oh, I never meant to say you are one of them. But it isn’t plausible. It doesn’t wash to say, you act like neo-Nazis and deniers, you make the same arguments they do, you “don’t want to hear it,” just like they don’t, but I’m not calling you anything.
I’m just astonished, to be honest, that anyone here can read over the whole of mcurtis’s comments on that thread and not clearly see that this is precisely what he was saying. Everyone is a racist, but some are deniers and Nazis, and he very clearly said I “reminded” him of them for not accepting his garbage about Newt (as an example).
LikeLike
I did put one late comment by mcurtis in moderation. I did so without consulting anyone (there didn’t seem to be anyone to consult at the moment) thinking that the situation needed to be defused immediately or it would continue on a downward path. Mea culpa. I now see many reasons not to have done so, and will not do so in future. The comment in question has been restored.
Scott, for one, knows how much practice I have had moderating comments.
qb, nobody has said pointed responses or asking for definition of terms is bullying. That is your supposition. I consider it “bullying” when you have made your point, repeatedly and vigorously, and then just will not let it go even if the person on the other side wants to discontinue discussion and “agree to disagree.” Ye olde “beating a dead horse.”
LikeLike
I really missed a ruckus. I’m reminded of something that happened in college. I was a peripheral member of two groups of friends. I’ll call them juniors and sophomores for the class that most of them were in. A couple of the prime folks really didn’t like each other. There was a period when the two groups briefly coalesced.
We were all gamers–role playing games and other strategy games such as Civilization (the board game, not the computer game). A friend of mine was the GM for something called the Arduin Grimoire. It’s a D&D like game, but with some differences. Members of both groups were in the party of explorers. At some point, a couple of folks from the sophomores sort of took control of what the explorers were doing. In the middle of a melee, one of the juniors (who had a crush on one of the primes) decided his character was going berzerk and started attacking the sophomores’ characters. The descended into a memorably massive fight. WIth the players that is. Yelling, arguing, you name it (nothing physical). At one point, a friend of mine (who had gone into her room) came out yelling stop it stop it stop it! Pause for ten seconds and then the entire merry argument resumed.
We eventually started calling it “The Night of the Broken Dice.”
I might refer to the recent discussion as The Night of the Broken Post
I’m not going to weigh in (much) on the matter of race and politics. Yes, race can play a role in an election even when all the candidates have the same race. Richard Nixon narrowly beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (0.7% popular vote) with Wallace taking over 13% of the vote. Race had a big role to play in that election, even though all three major candidates were white guys.
I might have a one thought for newer contributors (as well as the rest of us). Akin to Star Trek’s Prime Directive or Asimov’s First Rule of Robotics.
1 – You don’t have to respond.
If something is out of bounds, just ignore it. If it annoys you, just ignore it. If a demand is being made, feel free to ignore it. For example, let’s say I make a general observation. Nebraskans are more into football than Kansans. If I get a response along the lines of prove it, don’t plan on getting a response from me. I am not going to spend an hour looking up information to satisfy someone else’s demand. Particularly when I don’t think it’s important or would change an opinion in the slightest.
I also won’t be put on the stand. I don’t care if someone wants yes or no answers, I’ll write paragraphs. My words phrased my way. More than anything else, this is a discussion, not a contest. If I lose interest in a thread, I’m gone from it.
Well, there goes my lunch (half) hour.
BB
LikeLike
I would like to make a couple of points.
Early on, I became disenchanted with this blog when I saw what I perceived to be gossip and sniping at PL commenters who were not present and were unable to defend themselves. Many of those comments were later deleted as though they didn’t exist. I saw this happen on many more than one occasion, and frankly, it was a put off, and was a major reason I didn’t engage here. It also made me wonder what else had been / would be taken down. It was very disconcerting to come in late to the game and see “comment deleted” multiple times on a topic. Or to go back to a thread the next day to post something, and see that what I was going to reply to was gone.
“Delete” is an absolute power of control over the conversation. I have heard many people, and several people who are posting here, rail against how injudicious the PL is with the pink key. I would ask them to think about that now.
If an author or commenter is willing to push the “post” button, they’d sure better be willing to live with the fact that their words will be visible as long as this blog is accessible. That should be the test that each person uses before they comment, and really, the only way to achieve a maximization of Rule #5.
As Kevin noted above, “delete” is appropriate for explicitly violent content, direct or strongly implied threats. I would add spamming and stalking. Beyond that, I think everything else should be left up and intact.
Participating in a community like this takes a thick skin, an engaged sense of humor, a willingness to let go, and a fully functional scroll wheel. If any of those aren’t working at a given moment, then maybe the best answer is to take a break, drink a cold something or other, and come back later or another day.
LikeLike
Thanks Sue, I think that’s a wake up call for all of us, and also shows our bad behavior. I apologize for my part.
LikeLike
Early on, I became disenchanted with this blog when I saw what I perceived to be gossip and sniping at PL commenters who were not present and were unable to defend themselves.
Sorry about that. Bad habit, gossip, and hard to break. I was as guilty as anyone, if not more so. I may have done it since (and though I have felt justified, given context, perhaps being justified does not make it an advisable strategy).
The deleted comments originally were probably considered admin comments, and may have had some of the sniping at PLers, something that there was a general effort to clean up, and then move forward, from. This may not have been the best idea, but it was very early on and we were still getting our sea legs. Nothing else has been removed (although on occasion it’s been suggested, though not by me). One post by mcurtis yesterday, which has since been re-instated, as has the original thread.
However, the Rules of Engagement indicate that comments may be turned off or disabled for a post, and given that the original thread is now back in it’s full “glory”, I don’t think temporarily removing it for a cooling off is unacceptable. While I’m not looking to censor or ban anyone, I would like to try and cool off when the debate gets hot. And when people feel disrespected, they feel no need to show respect (generally) and away we go . . .
I hope this recent debate has not put you off. I apologize if the thread-tidying or gossip early on was off-putting, but your thoughtful observation have served to put it in context, and hopefully inform the future direction of the blog. Like I said: we’re occasionally going to make bad decisions. Whether it’s in a debate or with a blog, I hope smart folks will stick around and help us make the right ones, or at least better ones that we did before.
LikeLike
Sue, good points. I had forgotten the early comments that were scrubbed re certain PL commenters. And I moderated a group of comments on an admin thread recently when we moved to WP, not for any nefarious purpose but thinking they were not of interest as they pertained solely to formatting and housekeeping issues, etc. that were largely already decided.
Are you saying you have seen comments deleted here otherwise? Other than the above and my moderating one comment last night, I am not aware of any comments that have been deleted (unless they were deleted by the person who posted them).
LikeLike
Hmm. I just trashed a comment (a first for me), mainly as I edited the original comment and discovered I forgot to insert the turn bold off command.
BB
LikeLike
I think there is an edit function to make those kinds of corrections. Not sure, but we should look.
What I am addressing specifically, though, is the take down of a whole post, and the comment qb made above:
“If anyone shows up and starts posting insults, slights, provocations, or accusations of racism; repeatedly condescends and accuses people of evading his illusory points, being too slow, or insisting on “not hearing” his lectures about the topic; goes on and on about racist Republican candidates and “dog whistles”; or equates other commenters to Holocaust deniers, skinheads, and neo-Nazis, I’m just going to delete them and ask questions later. And that goes for people who call me those things.”
