[eDebate] this just in-i may be a racist that loves pie
Thu Mar 20 18:22:58 CDT 2008
This is one of the more disappointing lines of discussion I?ve
seen on edebate in a long time. It?s also
emblematic of many problems with leftist critique, and a great example of how
people who typically believe or think amongst radical or leftist lines can
reinforce thinking that encourages rampant conservatism.
Watching someone get a pie in the face is hilarious. Now it might not be hilarious in all
instances, but damn it?s usually pretty
funny. I?m not concerned with those who
are against the threat of physical assault in debate. I think it?s obvious we should be free from
harm, and there are a number of existing avenues (see: the law) that prevent one from assaulting
another. I would, however, like to
address the comments of Snider, Harlow, and
To say that getting a pie to the face somehow implicates
KCKCC in racism might be one of the biggest stretches in argument I?ve ever
heard (and keep in mind I was a dirty K debater). There is nothing inherently racist about
putting a pie in someone?s face. There
is something inherently funny, but nothing racist.
Now I understand none of you are saying that pies are racist;
it?s all about context. Because the
debater was arguing that debate was racist, and the pie didn?t take that
argument seriously. The pie demeans the argument, excludes it from
consideration, and therefore upholds a system of white supremacy. In fairness
to Megan the statement that it?s a white supremacist action is Andy?s:
?I like Tuna would be willing to listen, though what i have
seen so far indicates that this was a straight act of white supremacy at first
inflicting symbolic violence on those who may try to challenge the racial
ordering of the status quo.?
There is nothing about that statement that makes sense to
me. First, the pie argument is
considered a strategy for resistance.
While I think that?s dumb, it?s still an argument that some academics
and leftists have written about. For you
to discount it as a sophomoric action meant to demean an entire race and
exclude them from the debate round reeks of a dangerous ignorance. You are implying that there is both no value
in KCKCC?s argument and that because it disagrees with the precepts of team
fighting against racism it is obviously racist. If you are not with us, you are
And why is it that it demeans their argument? So far it seems that anyone who argues a team
should be topical or presents an alternate strategy for resistance is racist
because they disagree with their opponents.
There are plenty of academics that support doing things like laughing at
social issues, or maintaining silence in the face of oppression. Now you say any debater that takes up such an
issue is a white supremacist. So your
reaction enact the same ivory tower exclusion from the left instead of the
right. This makes it so easy for me to
explain to my students why the leftist project has been an abysmal failure over
the last 40 years.
None of this even speaks to the fact that this was done in a
competitive forum. The three judges will
decide a winner and a loser. Someone?s
argument will be deemed superior. If
someone reads a K that says the oppressed should maintain silence in the face
of white power, and the other team doesn?t win any of their defenses of the
strategy to scream in the face of oppression, am I a racist when I say we
should be silent? I have concluded that
the strategy of the aff is not valuable, and that we should in fact do the
opposite. That seems to meet your
threshold for white supremacy.
I did vote your team down earlier in the tournament because
I concluded that switch side debate alleviated most of their concerns. I?m probly racist, the rest of my family
is. Of course the next round I voted aff
on framework because they won that the neg?s framework argument was
sexist. So I have that going for me.
You all also seem to hold this assumption that the community
has extreme animosity toward critical affirmatives that don?t endorse the
resolution. First off your team was in
finals (congratulations) so the community must be somewhat open. Second, while the community might not be as
open as you?d like, it?s by no means as exclusionary as you say. It really depends on the judge you have in
the back of the room. This is true now
and will remain so throughout eternity.
The only way to prevent judges from being exclusionary is to create
rules (rules that for instance say if you pie someone in the face it?s an
autoloss). We could certainly do
that. We could have a million rules that
ensure that anyone who tries to overtly exclude an argument should lose. Of course that itself is a form of exclusion. Once again the left deploys the strategy of
the right and then wonders why it doesn?t do a gd thing to fix the problem.
You can personalize debate all you want, but it?s a
competitive forum. Your opponents are
going to try to defeat you no matter what you say. I like Megan and Andy a lot (even Tuna : ), and
I understand their frustration because of what they perceive as a structural
problem in debate. The solution is not
to call people racist every time they disagree with you. At its heart I think that?s exactly what?s
being done in this pie discussion.
We can have talks about all the problems in debate that
perpetuate racism. But those talks won?t
be productive if everyone who disagrees is racist. And honestly Andy there is nothing in your
post that provides a solid reason these kids are racist other than they didn?t
take the argument seriously enough for you.
I deeply disagree with both of you because I feel that regulating
morality is a quick path to things even worse than racism.
Oh this is too long as it is, but the rest of this can be
discussed in person as we are all at CEDA now.
I?d like to end on this:
these were 2 kids in a debate. I am sorry that they?ve had to listen to
this over the last few days, and have others call them white supremacists. They are good guys, and I don?t think they
are white supremacists by any means. I?m
surprised they aren?t demanding an apology but for 2 young debaters I
understand they might not have the gumption to do such a thing. KCKCC you can still pref me, so can anyone
else who wants me to evaluate, not exclude, their arguments. Sometimes I vote the K on on T, sometimes I vote
for the policy team on T.
Pies are hilarious.
They are also delicious.
Excluding arguments is bad. It?s not nice to intimidate young people
with your political perspective. O?doyle
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman