When you offer an uninformed opinion as fact, others should have the latitude to extrapolate.
Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
When you offer an uninformed opinion as fact, others should have the latitude to extrapolate.
I love how these discussions so often devolve into a discussion of how to construct an argument rather than a discussion of the actual points being argued.
Didn't it originally have something to do with the some of the clothing that Jay-z wears to Nets games? I don't think any actual pictures were ever posted, so it's tough to offer any sort of opinion, racist or otherwise.
Didn't it originally have something to do with the some of the clothing that Jay-z wears to Nets games? I don't think any actual pictures were ever posted, so it's tough to offer any sort of opinion, racist or otherwise.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
my posts over the past three pages have been dedicated to this.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
that's because there are a assload of dudes around here who are dogmatic as ****, so you have to ram into their principles all day long.
For a case in point, see the immediately above.
Last edited:
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
alrighty then
Last edited:
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];819544 said:
I don't engage franklin directly because, for me, it isn't worth it. But I attempt to discuss things and engage with everyone else (ignore list aside).
Lol, you don't have to "ram" anything. If you want my thoughts on something then ask.
Nice of you to use an exception as your argument though.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
franklin is definitely one of the smartest dudes around here (both in terms of bball and general discussion). It's too bad you don't see the signposts in his humor which direct you to his true motivations, because, if you did, you'd see he is more engaging than most.
link? irony?
Is using an "exception" as "an argument" against the orthodoxy you believe should be practiced while participating in conversation? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but why shouldn't we do it that way?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];819569 said:
Franklin is smart. He has many good posts. But direct engagement between him and I holds no value to me in my opinion. So I read his posts but don't engage him.
Feel free to use that exception as your argument. Just understand it's the exception and not the rule. At least the intention is to engage others.
Willie
Member
I'll jump back into the stream here. Stoked, what is this "rule" you speak of? I know you are a man with great respect for rules, so I'm interested in what it might be, because I don't see one. It seems like Triangle Man may also know what the rule is, so he should feel free to answer this question, too.
As for this stuff about racism, I'll be brief.
It's naive to think we can behold each man for what he truly is and thereby suffer him not any single shortsightedness whatsoever. There is no such thing as this bare perception, just as there is no such thing as a universal dispassionate ethics which we might apply to him if we saw him so, just as there is no essential self in others for us to behold. Anyway, the very premise of seeing the individual, and then conjuring some personal act of our own after having judged him, is broken. This is already a liberal conceit. It already betrays a prejudice towards the likes of perceiving a man.
The modern form of racism is a real thing that has been borne and carried along by the last 500 years, and has been punctuated by several particularly brutal epics. It's naive to think that it's gone or fading, just as it's naive to think it hasn't change during this time. I dont spend much time pondering the stupid question of whether it has increased or decreased in some quantitative sense. Rather, I am concerned about our unwillingness to talk about the aggressive forms it's currently taking, and by the present roll-back of corrective measures being executed by a proud history-lite set of governors and legislators.
I don't let the differences I immediately perceive in each man lead me to judging him in some essential way. I always stop short of phrases like, "he IS this sort or person." Instead, I let difference itself convince me that he has a very different perspective on the world, and I'd be better off if I figured out what it was as we engaged in some collective effort (even if that is just a conversation, or a walk across his land or mine). Difference should be a cause for excitement, not paranoia and rules. In fact, each interaction is an invitation to re-write every rule there is. Even though I did not come up through a prejudiced community, it'd be dishonest to say that it didn't take work for me to shed the prejudicial weight of our whole society. If you dont think that the history of racism is alive and affecting you, I've been convinced you're wrong.
As for this stuff about racism, I'll be brief.
It's naive to think we can behold each man for what he truly is and thereby suffer him not any single shortsightedness whatsoever. There is no such thing as this bare perception, just as there is no such thing as a universal dispassionate ethics which we might apply to him if we saw him so, just as there is no essential self in others for us to behold. Anyway, the very premise of seeing the individual, and then conjuring some personal act of our own after having judged him, is broken. This is already a liberal conceit. It already betrays a prejudice towards the likes of perceiving a man.
The modern form of racism is a real thing that has been borne and carried along by the last 500 years, and has been punctuated by several particularly brutal epics. It's naive to think that it's gone or fading, just as it's naive to think it hasn't change during this time. I dont spend much time pondering the stupid question of whether it has increased or decreased in some quantitative sense. Rather, I am concerned about our unwillingness to talk about the aggressive forms it's currently taking, and by the present roll-back of corrective measures being executed by a proud history-lite set of governors and legislators.
I don't let the differences I immediately perceive in each man lead me to judging him in some essential way. I always stop short of phrases like, "he IS this sort or person." Instead, I let difference itself convince me that he has a very different perspective on the world, and I'd be better off if I figured out what it was as we engaged in some collective effort (even if that is just a conversation, or a walk across his land or mine). Difference should be a cause for excitement, not paranoia and rules. In fact, each interaction is an invitation to re-write every rule there is. Even though I did not come up through a prejudiced community, it'd be dishonest to say that it didn't take work for me to shed the prejudicial weight of our whole society. If you dont think that the history of racism is alive and affecting you, I've been convinced you're wrong.
Last edited:
lol. you read way to much into it. Have you never heard that phrase before? All I was saying is that I don't directly engage Franklin. I at least try to engage anyone else. That's it.
Stoked has 19,022 post that have failed to engage anyone on any level.
Still got about 5k to go till I reach your level of uselessness.
Willie
Member
Of course I've heard the phrase, and I'm aware of what it means. I'm also aware that you used it when discussing something with fixed, so I'm not sure what franklin his to do with it. Ok, goodnight!
He wanted to use the discourse between Franklin and I to prove a point and I pointed out that my responses to franklin where unique in nature. Not symbolic of how I engage anyone else. Fixed brought franklin into this. (Something he can certainly do)
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
boring
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I'm confident that my posts contain plenty of good material for (a) getting to the point of the main discussion, and (b) discussion in-and-of themselves. What's gotten boring is the process of you and Spazz continually interjecting your opinions on how discussion in general should play out, rather than offering anything genuinely felt about the specific issue at hand. All conversations become Cynic and Vanilla.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
but, hey, I can't complain too much, because interrupting the boredom you guys instill is sorta my avatar's goal. I'd have to drop this account if you guys weren't around.