LikeLike
Sue, I think QB is in the minority as regards that strategy. I don’t advocate taking anything down that is not violent, or illegal. That being said, the kinds of posts QB is referring to are certainly not in the spirit of the blog and should be viewed with skepticism and a critical eye.
LikeLike
okie,
Honestly, I have not been here after the first couple of months, so I really can’t answer the question. Between what I said above, accessibility during the day, and things going on in my personal life, the time I had was very limited. But the impression I got early is what it is, and it didn’t help me want to make more time. My first visit back was for your birthday party on Friday night, and then overnight last night.
LikeLike
suekzoo:
It was very disconcerting to come in late to the game and see “comment deleted” multiple times on a topic. Or to go back to a thread the next day to post something, and see that what I was going to reply to was gone.
This cannot have happened more than a couple of times, and certainly never after the first week or two of the blog being set up.
Very early on, there were some frank discussions about people at PL and whether or not they should be invited over here. Afterwards, I remember someone suggesting that the discussions be deleted. This may have happened on more than one occassion, again in the first week or two of setting up the blog.
But after that, on any other issue? Sorry sue, but It has just never happened to my knowledge, and I read this blog pretty faithfully. If a comment got deleted, it was probably because the author decided to delete it him/herself, usually in order to fix it and repost it as another comment. Deletion of comments or posts has quite simply been a very rare occurrence here, and I can think of only two instances (outside of those first couple weeks) in which comments were deleted by anyone other than their own author. One was yesterday, and one was when we moved over here and a bunch of admin posts were put in moderation as a space issue.
LikeLike
Could be true, I stopped coming here after a short while.
My first visit back was this weekend. See replies to okie and paul above.
LikeLike
Sue, Scott is entirely correct. There have been no content deletions, except one yesterday, which has been re-instated, that weren’t admin posts that, after general discussions, we agreed were not necessary to save for posterity. We have left both comments and posts stand which a variety of folks weren’t happy with for a variety of reasons.
As for me, only comments advocating or endorsing violence are worthy of immediate and remorseless deletion.
LikeLike
Paul,
You can edit to fix something. If you are signed in, look to the immediate left of your avatar, and there is an “edit comment” hyperlink.
LikeLike
Ongoing . . . .
Scott quotes Ruk’s Atlantic Article: As for the article, it claims that “race is central to the clash between Democrats and Republicans over taxes and spending,”
I haven’t read the article, but the quote out of context seems difficult to defend. It goes back to the issue of: everything you disagree with (x) about constitutes racism.
lmsinca: Probably is not a no and I assume that flying a Confederate Flag could be done for various reasons, some racist, some not.
Which is one of the difficulties surrounding the confederate flag issue: how do you disassociate it from the negative history while still supporting a historical legacy that goes beyond slavery and Jim Crow?
mcurtis: People who say they are not racist or are not bigots in some way do not really know themselves.
This kind of armchair psychoanalysis does not, in my experience, engender productive dialog. It may or may not have validity–certainly the same mechanisms by which people stereotype and experience prejudice and bigotry are probably present in everyone–but it again begs the definition. To paraphrase the Incredibles, when everybody is racist, then nobody is. It ceases to have a clear meaning that can be discussed in any sort of useful way.
When I walk downtown and see a group of black people dressed in their style of street wear I’ll go out of my way to avoid that crowd.
I argue that this is not strictly racism, as it involves numerous cultural and experiential red flags to which race is not wholly or particularly relevant. If you wouldn’t do the same if you saw a group of well-dressed African-American businessmen buying cookies from Girl Scouts, then racism is perhaps not a useful descriptor.
He said, “Honky, white freek, I ought to kill you. Kill all the white guys.”
I was very shocked.
You should try growing up in Memphis. 😉
We have voters who carry biases against Mormons. We have voters who think every Jewish person is a zionist.
This may be bigotry, but is it racism, strictly speaking?
Scott responds: Ah, I see. So you think you know me better than I know myself,
Which is why claiming special knowledge of others based on your own introspection, true or not (possibly not) is probably not the best strategy, if trying to inform people based on your own experience. If someone doesn’t feel racist, saying “Yes, well, too bad, you are” is not terribly informative.
The ridiculous notion that everyone is racist at some level renders the charge of racism to be devoid of moral content
Again, if everybody is racist, then racism has no meaning as a descriptor.
I suspect I’m not the only one who finds these self-congratulatory confessions in order to justify groundless generalizations nauseating
In all fairness, most folks, especially with the experience mcurtis has, have good reasons for believing what they do, even if there beliefs are incomplete, or not well communicated, or without sufficient delineation. I can find lots of things incorrect functionally without claiming them to be nauseating, myself.
From Lmsinca: racism: : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
This gets back to definitions, and I submit that this definition is not what mcurtis and perhaps others are talking about, so perhaps there is a better word than “racism” when talking about what we see as stereotyping or pre-conceptive thinking.
Scott says: That seems unlikely. You’ve been pretty clear…you think everyone, including me, is racist. I strongly disagree, and I think you have virtually no sensible grounds whatsoever for believing as you do, particularly with regard to me.
To which mcurtis replies: I apologize. I’m positive you are totally pure.
Which is a form of implication, suggesting the Scott has said something which he hasn’t. Yet I think the root goes back to starting a contentious discussion without some pre-agreement on the definitions. But, yes,there’s that old Plum Line feeling. 🙂
qb: Comments are no longer searchable on the new platform over there, but a google search turns up no instances of this term, ever.
Which makes citing PL comments post “the change” a poor example. And those could well be sock-puppets controlled by Caothien or Beach Music of Liam to provide examples of the boorish conservative. I knew a leftist (not liberal, leftist) who delighted in doing that, with utmost consistency in the personality. In any case, they make poor cases.
I infer that you exclude the possibility that he could make a mistake and sincerely regret it, which is interesting
This brings up another issue, in which we may ask for clarification but we don’t always accept it. There are reasons for rejecting anemic clarifications, of course, but I prefer to try to err on the side of agreeability. When trying to have a dialog, people need to be able to say: hey, I’m clearly not saying this right, or maybe my thinking is more muddy than I thought (and, if you sense that such might be the case, those are also good things to say). Alas, Scott’s thinking is never muddy (seriously) so when he goes to take you down in a debate . . . surrender! Pre-emptively, if at all possible. 🙂
Of course it will have no influence. The candidates are all white. It is completely illogical to suggest that race is an issue in voting for Newt versus Romney.
At this point in time, this seems to be difficult to refute. I’m not sure what a given candidate will do to appeal to racists, but even Newt’s more questionable statements (and he has made them, IMO) don’t strike me as dog whistles as much as his own confidence in his positions relieving him of the burden of clear communication with people who disagree with him.
qb: They left because theywanted to bring their same nasty habits over or simply could not tolerate the idea of being part of a forum where they would be expected to be respectful and defend their positions reasonably and logically. (I saw one of them recently brag about leaving here immediately upon realizing that Scott and I “owned the place.” Lol!)
Was that shrink? In any case, I’m not sure it was a zeal for brining over their own nasty habits (I don’t think they are necessarily aware of how insulting some of the things they say are, or feel so justified it does not matter), but in a certain case, I don’t think he at all understood the concept that things were going to be worked through, with urging for civility, and not banned immediately. We’re not going to get anywhere with willy-nilly bannings.
As to the topic at hand, when the basis of a discussion is someone’s comment about the degree of racism of Republicans or conservatives, how their candidates appeal to racism, and how their primary will be swayed by it, it’s not going to be a nice, pleasant discussion. That’s just reality.
And I would ask anybody how they would feel in that discussion were the shoe on the other foot. Even if you are willing to entertain the discussion as regards liberals and Democrats, it simply doesn’t come up as a discussion about Democrats and Democrat primaries and liberalism like it does with Republicans and conservatives generally, and people looking for deeper discussion on issues probably aren’t going to respond well to it without a little more due diligence done, re: defining terms, providing historical examples, looking at alternative explanations . . . something that shows thoughtfulness, rather than a re-stating of well-known memes that most conservatives are very well aware of.
mcurtis: There is no way to have have any kind of *reasonable* discussion when one side becomes very confrontational and do not address a lot of the things said by others.
Observing the conversation now, this seems like a reasonable point, but can apply equally. The problem is, people tend to address what stands out to them, not everything in an entire comment. This is true of everybody, as far as I can see. Assuming that you meant something else that what was interpreted, this begs for clarification, which I do not notice here.
To some the words used by Gingrich, not to mention his history with addressing the poor, are pretty rancid to many looking in.
This is entirely fair and supportable, but is not the same as saying he’s using racist dog whistles as an election strategy because Republicans and southerners or whoever will respond to them, like dogs. Presumably, nobody likes to be considered a dog.
qb:When you show up and say things like this, are you really surprised that you don’t get the deference you apparently expect? Perhaps you shouldn’t have come on the scene presuming to be everyone’s superior and instructor.
This will probably not be well-received, and I’m not saying it’s an unfair statement, but I think this begins to dip into a tit-for-tat response to a personal insult by coming up with another personal insult, presuming knowledge of a person’s interior thinking and feeling that is not conducive to discussion, anymore than the original similar presumption regarding people’s “unawareness” of their hidden racism.
I know that you claim to be some sort of historical scholar.
From the guy who is routinely accused of not actually being a lawyer? I will, once again, go on record as being opposed to statements, directed at others, that presume to have knowledge of experience or credentials of said others that you cannot, in most likelihood, actually have. Lawyers and historical scholars are both entirely capable of having bone-headed opinions.
from mcurtis: Atacks on the welfare state state made by Gingrich seem to cause him to talk about black people when the majoirty are white.
This seems entirely fair. However, that should make attacks on critiques of the welfare state that do not invoke race, which are numerous, immune from the accusation of racism, which they are not. At that point, presumably, it would be the liberals who perceive any attack on the welfare state as an attack on minorities the actual racists. If we have to go down the route, which I would prefer we don’t.
History requires far more evidence than does a court case.
Nothing against your profession, but this seems like a very dubious claim to me. Parson Weems begs to differ.
Scott: If by “confrontational” you mean things like accusing someone else of racism, I agree.
If you don’t admire Scott’s skill with a rapier, then you do not appreciate swordsmanship.
mcurtis: Scott, you are the one putting the racism claim on yourself. I said that all humans are racist. I should have added in *in some degree*
Then are all people murders, to some degree. The potential is there, surely. I’m not sure this is a meaningful point, and is not helpful in making a larger point, whatever it may be, as regards conservatives and Republicans and racist dog whistles.
qb: We need a like button.
We do need a like button. Someone at WP should get to work on that.
mcurtis: I may mistake human-beings, but I did describe events above in a posting where we avoid certain groups on the streets. Why do we do that and not rush into danger?
This is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of racism, cited by lmsinca, and muddies the point, I think, rather than makes it. If an African-American avoids a group of Klansmen out looking to do harm to the first African-American they run across, we define that as racism? At some point, the term loses definitional meaning.
Really keep up the direct ad hominems guys.
I hate to be a pill, but this is an ad hominem statement.
qb: Show where it is, so that we don’t conclude that you are no more than a cheap shot artist posing as an intellectual.
Ugh. Talk them down off the ledge. 😉
mcurtis: Another personal attack from Quarterbakc without even addressing one point.
There’s my Plum Line. I begin to see where Michigoose’s impulse to just delete the post came from.
The prefatory statements add nothing to the point. Rather than accuse others of not addressing your point, why not restate your point and ask if something is not clear in it?
qb: I think you are done here, mcurtis.
The goal is to get off the ledge, not urge them to jump. In my opinion. I mean to say, that’s what I’m pushing for, I realize in an egalitarian mini-society such a this, mine is but one voice among many, but I hope that is what we’re going for.
mcurtis: I’m think we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot. Your attitude is very confrontational and I thought we were past that here.
Note I am not defending QBs later statements, the tone of which I disagree with (I’m just one guy, admittedly), but that blade cuts both ways. We’re only “past that here” if at least one party to a discussion attempts to reign the discussion in, not egg it on. And I’ve said before (and will repeat here), everyone, no matter how devoted to the idea, will get incensed and become incapable of toning it down . . . so then it’s left up to you, this time. I’m hoping to find a way in which we don’t regard every transgression as an excuse to jump into the brawl, fists swinging. This may be difficult to achieve, but that’s what I’m pushing for.
Thanks for the post. I wrongly try to send out ideas and thoughts that might make people think along grey areas.
Gray starts looking very black and white when disagreements get impassioned. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, but I have found it is *very* difficult to engage in discussions on certain issues without communications breaking down. Maybe starting with questions about how other people see the issue? Ergo, seek first to understand, then to be understood? It’s a thought.
qb: I am just calling mcurtis out as someone who came here with bad intentions and is proving it all over this thread.
That’s the ledge. It’s taking a sincere disagreement and construing that into mcurtis being a saboteur. I would suggest letting time bear that out for itself. And questioning credentials or profession? Really? Does that ever work?
But this guy just called me one of the “real racists”
Apropos of your point about mcurtis getting a Madison quote backwards, this seems to me to be the opposite (at least, the way your phrased it) of what mcurtis specifically said.
Mark In Austin remains forever brilliant, and cuts to the heart of the matter:
Newt called BHO the Prez who put more folks on food stamps. Because BHO did not put a single person on food stamps the statement is open to direct attack.
There ya go. Why bother with the racist dog whistle debate which simply alienates everybody who isn’t (or a great plurality of those who aren’t) already a dyed-in-the-wool left-of-Vermont Democrat?
mcurtis: Yet, I hardly expected the personal attacks here at the level I’ve seen. I thought we were excaping that.
I hope so, myself, and commiserate with your complaint. That being said, the interpretation of your comments did not come from nothing, and you ought to look back at what you said and think about how it might sound to you, if someone were making comments about your history, and historians as a class of people, etc., that you felt you knew to be untrue. Your reaction might be to call the other person out on their foolishness.
Ruk: I’m sorry that I am convinced that a % of voters here in Florida hate Obama for reasons other than his politics.
Presumably mostly Democrats, as few Republicans were going to be voting for Obama, anyway, even if he was, say, John Kerry.
BTW, you should review the archive and see some of Mark’s other discussions, re: race. He does not claim that racism is vanished. He probably clarifies this later in the thread.
mcurtis: I’m superior to no one at all.
That’s one down. When you all acknowledge my superiority to everybody, I think we’ll be done here. 😉
It is obvious that you do not carefully read and it is possible I need to phrase my sentences better.
I realize you were speaking from experience, but it’s worth referring to Godwin’s rule when bringing up neo-nazis, and be aware of what you might seem to be implying, or what might be inferred, from the context, and that, alas, “oh, but I’m not talking about you is an insufficient caveat).
Troll: Scott, QB and I are disagreeing with you. Why are you choosing to phrase it in such a way as to have the reader believe that we somehow acknowledge what you write as true and choose to willfully ignore it?
An excellent point by Troll, IMHO. BTW, if this comment is insufficiently arrogant, with me crowning winners and losers, please let me know and I’ll try to re-write it so I sound even more boorish. Translated: I think I sound like a douche bag, and I don’t want to, but I’m trying to cover as much as I can in short order.
But, I agree with Troll. That is not a response or explanation conducive to dialog, and presumes secret knowledge of other people’s hearts and minds, which doesn’t usually go over well. It’s also a case of physician, heal thyself. I am sympathetic to your desire to leave the vitriol of Plum Line, and other forums, behind. One way to do that is to avoid statements like “Also what bothers me are people who “do not want to hear it.” (apologies if my context, quoting a quote, is off). Just saying’.
RUK: I don’t believe mcurtis was accusing you personally of being a racist.
I don’t think that was unclear, I think Troll was not happy with the global accusation of racism. No reason he should be, IMHO.
lmsinca: I would also like to remind everyone that some of the people involved in this embarrassing exchange are themselves administrators and should have made an attempt to mitigate the damage.
Second. It’s not easy and, trust me, you end up focusing other people’s irritation with each other on you, and it’s not at all fun. Then it becomes work, for which none of us our compensated. Still, I think it’s worth at least trying to reign it in, especially for new arrivals, no matter how contentious we find them to be at the outset. Sometimes the dirt must be panned to find the gold.
Mcurtis has sent me an email thanking us for the opportunity to participate but he’s moving on. Good job everyone.
Sigh. Oh, well, as much as I dislike that outcome, if that’s all it took, he probably wasn’t going to stay in the long run. Something like this was going to come up, and everybody can’t be in their sunday best all the time. Alas, having a mixed environment, not all of us are here with the same goals. I’m hoping to convert certain contentious newbies to a more productive conversation (I believe this can happen, though it will not always). However, mcurtis has self-selected based on one unfortunate breakdown, and if we always did that with our cars, we’d never have one for very long, would we?
I think we need to change our all about atim, we’ve set too lofty of a goal.
Well, if by not calling it The Titanic, I suppose that’s true, but I’ve always felt that we were never going to reach the goal . . . but it would be interesting to see how long we could strive toward it.
run: lmsinca….I feel poorly about this because I’m certain my PL rep had a lot to do with this…
mcurtis chose to bail after one long conversational malfunction, which he (along with a few others, perhaps) chose to perpetuate. That’s not your fault. In fact, though we often disagree, I find your generational point of view informative. But I’ve long said that when feelings start getting hurt (catch-22: when you keep “calling someone out” on their bullshit, but your feelings haven’t been hurt, then you’re still responding out of some sense of personal or personalized offense, which is practically the same).
I also apologize for not being here to attempt to moderate the conversational tone (that is, get everybody pissed off at me instead of each other, although I’m trying to accomplish that belatedly: how am I doing?). I also apologize for not having been the one to get the comment advice to appear when posting in the comment box. A lot of the conversation in that thread was, alas, not kind or respectful.
qb: I am not embarrassed by anything I said here, lms.
Well, I wouldn’t ask you to be embarrassed, but it would have been nice if we hadn’t gone all Plum Line here. I realize you were justified, but sometimes being justified doesn’t mean it’s the ideal strategy.
But you can just remove me and I’ll leave, too. If we are going to hold discussions of Republican racism and entertain people who specialize in putdowns and condescension
Some people were attempting to minimize, rather than expand, on the latter. As to the former, perhaps we should compile a list of topics unsuitable for discussion, because of irrelevance or clichedness or general offensiveness? This seems politically correct to me, but I’d be willing to concede the point and go along with it, in order to keep from hemorrhaging commenters.
mcurtis (I thought he left. What?) I have to respond here. QB you are totally wrong. I didn’t accuse you of being a racist at all. This seems to be something you care to continue with and I do not know why.
I also fail to see the accusation of racism. In fact, the only thing I’ve seen was the exact opposite. While that may be high-minded damning with faint praise, it’s clearly not accusing you of being a real racist, unless you really infer quite a lot.
I just can’t let you have the last word on this.
It’s not a competition, dude.
lmsinca: I tried to get everyone to crawl down from the proverbial ledge, unsuccessfully I might add.
You’re fired. From now on, QB is in charge of all conciliatory dialogs. 🙂
As I said, there’s more than one moderator here, someone else can take a turn next time….have at it.
Again, sorry I entirely missed that. It was a very busy weekend. Please try to schedule these contretemps at a time more convenient to me.
qb: This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
Of this, no one had any criticism, but okie chastised me for my response.
I criticize both the insinuation of the statement (as I said, I don’t like those “I have secret knowledge of you and also, I dismiss your credentials, or contrast them unfavorably to mine” methods of substance-free justification for whatever argument) and your poo-pooing mcurtis’s professional historian resume. Can we have a conversation free of such nonsense? I mean, if you really are a lawyer. 😉
It’s a joke. Jeeze.
Scott: Not to change the topic or anything, but having tried to catch up after being away for a few hours, this whole discussion is a perfect illustration of why threaded comments are a nightmare.
They are actually quite awesome, if you’re following up on the conversation the next day. For archival purposes, they seem clearly superior. I wish there was a way, however, to let individual people choose how to view their comments, rather than having the same system foisted on everyone.
Finally, anyone who has not read Scott and Marks final comments on The Thread That Must Not Be Named missed the two best comments in the thread, IMHO.
Now, hopefully, everybody is pissed off at me, instead, and we can proceed from there. That is, if they’ve read this particular book length manuscript.
LikeLike
Excellent work, Kevin! Thank you.
The only thing that I have to add is that, sadly, the commenting advice was there all along, and we just ignored it.
LikeLike
I second MIchi’s assessment Kevin. You da man!!! Of course I could be saying this just to suck up to the Alpha poster…:-)
Seriously, just an excellent effort Kevin. Some people just have better temperaments for this type of exercise and you sir were blessed.
In addition you have lifted my spirits. I was truly feeling responsible for this mess. I’m relieved that it wasn’t all my fault…and that I only got a *facewash*
Deserved btw…I didn’t come here to be a “flamethrower” or an instigator. I came to get away from that rukidding7 guy over at PL. He was sending me home each evening feeling very upset. I reassessed my reasons for even participating in blogs. Upon lmsinca’s kind invitation I watched you guys for several days and jumped in. Sorry to do so in such “dramatic” fashion. I also do not aspire to be a “drama mama” lol.
Thanks again Kevin just an excellent synopsis and perhaps you’ve turned a negative into a positive.
Might I close with a thought from Wayne Dyer and others like Oprah. Some folks (I mean this in the most generic sense possible I literally have nobody in mind) seem to look for hurt or wounded feelings. It’s not endemic to conservatives or liberals or independents…I have no idea what % do this..but I think some people do look for reasons to be upset with others.
Not that this has anything to do with the thread you just critiqued…just a thought for the future. I take those two words at the top of the posting box very seriously Kevin. BE KIND!
LikeLike
I have to go out on a limb and say that I’m impressed. I didn’t sleep much last night ruminating over the mistakes I made. I never expected this group to do a “what have we learned” analysis. The groups I’ve seen in the past never got this far.
Very good, Kevin, though I’d argue minor points with you, you are on target.
I’d come back if people will have me. If not, I’ll understand.
i won’t visit the group again until I get a notice either way.
Very good work and I do off my sincere apologies for causing so much consternation and stress.
Thank you for the moment.
LikeLike
mcurtis-
The whole point of this place is that we moderate ourselves. Granting people permission to post here or refusing them permission to do so would not be consistent with the goals of this group. If you peruse our archives, you will see that there have been a few incidents like the one which occurred over the weekend. I would like to think we learn from those incidents and am proud that the number of such incidents is dwarfed by knowledgeable and respectful conversations between people who often hold diametrically opposing views. For what it’s worth, I hope you do stick around.
LikeLike
I’d like to, but you are one of the group. Thanks.
LikeLike
I mean to say . . . only one of the whole group.
LikeLike
mcurtis
My sense is that you are still welcome although as a “newbie” myself I hesitate to speak for the group. But I have known many of these folks for a couple of years now…as I said last night…don’t take it personally this group is terrific.
Not saying i agree with everyone or their methods, just that I respect them all. Simply respect them, don’t let anybody upset you, and I think you’ll enjoy it here.
As perhaps you’ve read I came here largely to escape myself…my PL self. Kevin was a regular at PL who was able to bring me down from the ledge. Bernie was another. When they disappeared I just seemed to lose guidance..whatever.
I realized how increasingly unhappy I had grown over the posts that I read and my own boorish responses to them.
IMHO this is a great group and their blog is a work in progress. They are not all flawless or perfect ,but as Rick Perry said, Who amongst us is? We’ll just continue giving it our best effort and see if we can earn their respect
LikeLike
stick around. I think we all learned something here.
LikeLike
I am not going to state an opinion right now on mcurtis’s desire to stay at ATiM.
I am simply going to make an observation. On this thread I have in several places said what in my view he undeniably meant in describing my position as reminding him of people who deny history and try to put history on trial. I could provide a more complete explanation of how that accusation was obviously foreshadowed in, and an inevitable continuation of, the overall tenor of his comments, and why the mindset they reflect predictably leads to still more extreme slanders if followed out. Outside of several members who reluctantly acknowledge that it could be true that is what he meant, however, there seems to be little interest in what he meant.
But I will just note here that, while dropping in to compliment Kevin and the group in general and to ask that he be welcomed to stay at ATiM, mcurtis does not take issue with my reading of his comment. You can all consider that for whatever significance you think it has in all this. Whether he stays of goes–and, again, I’m not taking a position on that right now–everyone here should think about how accusations of that tenor should to be handled here.
LikeLike
Outside of several members who reluctantly acknowledge that it could be true that is what he meant, however, there seems to be little interest in what he meant.
Qb- To be honest, I don’t really care what he meant. We shouldn’t be posting comments that could even arguably be construed to mean that sort of thing. I’m sorry if I have not been vocal enough in condemning him or agreeing with your interpretation of what he said. Although I think it should go without saying that saying someone is a Holocaust denier is not acceptable. The main reason I have been more vocal is because I really do not want to read all those nasty post and we are supposed to be policing ourselves. The general consensus seems to be that absent physical threats or the like, we aren’t going to delete comments. If we arent’ going to delete comments how are we going to ban someone for making those comments.
LikeLike
Outside of several members who reluctantly acknowledge that it could be true that is what he meant, however, there seems to be little interest in what he meant.
To be clear, my acknowledgement was not reluctant (some days your skin seems a little thin, QB, and it doesn’t seem like much is going to satisfy you) in regards to the history denier thing, and if it was too subtle (and don’t take this the wrong way, mcurtis, or do, I’m not sure I care): it as a douche bag thing to say, and mcurtis was being a dick for saying it. I’m hoping he doesn’t plan on taking that tone again, and, in any case, if the two of you are going at each other’s throat I hope someone stands down for the sake of peace. While mcurtis won the prize in that debate for douchiest most irrelevant and unproductive rhetorical device, neither of you were, in my opinion, doing yourself any favors.
In case anybody here has any doubts, though I normally try to be a voice of reason, I can be a bigger prick than any of you. And you can take that to the bank. I haven’t gone down in a blaze of glory in 20 years, but I’m still fully capable of it. If that’s the way not just newbies but founding fathers want to play, I’m all in.
Newbies are one thing, but I expect the core group to be capable of acting like adults, even in the face of inflammatory bullshit. I would respond to mcurtis’s “accusation” to any angry insult from my teenager. They are a teenager, I’m the adult. I proceed accordingly.
How accusations of that tenor should be handled is clarification should be sought and hopefully other people can chime in at the time and concur that it’s a bullshit rhetorical device. Or something. Getting into a bareknuckle brawl while your friends are begging you to stop is, IMHO, not the fucking answer.
Just for reference, this is still me being nice. Me being a prick comes later, if that’s the way we decide we want to roll.
And no, QB, I don’t have the same expectation of mcurtis that I have of you (not even near), or that I would have of mcurtis six months down the line. It’s not *fair*! I know!
Sheesh. Really.
And, mcurtis, because QB probably missed it the first seven times: holocaust denier? Really? What kind of bullshit douchebag move is that? Come on. If we’re counting, that’s strike one, in my opinion, and QB can clearly be a dick in a debate, I don’t recall him ever calling somebody a holocaust denier, or anything similar.
If I have in any way been unclear, please ask me for further clarification, and I will be happy to provide.
LikeLike
ashot,
I should have been clearer on one point. I’m actually not complaining about the lack of interest in what he meant, or at least not asking anyone to weigh in on that issue.
It is more that the apparent lack of interest, after all the hoopla, suggests something that is giving me pause. I had several people jump all over me for reacting to what mcurtis was saying, with what seemed to me little regard for what he was saying. I said yesterday that I incorrectly assumed that everyone knew what he was saying. But now that I have clearly stated what seemed to me the obvious thrust of the comments, it seems not to matter, with your perhaps being an exception. At the time, it seemed to me a given that comments like those would be seen by everyone as out of bounds, but now it seems to me that this might not be the case at all.
And, frankly, I should perhaps not be surprised by this, either, but I am going to refrain from suggesting a theory for why that might be the case. My main point was simply to note that mcurtis has now been here and seen my explanation of his comments, and he did not deny it, so each ATiMer should review the affair with that in mind.
LikeLike
qb- Thanks for the clarification. My impression is that relatively few people took interest at any time. Of those who did, it seems that more have taken interest in what mcurtis said and have agreed with your criticism of those comments than have not. I will say that I think we do tend to committ the same error as referees in that we see the reaction and respond to that rather than the initiating event. I also think you received the response you did because, as one of the original members of this blog, we hold you to a higher standard than someone who just started here a week ago. I’m not saying it is fair, but I think that has played a role in some of the responses you recieved. I don’t know what your theory is and to be frank, I don’t particularly care, but I would just caution you from drawing too many conclusions from these events.
As you recall, there was a similar incident several months ago after a post made by yelo. Since then, I think we can agree that yelo has been a good contributor here. Likewise, ruk also made a splash upon first posting here. It simply appears that there is a transition period for new posters coming from blogs with a different tenor and modus operendi. While I’m not suggesting we should not call out offensive posts simply because someone is new, I am saying this has happened before and we moved on and continued to have good discussions. I think we can do so again.
Also, maybe we should add a new paragraph to our code of conduct specifically addressed to new posters since this does appear to be a bit of a trend.
LikeLike
kw,
No, I think you made yourself very clear.
Thanks.
LikeLike
You are very welcome.
See, isn’t it better when we observe a little decorum?
LikeLike
I asked Keven to contact me on Facebook.
For one, I in now way was comparijng anyone to holocaust deniers. They have been the bane of my existence for over 30 years. My attitudes towards bigotry, racism and stereotypes was founded on the study of the holocaust and the insuing trials. If I was going to accuse QB of being like them I would not even hint at it. So, agan for the fifth time, I think, I made no comparison or accusation.
History in a trial room is a tactic that many use in debates. David Hackett Fischer (a very fine historian) wrote a book called Historical Fallacies and commented on legal trial evidence and historical evidence. He made the clear point that historical evidence for an event relies on far more care and extensive evidence than does a criminal trial or even a civil suit. This was one miinor point I had to pick with Kevin. This was what I was responding to. It is coincidence that there is a “Holocaust on Trial” as well as a website devoted to the David Irving Trial. Sometimes there are not new phrases to use. Shrug. FWIW, I was involved with the Harry Mazal group in providing Lipstadt with evidence concerning Irving’s histories. That was a long time ago.
Now I do not know what else to say. I suppose I can keep telling QB that I insinuated nothing and I do not, repeat, do not hint. If I’m going to make an accusation it is direct. My online history is right out there on Nizkor ftp archives and in google groups. My style is there as well.
If there is going to be no allowance given by QB, and if I have to simply just ignore him I can do that.
Thanks,
Mike Curtis
LikeLike
mcurtis: I am all for letting bygones be bygones, and have noted that I believe QB has your “real racists” comment entirely backwards, to the point where it seem to be an almost intentional misunderstanding.
That being said, the most charitable reading of your bit about denying history is that it was an absurdly bad choice of words to make a point that still ends up suggesting QB is the company of holocaust deniers and is “putting history on trial”. I would suggest you review that bit again, and think about how it might sound to almost any other human being, other than yourself. You have the context of your own mind and intentions; nobody else can have that. Then I suggest you acknowledge how it would read to almost anybody, and apologize. You don’t have to, that’s just a suggestion. It’s what I would do.
Then refer to the just appended Rule#6 in Rules of Engagement. If you feel it necessary to introduce Nazis or Holocaust Deniers into the conversation, think very hard and write very carefully. Otherwise, even folks who don’t respond like QB aren’t going to be particularly receptive to your larger point.
LikeLike
To summarize, all from mcurtis’s own statements save for point six, which is public record:
–mcurtis is a professional historian.
–He reads a lot of history.
–He takes pride in his “craft” of history, and takes attacks on his practice of his craft personally.
–He has battled Holocaust deniers and supremicists for 30 years; they are the bane of his existence.
–He was involved in providing evidence to Deborah Lipstadt for her famous libel trial against Holocaust denier David Irving.
–Her book about this experience is called History on Trial, a phrase that has for many years been freighted with meaning in the arena of Holocaust denial.
–mcurtis wrote the following comment in a thread in which he had been commenting about his long history battling Holocaust deniers and their like:
This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
–But in doing so, he had no idea that he was using words that connoted Holocaust denial or saying anything that could be construed as a comparison to it.
If that is not an amazing string of bullshit, I’ve never seen one.
LikeLike
Dude, you’re turning into Ethan2010. You may not see it, but it’s very frustrating to watch. It’s one thing to have a legitimate grievance, which you do, and another to use it as a cudgel to beat about the head and shoulders not only your nemesis, but everybody else in the process.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you will accept nothing. Is this what I’m understanding?
I can’t unwrap all your twisting and assumptions.
So I’ll ask, in light of lessons learned, what can *I* do?
LikeLike
Can this get much deeper?
mcurtis was (is?) a commenter at Deborah Lipstadt’s blog, where he even haggled with a commenter over his involvement with her case and the fact that he isn’t mentioned in her book, History on Trial.
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2009/02/reader-pernicious-book-and-movie.html.
In answer to your question, mcurtis, really it doesn’t matter to me. I really don’t care what you do, whether you go or stay. I truly don’t. You didn’t contest a single factual point I made here, and they make your protestations of innocence farcical. Lowly lawyer that I am, my bs detector can be set on “Low” and still see your denial for what it is. So, no, there’s nothing that is going to convince me that up is down or left is right, but it shouldn’t matter to you, because I won’t be dealing with you.
LikeLike
From your link, QB:
“I even helped some with Lipstadt’s trial, as best I could, against Irving.”
You: Good for you, but if Curtis is your real name, I cannot find it in the index of History On Trial.
Not everyone get credit by name. A group of us collected information for Mr. Mazal. How it was used or ever used, I don’t know.
Is this the what you are referring to when you say he even haggled with a commenter over his involvement with her case and the fact that he isn’t mentioned in her book, History on Trial?
If so, that seems an absurd interpetation of what occurred.
LikeLike
I’m not in her book. I’m a small fry. I contributed to the data via research. If I said I was in her book, then I said something incorreclty.
LikeLike
Kevin, with all due respect I’ve apologized now 5 or six times. I get nada from QB. I may have mangled the tiral stuff and I did explain it above. So enough is enough. I’ve grovelled enough.
LikeLike
mcurtis: Apologies are for what you do, not what you’re going to get in return. Just saying’. And, to me, it sounded like you were making excuses. Qualified apologies are, to many, AINOs. That is, “Apologies in Name Only”.
To refer back: This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
I don’t see the spin there. You said what you said. I’m willing to drop it (happy to, in fact), but you have to see why some folks would not consider that anything but an intentional comparison between Quarterback The Friendly Lawyer™ and neo-Nazis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps it was accidental, but it does not look accidental.
Still, I might be wrong. I’m certainly willing to drop it, and move forward. I’m not a fan of toting baggage everywhere, in case I haven’t made that clear. 😉
Let by bygones be bygones, say I.
LikeLike
I want to clarify something here. I am not looking for any apologies from mcurtis. Sorry if that has been unclear or if it has been assumed.
After what should be a busy afternoon, I think what I will do is email Kevin and others to say what I anticipate is my last word on this. My tolerance level is exceeded, and I’m not going to continue the public exchange. Had enough. I will let people who need to know know and leave it at that.
LikeLike
MIke – I think you’ve handled this well. The original thread, well, no. If you want to discuss further, email me at my handle @gmail.com.
I am deeply amused that reference to court decision meant that QB was accused of being a denier. Yet, liberals are supposed to ignore any coded statements coming from Republican candidates. Folks-you can’t have it both ways. You either take matters literally or accept that there are some dog whistles out there. I can’t say as I give a damn which way you go. Just go one way or the other.
BB
LikeLike
I lost a post with a backspace!!!
Well, Kevin, my first was better. QB isa taking on a lot of fodder all by himself.
My human failure was not to expand on a point where I was not getting anywhere.
Oh, I recall, there are a slew of historical denial. The Japanese and Nanking. The turks and their genocide. People actually defend Mao and Stalin! That just scratches the surface.
My point, if I’m allowed it, is that evidence for an historcal event is far more concise and extensive than that used in any trial. That’s the gist. No digs at lawyers and no digs on QB.
Of all the posts we we now wilttle it down to that and I’ve explained it until I’m blue in the face.
Okay, serious, for the X to pick a number time. I did not mean at all what QB took away from that. I apologize sincerely. If I could repeat John Clease as he hung out the window I would.
LikeLike
Slippery, but if you don’t see QBs interpretation of
This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
. . . as not only being reasonable, but perhaps the most sensible way to interpret it (not his reaction, per se, but interpretation) , I’m not sure what to say. Of course, I’ve ended up there with explanations from my teenager on more than one occasion, too. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin,
I’m an old guy. The context of the statement is exaclty as I have tried very hard to explain it. With me I follow from post to post and often the comments of others feed into my replies for I try to not address one person. It causes all kinds of trouble and the “you” word is very bad in the way I used it. I also spell poorly. 🙂
This group is not a court and I did not like the third degree.
Yes, the last part was mostly anger and being subjected to this third degree and being personally trashed rather than having my posts addressed. We all break and when we do we pause and try and think through a response.
I have been attacked in just this manner on these other groups. Exactly. So the reminder was a real one. To say, IMO, that he reminded of those folks and their tactics was NOT to say he was one of them. I thought through this for a while.
I need to address the word and I thought I was doing that. I failed I guess.
If what it takes then I do apologize to QB, whom I do not know, for making such an implication. It was not my intent.
LikeLike
I have been attacked in just this manner on these other groups. Exactly. So the reminder was a real one. To say, IMO, that he reminded of those folks and their tactics was NOT to say he was one of them.
This is always a bad idea, IMO. That sort of I’m not saying your X while accusing you of X-like tactics tends not to communicate well with the intended audience.
I thought through this for a while.
Not enough, then. I still argue it was a bad idea, and urge anyone to find another way to make that point. I was not urging you to apologize to QB, specifically, unless you want to. He has already gone on record saying he wasn’t looking for an apology. My point is that his was a very fair interpretation of that statement, and if it’s not what you meant then you probably should have said something else, but, like I said.
The Parson Weems reference, from me, was in regards to your comparison of standards of proof for law courts versus the recording of history. Let’s just say, while such comparisons may have value, everything has strengths and weaknesses and “mine is better than yours” (whether that’s how you mean it) fails, IMO, to add to the conversation. Could be wrong. In any case, I’m good.
LikeLike
I do not get the Parson Weems thing. Parson Weems was generating histories for Americans that gave the country a hisotry even if it was false. It didn’t matter. He did not write about Washington but a slew of others and he sold those books house-to-house and possibly by subscription. (See “Regeneration by Violence” for these topics on American mythology including F. Cooper.)
So you might explain what the reference means. I do not think of Parson Weems in any other way other than as I’ve said.
LikeLike
Kevin:
Now, hopefully, everybody is pissed off at me,
I wasn’t until you started shilling for threaded comments.
LikeLike
They are not bad if you’re coming to a closed thread (for the most part). Seriously. But, I reiterate my wish that it was a preference, and that individual users could set how they want to read their comments: threaded or not, or old-to-new or new-to-old. And then that preference would just stick with their account.
LikeLike
KW, you probably have to try harder to make everyone mad at you, but I will nit a few picks with you just so you feel you got a good, bracing run.
From the guy who is routinely accused of not actually being a lawyer?
Yes, although I didn’t say he wasn’t. I’ve had one concrete historical debate with mcurtis, in which he dropped in on someone to tell him he was wrong on a point of history and could prove it. It turned out he was wrong, but he responded to the conclusive disproof of his claim by simply attacking me. I’ve been around this block.
I will, once again, go on record as being opposed to statements, directed at others, that presume to have knowledge of experience or credentials of said others that you cannot, in most likelihood, actually have.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. I was not speculating about mcurtis’s claimed vocation. He has declared it. Indeed, I’m surprised you didn’t notice that he objected to disagreement with him as “attacks on [his] craft.”
In any event, I note that you omitted the rest of what I said, which was advice to let his knowledge speak for itself. When I discuss complex legal issues, I try to show it, not just declare it on my authority.
This seems entirely fair. [re Gingrich and white welfare majority]
If you ignore the salient facts on which Newt’s comments are premised, which are proportionate poverty and dependency. Now, why would someone like mcurtis ignore that in his slanders against Newt?
Nothing against your profession, but this seems like a very dubious claim to me. Parson Weems begs to differ.
You skipped right over his thinly veiled comparison of me to Holocaust deniers, which was right there in the preceding sentence. Well, actually, it isn’t veiled at all. It’s explicit, unless you want to indulge a belief that denial of history and putting history on trial refer to something else. Here it is again:
This is not a court and to say that you have lawyer’s training remind me of people who deny a certan history think they can put history on trial.
The goal is to get off the ledge, not urge them to jump. In my opinion.
The guy had just compared me to …. see above. I don’t think saying I thought he was done here was unreasonable at all. I think it’s sad that no other admin said something equivalent. I draw a line at being helpful to people who start saying things like this.
Apropos of your point about mcurtis getting a Madison quote backwards, this seems to me to be the opposite (at least, the way your phrased it) of what mcurtis specifically said.
The less derogatory interpretation is that he simply said I act the same as a real racist. For not accepting his claims about “dog whistles” and such.
criticize both the insinuation of the statement (as I said, I don’t like those “I have secret knowledge of you and also, I dismiss your credentials, or contrast them unfavorably to mine” methods of substance-free justification for whatever argument) and your poo-pooing mcurtis’s professional historian resume.
I’m afraid you completely missed the point, kw, his point. His point in seizing upon my reference to being a lawyer was not to challenge lawyers or my being one, but to say that I am like Holocaust deniers who “put history on trial.”
My point about mcurtis’s claims of authority and expertise was not to deny that he is a “historian” at all, but to say he would be better off letting his expertise speak for itself.
LikeLike
Just one last note about all this. Perhaps I was naive to assume that people would recognize phrases like “history on trial” even in the context of that thread. As I said somewhere above, Google the term if you want, and I will wager that mcurtis’s meaning will suddenly start to become more clear.
Here is an example:
There probably are few more loaded terms that someone could have used that way, and how he did put a twist on it.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t buy it. You’ll find it at Half-Price if you really want it. Richard Evens book is far better for it deals in detail about evidence and the misuse of evidence.
