Why am I Conservative?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Phdtobe, Feb 14, 2019.

  1. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    No, it's not a misuse of the PHRASE ad hominem attack. You tried to take the attention off the specific question I asked heirophant (I think it was) about adapting vs assimilating in the context of cultural assimilation and turn it onto ME personally and negatively (insinuating that I was irrational), while avoiding the real question altogether. THAT is the definition of an ad hominem attack. Clearly your reading comprehension skills need work, because I included the definition of ad hominem attack at the end of my response to you.

    Just because YOU don't think that's what it means doesn't mean that it doesn't mean what it means.

    Ad hominem attacks - when an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.

    No, you were not who I was asking about adaptation vs assimilation. But, YOU decided to jump into the discussion and write to me and YOU were the one who brought up "genuine dialogue". How soon you've forgotten. So, then I addressed you and your claims against me. And, don't tell me how to act. You're not my master! Now, leave me alone because I'm 1000% sure that you just want to argue and I'm not going to give you that. Just go away.
  2. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I seriously doubt this is the way to go, but see where you come from.
  3. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    Thank you! This is exactly what I was trying to get across. When I get "in my feelings" I'm not as succinct as at other times and can be quite "wordy". I'm working on it.
  4. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I know we can't 100% segregate. But, we can segregate enough to deal with our own social problems and regain lost ground by ourselves without any outside influences. That's why for it to work we can't accept any money from any level of government. Gov't money comes with strings attached and in the global system of white supremacy we will never be allowed to get where we truly need to be.
  5. Helpful2013

    Helpful2013 Active Member

    I’ve taught and published in philosophy and logic, and I’m using the term ad hominem properly. You getting upset that I unpicked your invalid argument does not transmogrify it into an attack on you personally or your personal characteristics. You, on the other hand, are still doing exactly that, substituting the ascribing of motives, name-calling, etc. for legitimate argumentation.

    I’ll be staying here at DegreeInfo. Calmly, even.
  6. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Who is this "we" that you're referring to here?
  7. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    ADOS. American Descendants of Slaves.
  8. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Once upon a time, there were “Faggots and dykes and queers, oh my!” If you say it right, it’s obviously a take-off on the line from The Wizard of Oz, “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” And the joke, such as it is, originated in the gay movement. Of course, there were also fairies, but they were pretty much limited to Peter Pan. (Remember? Peter calling on the audience to help save Tinkerbell by urging them, “Clap if you believe in fairies!”)

    Well, then came along the gay movement. And, a few years later, the gay and lesbian movement. And after that, the gay, lesbian and bisexual movement. Which evolved into the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered movement. The abbreviation for that, GLBT, is the most common one used today.

    But not the latest one. GLBT evolved into GLBTQ (for “queer” or “questioning”), then GLBTQI (for “intersex,” one I still haven’t quite figured out), then LGBTQIA (for “affirming”), before the Q’s were split in two for LGBTQQIA. At which I laughed my ass off when I saw a play in Ohio by a theatre company that billed itself as the area’s official LGBTQQIA theatre company.

    And while GLBT is still more common, you will occasionally see the movement (such as it is) or the community (such as it is) described as the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersex, and affirming community. I kid you not.

    And, much as black comedians co-opted the N word, at least until Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld) killed his career by using the word against hecklers in a comedy club, after which a slew of black comedians committed to not using the word again in their acts.

    And speaking of which, let’s move on to persons of color . . .

    Once upon a time, there were – well, we’re back to the N word. And to many white folk, especially in the South, where racism is no more prevalent than in the North but is a lot more open, the word is still commonly used. But rather than addressing the use of the word by persons of color, let’s see what they called in less antagonistic times.

    First, there were colored people. I still get thrown off when I’m in a rural area and a white guy describes another person as “a colored guy.” He doesn’t intend to be racist (with exceptions, of course), but that’s the term the white guy was raised with, and he never really addressed changing social factors to update his language.

    Trivia note: The autobiography of Dr. Henry Louis Gates, chair of the Department of African-American Studies at Harvard, is called Colored People. Great book, about his youth and growing up in rural West Virginia.

    Well, colored people then became black people. And it took hold because it was the term that was becoming preferred by black people. A few years later, they became Afro-Americans. (Yes, I’m sure that some folk use a hyphen, and some don’t. Ask me if I give a shit.)

    A few years after that, they were back to using black. And again, after a time, they started using African-American, and that term has stuck around for quite a few years at this point. Along with persons of color, which I like for its poetic ring.

    And now, for the first time, I have just read (in this thread) a new term: ADOS. American Descendants of Slaves. To which I respond, “Give me a break.”

    Well, kiddies, I hope I don’t have to tell you that racism comes in all colors. And I’ve run into more racism in the last year alone than I have in my lifetime. Also in all colors – white again black, black against white, and quite frankly, I don’t give a shit about it anymore.

    I grant you, I never suffered from 400 years of racial oppression. On the other hand, I never caused 400 years of racial oppression, so I don’t feel the need for a white liberal guilt trip.

    I can think of a couple of members of this forum who might think I have no right to expound on racial issues since I am not one of the oppressed minority. No, I will not name names (at least not today), so don’t presume to know who I’m thinking of.

    Although I do qualify as a minority myself, but one that owns Hollywood, Broadway, and Bloomingdales. Wait, am I talking about gays, or Jews? I confuse them sometimes. But I qualify as both, which is why I can get away with occasionally making tasteless holocaust jokes.

    But hey, ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves)? Like I said, give me a break. That term is almost as ridiculous as LGBTQQIA.
  9. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    Stop being an ass Levicoff. We don't care what you think. I'm not being rude, it's just a statement of fact. Those of you inclined to offer your unsolicited opinions on things that have nothing to do with you might want to stop wasting your time. What we do for ourselves and among ourselves is just not your business.

    However, if you were curious to know why ADOS has suddenly popped up, you could have just asked me instead of making stupid assumptions. There is a specific reason for the term, which is a political term and not a social term. But, of course, you'd never deign to ask me how or why ADOS came about because you're "Steve Levicoff, PhD" and your ego won't allow you to consider the possibility that you don't know everything.

    But, for those who do want to know, here's what the ADOS movement is about - straight from the source, one of the founders, in his own words. Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything he is saying. But, I do agree with enough of it to support the movement. No, I'm not going to divulge what it is I don't agree with, so don't ask.

    This being a public forum, I expect that some people will give their opinions and that's fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't expect me to take them into consideration. This is FUBU (for us, by us) and we're going to do what we're going to do regardless of the opinions of outsiders.

  10. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Rosalind, bubaleh . . . Chill out. You’re attacking people right and left in this thread, and are bordering on getting your ass tossed off this forum. (No, that’s not a threat, as it’s not my decision – and even if it were, I’m against censorship. But it is an observation based on the tone of messages that caused the last two prominent bannings from DI. Personally, as much as I think you’re being obnoxious, I hope you’ll chill out enough to stick around.)

    As for opinions, everyone’s opinion is ultimately unsolicited. My own opinion, FWIW, is that a forum centered on nontraditional education should stick to nontraditional education. But, in the words of the wise person who thought this up, opinions are like assholes – everybody has one.

    Accordingly, since I rarely participate in any thread on political issues, I’m more than willing to admit that there’s a lot I don’t know. My doctorate has nothing to do with it, and I’m not the one who brought it up here. (Unless I did earlier – I hardy remember what I posted days ago. And if I did bring it up, it’s always in the context of a joke. Always.)

    You see, Roz? (Note the proper placement of the comma, which you neglected in the first sentence of your response.) If you’re going to be obnoxious, at least make it funny.

    Now, as for the video you link to, it’s bullshit. But understand, I think that every video that someone makes by sitting in front of their computer and blabbing on a webcam is bullshit. The person’s race doesn’t matter, his or her position on any given issue doesn’t matter, the fact that he or she thinks other people give a shit about what they’re saying doesn’t matter. And if Filmmaker2Be continues to be your username, I hope the films you make will be a higher quality than the piece of tripe you cited here.

    Now, I don’t mind your being obnoxious to me. I’ve largely made my reputation on being obnoxious, especially when it comes to exposing degree mills. As anyone who has been a mill-buster knows, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. So don’t sweat it, Roz, I can stand the heat. But when you start attacking some of the others who have been the object of your wrath in this thread, I don’t mind stepping in on behalf of them.

    So here’s my challenge to you: Start behaving toward those with whom you disagree in a manner that doesn’t give me an excuse to trash you. Learn to disagree agreeably. Above all, be funny.

    And remember, I have an RA Ph.D. And you don’t. But, to keep it in perspective, with that and fifty cents, I can buy the same quarter-cup of Starbucks that you can.
  11. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  12. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    I haven't attacked anyone. But, I have had people come at me. But, of course, that white privilege thing kicks in and everyone else gets a pass while I'm threatened with being banned from the forum because it's being ASSUMED that I have an attitude problem. Nope, you're not going to pin that "angry black woman" stereotype on me. I'm responding just like everyone else. Why is it that I'M the one that's in the wrong and nobody else is? So, no, I'm not going to stick around to be held to a double standard.
  13. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    Would a moderator or super moderator please delete my entire account and posting history from DegreeInfo? That option isn't available in my profile settings and I don't want to just log out. I want to be completely erased from DI. Can somebody please take care of that for me? Thank you.

    This was cross-posted in the Off Topic section as well, but I don't know how much attention that section gets, so I'm posting it here, too. I know at least one moderator is "watching" me, since I'm a wild, uncontrollable "angry black woman" who is attacking everybody left and right. So I hope this request will be seen and honored.
  14. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Okay, Roz, nice try, You are pretty funny in your latest whine, but the problem is that people are now laughing at you, not with you.

    Besides I don't have to pin the "angry black woman" title on you - you've done that quite well yourself. Especially in this thread when you blatantly advocate for segregation. Quite clearly, you are a racist - and not very good at it.

    As Kizmet noted in the other thread you started, complete "erasure" from DI is not an option. No, everything you posted is here forever. On the many occasions you made an ass of yourself, people can bookmark those threads, returning to them when they need a good laugh. To want to delete your entire history here, you must have embarrassed the hell out of yourself. But now you have a reality check - everyone knows that you are a racist, a segregationist, and an abject failure when it comes to your history with distance education. (Yes, I just did a quick review of your posts dating back to 2012. Some of which were quite pleasant, some of which were informative, most of which made you look like good people. I'd love to know what kind of traumatic incident turned you into what you are today. On second thought, that's a rhetorical statement. I actually don't give a crap.)

    Now, try again. And remember to be funny - but not at your own expense.
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Absolutely, and yes, you're absolutely just as entitled to draw conclusions from your own lived experiences as anyone else.

    I don't speak for anyone other than myself, and obviously different white people would avoid this subject for their own individual reasons. Many of them will avoid it because they're actually racist, because yes, glancing at any right wing media article comment section will tell you that there's a hell of a lot of that out there.

    But that's not everyone. My observation has been that many white Americans are reluctant to talk about racism because they perceive it as a no-win scenario, that basically no matter what they say they'll be accused of racism. For example, if they move out of the city, it's "white flight", but if they move into the city it's "gentrification", and either way they're the bad guys.

    Under those circumstances, the perception is that the goal of the conversation is not real dialogue, but rather penitent admission of wrongdoing. It's not surprising that so many white people -- even those people who otherwise would be of good will -- would conclude that the only winning move is not to play.

    I realize that pointing that out may make it sound like I'm mad about it, or that I'm saying "Stop it!" or "See? It's your fault!", but I'm actually not. I get it that if you're trodden on long enough, any boot starts to look like the enemy, and I can understand how when righteous anger is kindled in someone that it won't only burn those who deserve it. I'm raising this only to relay what I believe a popular perception is, to perhaps explain why you've found so much resistance to dialogue.

    You correctly anticipated my individualist objection. Part of the issue here, though, is people getting lumped together who shouldn't be. I don't think it makes sense to talk about "white people" or "white culture", for example. The white people I grew up with in the suburbs have nothing in common with white people in rural areas or in the South. (Don't get me wrong, it's not a better/worse thing, we're just very different.)

    I've recently seen the term elsewhere. You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, but I gather the point is to specifically exclude black people from Africa and the Caribbean whose families have arrived more recently.

    If you've never seen it, there's a show called Trigger Warning with Killer Mike on Netflix, and in the first episode he spends 72 hours only buying things from the black community, and finds out how hard that is.

    Interesting. Yes, I do get the gist of it, thanks. The "sparsely populated states" part reminds me of a few other "intentional migration" projects, including the Free State Project to persuade libertarians to all move to New Hampshire and take it over, and Christian Exodus to persuade evangelical Christians to move to South Carolina and turn it into an overtly dominionist state. (The former did inspire some migration, I think the latter dissolved.)
  16. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Sorry, we don't do that.
  17. Filmmaker2Be

    Filmmaker2Be Active Member

    The goal isn't to exclude immigrant blacks but to reclaim our own unique identity. The US lumps all people of African descent into the same category and considers all of us to be the same people and that's just not true. Besides skin color many of us have nothing in common with each other. ADOS have a lot in common with our Caribbean and Latino slave descendant counterparts. One of the things I will say I don't quite agree with about the ADOS movement is the name, itself. Mexico, the Caribbean, South, and Central America are all America. All black descendants of slaves in "the Americas" are Americans. We are the same people. The only difference is where we got off the slave ships. And, the USA doesn't own the right to designate itself the only America. Even our name says "OF" America, and not that we are the ONLY America.

    So, the idea isn't to exclude other non-USA descendants of slaves but to claim the justice due to US. They were wronged too, but they should get their justice from their respective countries. We can't go to Jamaica or Haiti or Belize or Ghana or Nigeria and demand that they give us the same scholarships, financial aid, small business grants, etc that are earmarked specifically for them. But, these groups come here and get benefits, for themselves, that are specifically earmarked for US. At the same time they want to join our community and social justice organizations but we aren't welcome to join theirs. When I was married to a Guinean man for 7 years, never ONCE was I invited to attend any of the Guinean community's meetings; and, if I had ever gotten to go, I'm sure my husband would have told me that I was to remain quiet because I was a guest and an outsider. I've communicated with many people in my community who have had similar experiences. We've welcomed immigrant blacks with open arms for years. But, they have not reciprocated. Yet and still, though, they want to reap the benefits of our struggles for themselves. That's not fair and we're just going to right this wrong, among others.

    Yes, I am in favor of intentional migration. In my vision, politics won't be a focus for many years. We have more fundamental things we have to work on first. And, we need to be together to get ourselves "together" and unlearn a lot of self-destructive and pathological behaviors. But, this paradigm shift is a very threatening thing (subconsciously) for a lot of white people, and I think that's why the reactions are negative.

    I'm going to watch that video with Killer Mike. I totally believe that he couldn't consistently "buy black". Like I said, integration messed up a lot of stuff. If you're inclined, watch some videos on YouTube of Dr. Claud Anderson (search results list, scroll and pick one), especially ones of him talking about his idea of PowerNomics. He lays out a blueprint for the "African American" community to start becoming economically self-sufficient and then engaging in politics.

    You also might want to watch this video (start at the 7:23 mark) of Dr. Frances Cress Welsing explain her theory of racism/white supremacy. It's really thought-provoking, even if you don't agree.
  18. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    F2be, I placed myself in your shoes and look at my own biases based on where my ancestors were enslaved. Maybe, you do have a point on being a direct descendant on salves who were traded to North America. I personally do not like the policies surrounding ADOS but that is meaningless. In the place of my birth SVG, I will oppose any similar policies to ADOS. In SVG, I will like all black to be treated the same regardless of how long their lineage.
    My beef is current Africa with all its wealth and resources but with leaders with brains the size of a pea.
    I have also been tough on India, even though the Indians were indentured and not enslaved. I do see any programs encouraging unification even symbolic with the motherland.
    Our mother countries have been failing us even more than our adopted homelands.
  19. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

Share This Page