Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Person 1 wants a diachronic study.
Person 2 wants a synchronic study.

Both are useful, are they not?

Not always. See above.


(and, for another discussion: there are plenty of valuable critiques out there about the follies of (a) the ways synchronic studies frame their object, (b) the misapprehension of time in diachronic studies, and (c) the problematic dualities of synchronic-diachronic studies)

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

fixed

not surprised to see you dismiss a moment when I'm actually engaging. Like you, I'll go back to trolling. Call me "BALANCE MAN".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Serious question here (I'm not just trying to be provocative, even though it sounds that way):

What value is there in asking someone to limit the historical sense they have of a concept?

This move is either saying, "your history is wrong" or "your history is right in many respects, but we can't handle too much context... the only hope we have is through parsimonious accounts."

One thing is certain, this move does nothing to enrich our understanding of the concept under investigation. The only value I can find is the precedence it gives to a certain method for evaluating things. This method has nothing to do with the concept; rather, it is a moral process of measuring things that comes in from elsewhere and starts governing the discussion.

Next srs question:
What value is there in this person interceding in this debate with his "general theory of evaluation"? What do we get out of this??

Less of limit the historical sense of a concept, and more of a balance of not letting it consume you. Know everything you can about history, nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you take steps back to see the big picture again before you start making changes. Getting so zoomed in you can often lose sight of how other things are affected by the one thing you are trying to "fix" while honed in on a topic.

You are not understanding what I am saying here obviously.

Looking at a history and topic from different viewpoints and with different lens can help in coming to the best solution of an issue.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

not surprised to see you dismiss a moment when I'm actually engaging. Like you, I'll go back to trolling. Call me "BALANCE MAN".

not dismissing, actually was a serious fix. If you want me to attach my name to it, that's fine.

Just pointing out there is another way to look at it.

Sorry if it offended you.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Not always. See above.


(and, for another discussion: there are plenty of valuable critiques out there about the follies of (a) the ways synchronic studies frame their object, (b) the misapprehension of time in diachronic studies, and (c) the problematic dualities of synchronic-diachronic studies)

I think that's being done in spades in this thread, don't you?

I already made mention of the extreme emic view One Brow seems to be taking in this thread, dismissing any etic viewpoint.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Less of limit the historical sense of a concept, and more of a balance of not letting it consume you. Know everything you can about history, nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you take steps back to see the big picture again before you start making changes. Getting so zoomed in you can often lose sight of how other things are affected by the one thing you are trying to "fix" while honed in on a topic.

You are not understanding what I am saying here obviously.

Looking at a history and topic from different viewpoints and with different lens can help in coming to the best solution of an issue.

^everything you wrote here confirms that you are entering a conversation about a concept (racism) via trying to establish the terms of judgment. I'm questioning the value of exactly what you're doing. Why do we need your moral lens for this issue? Srs question.

My first research as a graduate student was in the Caribbean. I met hundreds (maybe thousands) of professionals that had probably spent more hours studying racism than anybody you've ever met. Nobody seemed "consumed" by it (whatever the hell that means), and every single one of them was using their knowledge in socially conscious ways (e.g. teaching, community activism, etc.). But on a more basic level, their engagement with the concept of "race" was vivifying the world they lived in by teaching them more about how things have become what they've become (in other words, kinda the opposite of "consumed"... weird, eh?).

Part of the reason discussions of racism get so exhausting is because there are so many person3s out there trying to distract people. Add something of your own sense of the concept, with whatever historical depth, or politely shut up.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I think that's being done in spades in this thread, don't you?

I already made mention of the extreme emic view One Brow seems to be taking in this thread, dismissing any etic viewpoint.

One Brow's version of liberalism has huge blind spots. But, he adds more to discussions than person3s.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

One Brow's version of liberalism has huge blind spots. But, he adds more to discussions than person3s.

That, in and of itself, is irrelevant to me. In this particular topic, I think neither "helps" the discussion.

The problems that would seemingly be more prudent to attach to socioeconomic issues are affixed to racism, which leads more into semantic argument than any cultural discussion.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

^everything you wrote here confirms that you are entering a conversation about a concept (racism) via trying to establish the terms of judgment. I'm questioning the value of exactly what you're doing. Why do we need your moral lens for this issue? Srs question.

My first research as a graduate student was in the Caribbean. I met hundreds (maybe thousands) of professionals that had probably spent more hours studying racism than anybody you've ever met. Nobody seemed "consumed" by it (whatever the hell that means), and every single one of them was using their knowledge in socially conscious ways (e.g. teaching, community activism, etc.). But on a more basic level, their engagement with the concept of "race" was vivifying the world they lived in by teaching them more about how things have become what they've become (in other words, kinda the opposite of "consumed"... weird, eh?).

Part of the reason discussions of racism get so exhausting is because there are so many person3s out there trying to distract people. Add something of your own sense of the concept, with whatever historical depth, or politely shut up.

So basically your point is, agree with me for the most part, or shut it.

Your reason for why you get exhausted discussing racism could be applied the other way too, get off your high horse and accept that there are people that see it differently and that it's possible neither of you is wrong and that something can be learned from both viewpoints.

Add something "of your own sense of the concept" as long as I think it's of value, or politely shut up. Very /size of you.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

So basically your point is, agree with me for the most part, or shut it.

Your reason for why you get exhausted discussing racism could be applied the other way too, get off your high horse and accept that there are people that see it differently and that it's possible neither of you is wrong and that something can be learned from both viewpoints.

Add something "of your own sense of the concept" as long as I think it's of value, or politely shut up. Very /size of you.

^what a wild fail.

ya, brough, i guess it's too much to ask for people to give their opinion on a topic rather than confusing things by talking about their favorite way of judging things.

(Do me a favor: bookmark this thread. Whenever you wonder why I have a problem with you, just click and read).

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

That, in and of itself, is irrelevant to me. In this particular topic, I think neither "helps" the discussion.

The problems that would seemingly be more prudent to attach to socioeconomic issues are affixed to racism, which leads more into semantic argument than any cultural discussion.

I'm not sure I completely understand you, but I'd agree that we need to have more discussions about socioeconomic forces. For sure.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

So basically your point is, agree with me for the most part, or shut it.

Your reason for why you get exhausted discussing racism could be applied the other way too, get off your high horse and accept that there are people that see it differently and that it's possible neither of you is wrong and that something can be learned from both viewpoints.

Add something "of your own sense of the concept" as long as I think it's of value, or politely shut up. Very /size of you.

In order to prevent another pointless semantic debate, I reviewed my participation in this thread. Most of my posts have to do with what is contributing to the distraction in the discussion (since the thread was obviously in full-blown distraction mode). I did, however, give one post (my first post in the thread, btw) where my opinion on a good historical sense of racism was revealed. See below.

Willie has put together a nice little run of posts...

I hope to add to / clarify what you're saying by pointing out that when you reduce the historical sense of any concept to zero, then all you're left with is a principle sans context. In other words, via this process, demagogues find new tools for persuasion and assholes find different rationales for being assholes.

So, yeah, I do come down on those who would drain the concept of history. Would you like me to apologize? Nowhere do I say that any historical sense of the concept is wrong. Nowhere. So, what's your problem?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

^what a wild fail.

ya, brough, i guess it's too much to ask for people to give their opinion on a topic rather than confusing things by talking about their favorite way of judging things.

(Do me a favor: bookmark this thread. Whenever you wonder why I have a problem with you, just click and read).

I've given my opinion plenty of times. Because it's not what you want to hear means I'm confusing things. sure.

I don't wonder why you have a problem with me. You don't like my pov. I don't cave and do things your way and explore the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things that are equally valid. Somehow you find it offensive that I don't think like you.

Let me boil it down.

Racism is bad.
People shouldn't be racists.
Some still are.
Some racists are called out as racists.
Some non racists are called out as racists and told they are racists but just don't realize it.
I state this is because of fundamental differences in what some people view racism as.
Neither side gives ground.
Feelings are hurt and names are called.
I state I don't think giving non racists the label of "racist" is the best way to curb racism today.
I am disagreed with by people that think the best way to solve racism is to tell everyone they are a racist, dig into racist history, and accept their racist roots/heritage/selves.
Neither side gives ground.
Feelings are hurt and names are called again.

The End

That simple enough for you? That's my opinion of racism as discussed on jazzfanz.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In order to prevent another pointless semantic debate, I reviewed my participation in this thread. Most of my posts have to do with what is contributing to the distraction in the discussion (since the thread was obviously in full-blown distraction mode). I did, however, give one post (my first post in the thread, btw) where my opinion on a good historical sense of racism was revealed. See below.



So, yeah, I do come down on those who would drain the concept of history. Would you like me to apologize? Nowhere do I say that any historical sense of the concept is wrong. Nowhere. So, what's your problem?

Don't care if you apologize, not sure what you would apologize for anyways.
Yes if people dismissed the history of the issue it would take meaning away from the issue. That was not my stance though, but apparently that's what you got out of it.

My problem could be the I don't value your perspective so shut up take.
Pretty hard to get to the solutions when you can't even agree on the scope/details of the problem.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I've given my opinion plenty of times. Because it's not what you want to hear means I'm confusing things. sure.

I don't wonder why you have a problem with me. You don't like my pov. I don't cave and do things your way and explore the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things that are equally valid. Somehow you find it offensive that I don't think like you.

Let me boil it down.

Racism is bad.
People shouldn't be racists.
Some still are.
Some racists are called out as racists.
Some non racists are called out as racists and told they are racists but just don't realize it.
I state this is because of fundamental differences in what some people view racism as.
Neither side gives ground.
Feelings are hurt and names are called.
I state I don't think giving non racists the label of "racist" is the best way to curb racism today.
I am disagreed with by people that think the best way to solve racism is to tell everyone they are a racist, dig into racist history, and accept their racist roots/heritage/selves.
Neither side gives ground.
Feelings are hurt and names are called again.

The End

That simple enough for you? That's my opinion of racism as discussed on jazzfanz.

This is a horrible synopsis of that position.

 

[sirkickyass]

Could you expound more on what you think a person of today's personal responsibilities on the matter are aside from not being a racist and correcting racism where it truly exists?
Do you think there is more that should be laid upon the shoulders of people today for what happened in the past? ( just assume the people we are talking about are not racists today, otherwise they would have to correct and deal with what they heap upon their own shoulders.)

I can't accept the premise you're asking me to accept to answer your question. That's part of your false balancing routine.

I sincerely and honestly try and I don't believe that I'm capable of looking at the world race-neutrally. If you asked him, I doubt One Brow would claim that he personally is free of racism either.

Racism is everywhere, it's ever-present, and it's not even totally perceptible even when you're looking for it. Much of it, when you're white, is trying to observe things that didn't happen.

The stench of white privilege just hung over this thread from inception. People don't like being told that, but then again I don't like it when people are so goddamn racist. That's the impasse and it's not really solvable by some third path.

 

[Fishsticks]

I wonder what kind of things were said about sterling in the aftermath of this outrageous debacle. I'm sure plenty of racist ****. It all races bro, get off your high horse.

 

[Fishsticks]

I can't accept the premise you're asking me to accept to answer your question. That's part of your false balancing routine.

I sincerely and honestly try and I don't believe that I'm capable of looking at the world race-neutrally. If you asked him, I doubt One Brow would claim that he personally is free of racism either.

Racism is everywhere, it's ever-present, and it's not even totally perceptible even when you're looking for it. Much of it, when you're white, is trying to observe things that didn't happen.

The stench of white privilege just hung over this thread from inception. People don't like being told that, but then again I don't like it when people are so goddamn racist. That's the impasse and it's not really solvable by some third path.

This is just as offensive as anything said in this thread. And you cast stones. I was with you until you started pulling **** out like this.

 

[Stoked]

My favorite part of these threads is when you address one specific point and people like to use that to theorize your positions on things you never talked about as if their uninformed opinion was fact.

Something I myself have been guilty of I'm afraid.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

My favorite part of these threads is when you address one specific point and people like to use that to theorize your positions on things you never talked about as if their uninformed opinion was fact.

Something I myself have been guilty of I'm afraid.

it's kind of a normal aspect of politically charged conversation.