History on trial, QB, is a phrase coincidental with what I was saying about evidence required in a court vs. evidence used to present an historical event. See my David Hackett Fischer reference above.
Also, again for the 6th time, if I was going to accuse you of holocaust denial, I would have to have clear evidence to make such a serious accusation. You have presented nothing that would warrant such an accusation or even an assumption leading to fact. I know these people and you are not they. I, for the life of me have no idea how you worked your way into this. However, it is not so and that you would even get a hint of the such a thing from my words, I’m very sorry.
LikeLike
FWIW, I think this is a reasonable explanation of an alternative to QB’s interpretation of your comments. I appreciate this comment.
Stick around.
LikeLike
Mark, I’m doing my best. I have obvious baggage and a past I can’t shed. So I carry my experiences around with me when such discussions arise concerning racism. It’s a fire topic for me. Reading about Genocides and the causes of them as well as social experiments in psychology do worry me. Yet, I admit to making huge mistakes by using such a strong word as racism. I was trying to say that it was too strong a word when I was describing stereotypes. It’s all imossible to unwrap right now. But I’m at a total loss as to why QB is so intent on being burned about me. I’m learning that the thing to do here is to just stay out of his way. I think this is what he wants? I’m asking. I’m not sure. This isn’t an attack. I just want to know.
LikeLike
mcurtis, given thought, I have added a 6th rule to the Rules of Engagement. Please see. Otherwise, proceed apace.
LikeLike
I think it insults me. I do not think it is needed. All you have to say is not to reference or discuss that history at all to me. I’ll drop it always.
LikeLike
Kevin,
On second reading it’s okay, but you need to add things for accusations can be made using other fighting words.
Why don’t you use “take issue with the psot and not the person.”
LikeLike
Right now, if I can get a little bit of thoughtfulness before bringing up Nazis, I’ll consider it a win and take my victory lap. In the interim, that’s a good idea. Normally that’s what we do, the last few days, perhaps, being an exception.
LikeLike
No problem with that. In my defense I was responding to why I saw things as I do about racism and I was trying to explain. Poorly, probably for I’m trying to leave all that stuff behind me.
LikeLike
Like KW, and I think Ashot, I had to read a bunch of stuff I had passed over to understand your response to mcurtis, QB. But then I did read and comprehend.
I get not giving an inch to someone you do not respect. So does Ashot, I am sure. As Ashot said, Scott was picture perfect in response when he got there. The previous night, I had laid out for mcurtis why he did not get to tell other folks not to use the phrase “wealth distribution”, and then Scott and I put on a demonstration of how a contested dialogue is entered into for the purpose of persuasion [immodesty intended].
You are perfectly capable of this, and have called me to sharpen my thinking on issues of interest to us both on several occasions, with good cause. So while in retrospect I understand your reaction to mcurtis, and would have if I had been reading closely and contemporaneously, I did not understand your volatility with LMS. I hope that is behind us.
LikeLike
The funny thing is, many of the themes in that thread had been touched upon in the previous thread I started about internalized racism. Prejudice is probably a better term. For those who don’t remember (or are new), I wrote about an experience I had shortly after college. I felt nervous walking past a community youth center with a group of black kids standing outside. That thread was a much better one, even if it was a bit narcissistic and self-congratulatory. 😉
I wish that mcurtis could have stayed around or realized that he was on a ledge. Then again, I would hope that a newbie take a bit of time to feel things out before pulling out Napalm Number Nine.
BB
LikeLike
Yes, prejudice is better term. I just couldn’t find it in my head at the time.
LikeLike
Wow. That was…amazing.
LikeLike
Hey shrink. Thanks for stopping by…don’t mind our mess. We have some other lovely rooms for you to take a look at. 😉
LikeLike
Thank you (and that’s quite funny).
LikeLike
shrink,
How nice to run into an old acquaintance here!
LikeLike
Hi shrink.
LikeLike
Hi there. It is good to see practically everybody I respected from the PL working on this project. That morning report/economic news guy is great.
Say LMS, does margaretmeyers know about ATIM? She posted at the fix this am, she is a wonderful intellect and person too?
LikeLike
Shrink! You’ve arrived just in time to see me go nuclear. It’ll be a real treat. Please refer to the Rules of Engagement, including the just appended Godwin Rule (Rule#6).
LikeLike
Hi shrink, as you can see we’re still a work in progress and probably always will be. I don’t read comments at the fix so I’m not familiar with her. I do think that right now as we’re adjusting to welcoming new members already, we might want to hold off on inviting anyone else for the time being. And I would not want to be the one doing the inviting in any case….lol.
LikeLike
There is no… rule six!
LikeLike
Oh you would love her, she is astute and as well mannered as MsJS and that is such a high bar. No worries, sometimes I feel bad for the lost Fix souls. But this (apart from the obvious form break) is really looking up, you should be proud. If I were here I’m sure I’d cause one form break after another, but I am sincere when I say you should be proud of what you’re doing.
LikeLike
She’s still fairly active over at Fix Aficionados. There’s a few ex-FA’ers here.
BB
LikeLike
Hi, shrink. Good to see you!
LikeLike
I miss you all, gotta go. Not really, but I don’t want to be a distraction. slater
LikeLike
Again with the drive-by. 😉
LikeLike
This is what I get for having to do bench work today and not be at my computer–I missed shrink’s drive-by (*waving* Hi, shrink!) but I do get to witness Kevin going KT nuclear (that’s a little one, Kevin. . . if I ever see you go MT nuclear I’ll probably need a new computer!). I hope that everyone stays.
One of the things that I’ve learned over the last couple of days, both reading comments here, on TTWMNBN, and e-mails with Scott is that we all often assign meanings to what people have posted that are not at all what the poster intended. This is, on my part especially, often caused by reading something too fast, assuming that you know exactly (1) what the other person is thinking, (2) they will know exactly what you’re thinking as you compose your response, and (3) they will know what tone of voice you’re hearing as you type your comment. Usually none of that is true.
I assigned meanings to a couple of things that Scott and McWing said which were not what they were intending, and I responded poorly. I’m sorry; I’ll do my best to not do it again. . . although undoubtedly I’ll slip sooner or later, so somebody call me out when I do. 🙂
Back to the bench. . .
LikeLike
I noted elsewhere, and will again, that when typing stuff on a comment section, the people who will be reading what we write do not share the context of our thoughts and feelings and intentions at the time. Thus, clarification is our friend.
LikeLike
i find this extended explainations kinda hard to follow, but i agree with the motto. if it is permitted, i would honored to be allowed to join in.
LikeLike
Sure, Karla, welcome!
I’d suggest that you check out the “Rules of Engagement” and “FAQ” pages at the top; they should explain most of what you’ll need to know, and the “About ATiM” page will tell you our context.
LikeLike
It appears that everyone involved has now moved on or expressed a willingness to move on. Let’s accept those offers, learn from what happened and move on.
Karla- Please do join and contribute. We hope you enjoy your stay!
LikeLike
Oh! 🙂
LikeLike
FWIW i have a new post up on the ACA
LikeLike
[…] separate posts by Mich, the first of which alone had the 3rd highest number of comments (252), and the second of which was nearly 70% as long as the first (176), combining for a total 428 comments. I believe […]
LikeLike