[eDebate] Josh's refusal to see his cultural difference
Sat Apr 12 23:45:42 CDT 2008
You keep saying I'm done, then post again. You were civil, that's conceded. You feel my response was not justified, I got that too. I'll even concede that civility is one of two concerns I do have about respect in a dialogue or advocacy process. Credibility of the arguments advanced is the other, especially when making claims to stop the discussion as you did.
Your choice to pretend that you have any evidence that supports more travel means more diversity and that should justify ignoring other efforts at diversity like examining community norms was, is and will be non-existent. Can you find the word diversity or proof of who travels if more people travel in the Rogers article? Rogers in fact has written many articles about increasing diversity by examining community norms. In fact, he did a study on judge's bias when it comes to race as just one example. But that's not the study you chose to bring to this discussion, now is it?
From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:"edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 4/13/2008 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Josh's refusal to see his cultural difference
I will answer this ONCE....Thats it, I am done until there is some form of apology. I was nothing but civil to you.
I have always authentically liked you and enjoyed our discussions. You can call it whatever you want but in 6 years of arguing with each other you entered a new level of disrespect...NOT because I said ONE thing bad about you (I actually said much the opposite even in response after the fact) but rather because you got angry with my point of view. You turned that into an insulting and belittling attack on my education (or relative lack thereof), my coaching, and me as a human being. I dont care what culture you claim membership in your explanation isnt going to fool anyone. You let your temper get the best of you and took your anger out on me.
Now, I prefaced all of my posts with requests for people to read the content of your recommendations for debate (more courtesy then you have accorded me at any point in this discussion).
EW: For you, respect is about civility and tone. If these elements exist, it is clear that any argument can be forwarded and deserves the right to be engaged by responding in kind, with a civil tone. That for you, is productive conversation. And for the majority of the 1,100 folks on this list, it is likely that they too, have a similar expectation of conversation.
JBH: So do you, you have asked for this same level of civility many times in edebate arguments with people other than me, In particular, I stopped referring to you as Ede (familiarity) and exclusively referred to you as Doctor Warner (out of respect).
EW: For you, tone and civility are the keys to respectful dialogue, but for me, the argument sets that tone just as much if not more. Can't you see that generations of historical differences in "power" relationships create the different tones. Blacks anger in conversation comes from a history of powerless, whether we are talking about the lack of wealth, political power, or even the ability to speak safely and freely in a classroom. White civility comes from having that historical privilege and power. So when an opportunity to discuss an argument grows out of what was essentially a mobilization of shared Black experiences in debate on the listserv that crossed debate ideology, can't you see that someone using a nice tone, but threatening that moment by moving the agenda, would be seen as 1) disrespectful; and 2) a threat.
JBH: I have been talking with you for a long time....Something changed...I am sure I have made you plenty mad before (you actually kind of threatened a fight once) this was different. If what you say is 100% true it either belies years of using a different method of communication or you are a bit over the edge.
In addition, these were entirely seperate discussions - in point of fact, I left your posts more of less entirely alone...I had a discussion with Deven and a discussion with Rashad and started a third thread. Not sure how I hijacked an agenda or disrespected you.....
A threat is an interesting choice of terms. What if what I wrote was true? Should you muckrake to cover the truth up? Obfuscate it so nobody listens? Bully, insult, and belittle my credibility in order for nobody to ever see what I wrote....Those are fascist methods and you are better than that. If I am wrong, disprove my argument...That is what we do Doctor Warner, I dont care who we are - if we forget that, we have nothing.
EW: Can you not see that the onus or responsibility to attempt to change that agenda required "on fire" evidence, and wouldn't be easily resisted without a fight? Perhaps you can't, because for you, tone is respect, and arguments, well they are separate from tone. Fair enough
JBH: I think my evidence must have been semi-on point given your reaction. I will concede that it is correlative (programs decline, people decreasing, budgets decreasing) but at least it was a study....In my mind I was not hijacking anything....It does seem to me the idea that there might be proof that decline is more related to economics than choice not to participate is one you are not prepared to consider.
EW: When I was growing up, it didn't matter how nice and civil you are where when you told a "your mama" joke, them were fighting words. The argument or claim was key, not the tone. My wife and argue sometimes in ways that you might perceive as utterly frightening, yet for us, it's what we do, and accepted for what it is. I have had nastier, uglier fights with whites in completely civil tones than I've ever had with Blacks. Why? Cause most of the Blacks I know wouldn't get that far before it got physical.
JBH: Yes, but I suspect you overstated your case...I didnt even write a post referencing you and you went totally nuts. If I was talking to you and said something about you, your program, your quality of thought, or anything else go for it...I didnt.
EW: Your attempts to marginalize me and my arguments because you don't like my tone may well be effective in a predominately white listening audience.
JBH: Doctor Warner, white, black, green, red, straight, gay, woman or man arent buying this one absent lack of reading comprehension. When the first line of each letter says "PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CONTENT OF WHAT WARNER SAYS" you are going to have a really really hard time proving I, in any way, tried to marginalize you. The original post didnt even mention you and explicitly said both MONEY and FORM needed reform. The response post had a last paragraph lionizing you....Even todays post said please read what Doctor Warner had to say. Come on....get down of your cross and realize you way overreacted and then compounded the error by acting like I insulted you.
EW: But there are 1,100 of you and most are not personally offended at this moment. That at least gives me the chance to explain the cultural differences and hopefully, they can see the difference that you are unable to see. If your efforts to create me as the angry irrational Black man in an effort to ignore my criticism of your strategic move succeed, then congratulations, good for you. My hope and prayer is that this community has the critical thinking skills to see past that. Take care,
JBH: GIve me a break Doc Warner...This is getting silly, really? Your treatment of me was necessary to your message? Or is it that we need to break a few eggs to make an omelette. You arguments were NEVER marginalized...In fact, I said exactly the opposite....You should be ashamed of making this argument in this context.
Your arguments about debate are not crazy (please note I said this) your treatment of me was crazy...Thats not an attempt to label you a "crazy black man" its an attempt to say you, a human being, did not treat me with love, compassion, respect, collegiality, or even decency.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman