[eDebate] ans Warner
Wed Apr 9 16:16:42 CDT 2008
Mr. Love asked a question. I answered it conscientiously.
No one wants you to go away, Ede: just get out of the way.
I did not "attack" him. To the contrary, I offered a couple of invitations for co-participation, expressed my view that his concerns were important, and offered my public CONGRATULATIONS for winning CEDA Nationals. I didn't do any of those things unreservedly or unconditionally, however, nor will I.
Ede Warner has chosen to use my good-faith participation in a dialog which was solicited by Mr. Love as an opportunity for dishonest demagoguery. Ede, the reason almost no one will engage you in discussions of race is because you will not do so honestly. Here is an example of what I mean:
I never wrote nor intimated that Mr. Love did "nothing." Nor did I suggest that he did "little" or "not enough." The closest I came to such a sentiment was:
"Taken together, I do more than my fair share to "challenge the forms of domination and oppression." I don't do as much as some, of course, but I do more than YOU do. I know that's confrontational, but YOU capitalized the YOU first."
Ede's response was to create an effigy of my point which he proceeded to beat with a stick:
"When you assume that Dayvon does nothing..." and
"Dayvon chose to speak, is that doing something?" and
"Do you assume that sharing experiences is doing nothing?" and
"What about debating about things that are important to you, is that nothing?"
Ede Warner's response was dishonest. Rather than addressing my point, that I do more than my fair share, not as much as some, but MORE than Mr. Love, he set up a strawman and went to town.
I think that's because Mr. Warner refuses to acknowledge that many persons DO act against domination and oppression in this activity. Rather than acknowledge that what I do has merit and certainly before he concedes that what I do is even MORE than what Mr. Love does, Ede Warner claims that I wrote that Mr. Love does NOTHING.
I wrote that one way I challenge domination and oppression is that I challenge religiosity. I point out that religious belief often rests on a worldview which depends on believing in the reality of imaginary magical buddies. That initial deception, scam, and catastrophic failure of intellect is a foundational move underlaying domination and oppression.
The God-King, the Holy Emperor, the Tribal Witchdoctor, the Sacred Church, the Imam, the Right Reverend, and the High Father all sit in the center of the worst dominations and oppressions. Historically they are the foundational dominations and contemporaneously they are infused in many other oppressions. That is because they connive to put into a human mind the idea that the imaginary magical buddy has chosen some to rule, guide, teach, and decide. Racism and religiosity overlap each other, just as religiosity overlaps heteronormativity, sexism and patriarchy, and classism.
Ede Warner's answer is to excuse religiosity. He writes:
"That's funny Mike. My thing is race AND religion. You see I understand how those vested in slavery and segregation used religion as a coping mechanism for overcoming their ills."
I see. Just so you understand: your "religion good" argument is, for me, on a par with "racism good".
It comes to this: the local con artists who acquired power and wealth by scamming the oppressed into believing in an imaginary magical buddy and his imaginary magical heaven did a good thing.
and Ede writes:
"While I'm sure you have a superior alternative to suggest of what they "should have done", or what damage their focus on religion creates for Blacks today in their quest to address the legacy of slavery and segregation, I wonder what evidence grounds your beliefs. Or perhaps your challenge of religion operates ignorant of any of these experiences or uses for religion."
I tend to avoid the consequentialist fallacy: I don't much care either way whether belief in an imaginary magical buddy has good or bad consequences. It is enough for me that imaginary magical buddies don't exist. I am simple that way: you shouldn't believe that which is not so. The next step is pretty simple too: people who convince others to believe that which is false are doing so to dominate and oppress. Those who believe fervently in imaginary magical buddies have been thoroughly suborned by memes. That is bad quite apart from questions of whether they feel good about it or whether we can use them to move heavy objects around for us. Religiosity is a lot like ideology that way.
and Ede writes:
"Why do you believe that Dayvon's thing is his only thing? Why do you believe that he too doesn't think about religion as well? Because he talked to you about race? So you could in turn talk to him about religion?"
I don't think or believe any of those. I merely argued that his "thing" is racism while my "thing" is religion. I did not thus imply that it's either his or my only concern or that he and I don't think about anything else.
That part was 1 of 4 ways that I challenge domination and oppression. Which is what Mr. Love asked folks to list for him.
1. evidence and reasoning to challenge ideology
3. valuing individual persons rather than cohorts
4. Community College.
Ede interrogates: "What evidence do you use to assess the effectiveness of the things that you do to challenge oppression? Your beliefs? Study? None?"
The question was about what actions I take to challenge domination and oppression. I answered about what I do.
I am ultimately unsure of how effective those are, but that wasn't the question.
I have evidence that I am, in fact, an effective teacher and advocate. I teach 300 community college students a year. Funny that you asked but I just had my picture taken for a "Student Success" dinner because a student of mine selected me as contributing to her success. In any case, I do know that I have as much evidence for my effectiveness as you do for yours.
I mean... Ede... you have been in the challenging racism in debate business for a while now... Towson CL just won CEDA Nationals by making the argument that you have thus far utterly failed...
**** Serving Notice
Ede rants away:
"Dayvon, a 22 year old young man whose debate skills just won a national championship, will not have this edebate fight alone. No more attacks, criticisms, or challenges without being called out for the hypocrisy that follows each and every one of you that do so. This is called collective action, something your experiences may or may not understand. His cap's are pain and frustration with a system that people are complicit in, yours are attacks on his courageous choice to 1) share his experiences; 2) share his pain with an community that lacks any compassion to try and understand it because they are so caught up in defending the system by making illogical attacks that ignore the fact that you both are doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that you won't respect want he is doing, nor will you answer his question. Why? Because the true answer is very, very ugly and ceding to it requires change, and you have demonstrated change is something you aren't interested in. So keep attacking and attempting to dismiss his credibility through the fallacy of authority, and maybe he will go away. WE are not going away Mike."
Yeesh. Dishonest demagoguery. Mr. Love asked what WE did to challenge domination and oppression. I thought it an honest question and I took a chance in giving an honest answer. Then you showed up to do your thing. Not go away, just get out of the way.
Pack up or back up?use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman