For Your Consideration... On Debate

Heheh.

To take a different slant -

Would you rather be wrong with friends, or right alone?
(I've lost a bit for what I thought was right (factually or otherwise), and I'd do it again - but I find I have to laugh at my own jokes more often these days.)

************************************************************************


different different slant - Right and Righteous are not necessarily the same thing.

MadHatter wrote: Further, Jamie, you say that such talk is a threat to your existence. Well in a PM you basically said that my father's culture is not my culture because well we are not blood-related.

That is not what I said. I resent that you would mischaracterize a private conversation like that. Way to squash any trust I had in you. Please don't ever contact me again.

The follow quote is what I told MadHatter regarding his father and the use of a Day of the Dead altar:

Jamie Stick wrote: In your example of the day of the dead altar, I would say that while it may not directly be your culture, you're not appropriating it--you're honoring your father (regardless of whether he's your bio or step father is irrelevant).

I'm just going to stop. People lying about me to get the upper hand in an argument is whole new low.

The point of this post is that for some of us (which is clearly not you, since you all seem to presume to know my life and my intentions) these debates are not friendly, they're not merely exercises in critical thinking, they're our lived experiences and that when you play devil's advocate (or maybe you're just a terrible person and really believe something that's antithetical to my existence) you are signaling to me that you are not a safe person to associate with and these arguments take on a level of seriousness which I think none of you seem to understand.

I didn't start the original post to call anyone out, I didn't start it to say anyone was a bad person; I did it because I thought you might value a different perspective on how these debates feel. Clearly, I was wrong. The more and more I try to talk about stuff the more I think this whole thing a charade. You folks don't seem to care about knowledge or wisdom. You just want to be "right" (in the most subjective, populist sense of the term).

This Temple isn't a haven for free thinking and critical thought. It's just an echo chamber for whoever's opinion is most popular and can drown out the opposition.

Jamie Stick wrote: How should I feel when I offer scientific evidence and the well-researched opinions defending myself and my loved ones but if someone else states a popular yet unproven opinion, they are considered to have an equally valuable opinion?

I think you should feel challenged. If it is so very important to you, quitting when it gets tough seems like the wrong way to go. While idiots will be idiots, not only those who answer your posts read them. So this is a ‘know your audience’ thing too. You don’t have to convince the idiot, you still can convince the rest listening. [Edit: Not implying whether those answering are or are not idiots]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY

By the way this probably works with what Khaos wrote earlier since you don’t necessarily need science for this. And yes, if the topic is important to you, you should not limit yourself to science alone.

And maybe that’s just me but your initial post did not mean to me ‘Please see and understand what these discussions feel like for me’. It does now and that puts it in a quite different light. Still, you wanting us to understand what it feels like doesn’t equate to ‘free thinking’ or ‘critical thought’ in my head, it equates to emotionality and compassion. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact I appreciate you sharing how this makes you feel since no, I do not know what it is like but at least now I know what it feels like to you (and it did change my view, since you usually keep to logic, it is not always obvious when you feel threatened).

Jamie,

I think I understand what you're getting it. When I was in 4th grade, many many many many many years ago, I was a bit of an anomaly. Many teachers of the early 1970s were not prepared for students or to be around those with disabilities. I had a teacher, who would make me sit at the rear of the class, and face the wall, while she taught class. When my mom confronted her she said "Look at the boy, what will he ever need math for." Her opinion was more or less that I was useless and was just taking up space in her classroom.

We can weigh others opinions, and consider them. But when those opinions can have a negative impact on a person or group of people's lives, then they shouldn't be given as much weight as other opinions, especially when those opinions come with actions. In the case of my teacher, her opinion was that I was a lesser person. Her actions prevented me from learning and quite frankly left me way behind in that subject area. Math is still an area I struggle with, particularly things like Algebra and Geometry. Should her opinion be given the same weight and value as the person who thought I deserved to be educated?

Should David Duke's opinion be given the same weight you would give Martin Luther Kings? I think while everyone has the right to their opinion, not all opinions should be given equal consideration, especially when they might negatively impact lives. And opinions as we see with anti-lgbt laws and others that harm lives lead to actions and sometimes negative consequences. Too many young people every year commit suicide because of the opinions of others ("Bullying"). I think when we form an opinion before we express it, we should look at the impact it might have on others.

This Temple isn't a haven for free thinking and critical thought. It's just an echo chamber for whoever's opinion is most popular and can drown out the opposition.

I sure feels like it at times...

Doesn't necessarily mean it has to stay that way...

This is a Jedi Temple and website, one might think that majority of the membership here would be a little on the "enlightened" side of things, lol...
This site is filled with people "working" on themselves, people aren't perfect...

The social dynamic proves this, and painfully so. I don't know what went down between the two of you, it's none of my business, please stop allowing bs to get you down. I get it, must be pretty frustrating being surrounded by people who dont take this seriously.

Have patience, understand the vast majority of people aren't going to comprehend, and try to learn from the process without it turning you bitter...

Are we talking about the "nature of debate' or "the value of scientific fact concerning gender and identity"?

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Further, Jamie, you say that such talk is a threat to your existence. Well in a PM you basically said that my father's culture is not my culture because well we are not blood-related.

That is not what I said. I resent that you would mischaracterize a private conversation like that. Way to squash any trust I had in you. Please don't ever contact me again.

The follow quote is what I told MadHatter regarding his father and the use of a Day of the Dead altar:

Jamie Stick wrote: In your example of the day of the dead altar, I would say that while it may not directly be your culture, you're not appropriating it--you're honoring your father (regardless of whether he's your bio or step father is irrelevant).

I'm just going to stop. People lying about me to get the upper hand in an argument is whole new low.

The point of this post is that for some of us (which is clearly not you, since you all seem to presume to know my life and my intentions) these debates are not friendly, they're not merely exercises in critical thinking, they're our lived experiences and that when you play devil's advocate (or maybe you're just a terrible person and really believe something that's antithetical to my existence) you are signaling to me that you are not a safe person to associate with and these arguments take on a level of seriousness which I think none of you seem to understand.

I didn't start the original post to call anyone out, I didn't start it to say anyone was a bad person; I did it because I thought you might value a different perspective on how these debates feel. Clearly, I was wrong. The more and more I try to talk about stuff the more I think this whole thing a charade. You folks don't seem to care about knowledge or wisdom. You just want to be "right" (in the most subjective, populist sense of the term).

This Temple isn't a haven for free thinking and critical thought. It's just an echo chamber for whoever's opinion is most popular and can drown out the opposition.

Jamie, you say that is not what you said. You just quoted that it's not directly my culture. How else should I take that other than as the cultures not really mine? There is no indirect ownership or possession of anything. It's yours or it is not. So yes that is EXACTLY how I read what you said. Did you not mean it that way? Well then I misunderstood you but when you walk out on conversations that doesn't leave much room to clear things up does it.

Then you say that this is not a place of free speech and honest debate but that people are only out to be right? Who are you to judge the entirety of the Temple like that. I can't speak for anyone else but unless my ideas are tested and harshly they are worthless. An idea or belief to me is a tool. And when I get a new tool I take it out and abuse it far beyond what its meant to endure. If it holds up I polish the scuffs out, oil it, and then it goes in my kit. The same thing with ideas. If I do not test them and in the harshest of debates what good are they?
You call this place an echo chamber but here me and you are again butting heads and disagreeing and some people are agreeing with you and others are disagreeing. So I see no echoes.

You are fast to judge others and walk away from them Jamie but that does nothing for growth and understanding.

My read on it: I think that this thread was started because Jamie's feelings have been hurt and she doesn't feel that they're being validated.

I say "I think" because whether or not that's the objective truth of the situation, that's how it appears. It seems like she's lashing out at the Temple because she's having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that she can't *make* people see things her way.

The fact is that even if you [general you] are empirically correct/scientific/statistical proof on any given topic, you can't force others to accept your truth, and that goes doubly for everyone in this Temple. And getting upset and confrontational about that won't make your cause any easier for others to see/understand.

There are better ways to teach your truth than getting angry at everyone around you. Unless you're the Queen of Hearts and can behead anyone who disagrees...but is that REALLY a viable alternative?

Jamie Stick wrote: In your example of the day of the dead altar, I would say that while it may not directly be your culture, you're not appropriating it--you're honoring your father (regardless of whether he's your bio or step father is irrelevant).

Let's break this down, shall we, MadHatter? It baffles me why this had to be such a public thing, but since you seem to have no shame about taking a private discussion into the public sphere and trying to humiliate me with your inability to read what I wrote then I guess it's just gonna have to be that way. If you didn't understand what I said, you could have just asked for clarification, but instead you chose to drag this out in the open.

Buckle up, kiddo, this bus is taking you to school.

Today's lesson: how to read a sentence. Class is now in session.

In your example of the day of the dead altar

This is an introductory clause which tells you what parts of a larger conversation I am referring to. This particular clause is letting you know that I am referring to your question about the possibility of appropriating a Day of the Dead altar when your step father raised you with this particular practice.

I would say that while it may not directly be your culture

This is the first line of my response in which I'm actually responding to your question with my opinion. You know it is my opinion because I start it with "I would say" as opposed to something like, "according to" or "[Expert's name] says that..." The sentence continues the "while" which indicates an exceptional case modifier. This is used to highlight exceptions and underscore nuances to a statement previously made. In this case, the statement being modified by this exception modifier is the one I previously made stating in effect that white people have a long track record of cultural appropriation and should stop taking things from other cultures. You can infer that this the statement being modified by the phrase that follows, "it may not directly be your culture." A couple interesting things to note about this phrase is the "may" which indicates an uncertainty quality to the statement. This signals to the reader that author is not speaking definitively on the issue, rather offering an interpretation. The second thing to note is the word "directly" which in context of this phrase refers to the Day of the Dead altar. There is in implication in adding the word directly which means this entire sentence could be reworded in the positive to say "I would say that it might be the case that it is indirectly your culture" Together, this sentence fragment is articulating a few concepts which I will break down:

1. This is my opinion.
2. It is not a definitive answer.
3. This sentence can be inverted by removing the negatives and changing the word directly to indirectly which does not change the meaning of the sentence fragment, but rather changes the negative phrasing to a positive one.

Let's move on to the next line, shall we?

you're not appropriating it

Given the context of the previous two lines of this sentence, we know that the "it" would be referring to the Day of the Dead altar. Here I am clarifying that using the Day of the Dead altar is not appropriation. We have two qualifying statements that need to be factored into understanding this statement. The first is that this is my opinion. I could be wrong. Someone else for whom the Day of the Dead altar belongs to might feel that this is in fact appropriation. The second qualifying statement comes from the sentence fragment we just broke down above. As you recall, I am asserting that the Day of the Dead altar is not directly your culture, but could also indirectly be your culture (we'll get to that in a moment).

--you're honoring your father (regardless of whether he's your bio or step father is irrelevant).

We have now arrived at our final destination. The "--" or double dash or double hyphen is substitute for the long dash, also called an emdash which looks like this "—", generally the double dash is used because they don't have access to an em dash or perhaps it was more expedient than trying to find the em dash in a character mapping program. The em dash is used to denote a break or pause in the sentence much like a comma or parenthesis to separate out related yet distinct phrases of a sentence. This is followed by the phrase "you're honoring your father" which is followed by a clarifying statement made in parenthesis that is used to indicate that even though he isn't your biological father it has no bearing on the claim made earlier.

One more important thing that must be done and can only be done now that we've done a phrase by phrase analysis of the sentence and that's analyze cause and effect in this sentence. To be clear, I'm not referring to cause and effect in the sense of an apple falls because gravity is pulling it towards the center of the Earth, but the sentence structure has a cause and effect statement embedded within it. To understand this we must look at the sentence in a sort of backwards way. Let's start with the last sentence fragment (we're excluding the part in parenthesis for this because it doesn't play a part int he cause and effect). "You're honoring your father" is, strangely enough, a cause statement. What is effect? To get that we have to go back to the beginning of the sentence where I made qualifying statements, specifically, "it may not directly be your culture" and "you're not appropriating it." The immediate effect is "you're not appropriating it" which is opposite the conclusion you would normally draw from claim which I'm modifying by saying saying "while" and the cause is that you are honoring your father. Logically stated, you are not appropriating the Day of the Dead altar because you are honoring your father. The modifying statement to this is that the Day of the Dead altar is not inherent to you as a cultural item, yet I also acknowledge that because of your father you have access to this and that that access is legitimate which means that you being white doesn't factor into your access to the Day of the Dead altar.



Let's do something fun and interesting, just because we all seem to be in a 'sharing' mood today. I've used the inverse, implied, inferred, referenced, and such to expand on and illuminate the meaning of this apparently cryptic sentence. What if I were to write this sentence without using negatives and inserting all or as many of the implied, inferred, and referenced material as possible so that there can be no mistaking what is being said? Ready? Ok, let's go!

Version 1

In your example of the day of the dead altar which you mentioned as a part of larger critique of my ideas on cultural appropriation, I am of the opinion that there is a distinct possibility the Day of the Dead altar is indirectly your culture and that you're not appropriating the Day of the Dead altar because you're honoring your father. Regardless of whether he's your biological father or step father, he has taught you the meaning and value of the Day of the Dead altar which gives you access without appropriation.

Version 2 (sans opinion qualifiers)

Your father taught you the value of Day of the Dead altar and through the Day of the Dead altar you honor him therefore your use of the Day of the Dead altar is not appropriation.

Next time you want to try to shame me in public make sure you have your goddamn facts straight because I am not playing around with this. You could have just sent me a PM and I would have been happy to briefly and kindly rephrase what I was trying to say, but instead you had to take a private conversation and put me on blast for it. Take a remedial English and logic course before you come at me with this foolishness again.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Stuff

First of all Jamie, you want to lambast me for not asking you privately about this when you have twice told me not to contact you? I respected your wishes and did not PM you on the matter. However, if one is going to call out a particular set of behavior in public and is themselves guilty of it in private then it needs to be pointed out. So yes I addressed it here because it's the only avenue you allowed.

Further again with it's not directly your culture but it could be indirect. Sorry Jamie but that is the exact same to me as saying it's not your culture. There is either ownership of something or not. You don't indirectly own anything. I've even gone so far as to ask my boyfriend to read it all because I wanted to make sure that it wasn't just me being emotional because such a statement struck a nerve and he even said that is how he read. it. How long winded breakdown does nothing to change the way your message comes across.

And thus you see the point I was trying to get at in my original post. It has NOTHING to do with humiliating you but pointing out that you are as guilty as anyone of the behavior you claimed to be taking issue with. You yourself come across as combative as callous at times.

On a personal note, I do not take that behavior to heart because I see past the harshness in your tone here to what appears to be a very kind and sensitive soul. And I respect that. I also respect your articulation and willingness most times to get as good as you give. However what my OP's point was, is that you are taking some things way to personally from people that likely do not mean you any ill will. You are calling out swaths of people who do not agree with you and lambasting them as cruel, callous, or in your words unsafe. Yet if someone implied any negative towards you as you felt I did, you get rather upset.

How can you bash large groups of people and yet get so mad when the mirror gets flipped? What myself and many others here have tried to do is point out that differing views even if offensive to you might not be intended to offend nor are the necessarily as wrong as you make them out to be. Simply because a view counts a core precept of your being does not make it utterly wrong. I find here that if I ask someone in PM about a view that upset me that we come to an understanding. That it was never personal and often I misread what was said. I think that it's often the case with most communication that causes hurt. And I urge you to not take some of this so personally because I am willing to bet people don't intend it that way.

A few points to consider as we move forward with this conversation, if you will.

1. A debate and a discussion are two very different things. If you are debating, you are expected to present your arguments in a logical fashion and support your argument with evidence. In a discussion, there is no implicit expectation of logical or factual reasoning. Freedom of speech does not exist in debate. There are very particular rules about what speech is allowed and when you can use it. Lawyers understand this very well.
2. Considering the last point, it is up to both (or more) parties involved to be clear about whether this is a discussion or a debate. Debates have rules; discussions do not.
3. Once an interaction has been established as a debate, winning or losing (yes, debates are a contest with a winner and loser) is often determined more by how one responds to their opponent's arguments as much as how they present their own. It is possible to win a debate without ever presenting any evidence of your own so long as you are able to contradict any evidence presented by your opponent. Defense attorneys in the U.S. do this all of the time.

So, are we having debates in this Temple or are we having discussions? It is pretty evident to me that nearly every interaction here is a discussion. We need to be mindful of this as we interact with those who disagree with our opinions or don't understand how a conversation is making us feel. It is on each one of us, individually, to accept that until this is a court of law or a scholastic debate tournament, our expectation for any conversation to go the way we want it to should be checked with a dose of reality.

MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

So essentially, because you are incapable of seeing things as gray, because for you they have to be black and white then I am wrong?

That sounds like a personal failing to me, not my error.

When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie Stick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:
When it comes to something being your culture for me yes it either is yours or it is not. That is not a personal failing but something that I consider to be true. There is not partial culture. Its your culture or it is not and I hope you can see why someone would feel that way.

Were it not for your father, would you construct and use a Day of the Dead altar? You see the whole thing of me deconstructing and then reconstructing my sentence was to elaborate on the meaning of what I said and make it clear. This is called a contingency. Your access to the Day of the Dead altar is contingent upon your father.

If you wanted it in black and white, if you wanted me to throw out nuance and anything worthwhile about drawing up meaningful distinctions, I'd simply say that yes, it is your culture. Your father raised you with a value for this altar and therefore it is just as much a part of you as it was for your father or his father or his father's father. This isn't some radical shift from what I said earlier, it's exactly what I said before without nuanced distinction of the contingency. I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie in some cases there is not any room for nuance. Some things are or they are not. Yes, you might consider that too crass or blunt but I tend to be a very upfront person. I don't mince words nor do I beat around the bush. So I appreciate the clear up. Further, my intentions here have never been to upset you but to get you to think about how your own actions can cause others to feel exactly as you claim people are making you feel. That's all my goal was and nothing more. Oh, and the insults are beneath you Jamie you are far better than that, further, I think I have extended you the courtesy of being civil so I would ask you do the same.
So I will close with these three things:
1. I hope you understand my clearing this up here and not via pm was out of respect for your telling me not to contact you which to me meant no more PM
2. I never intended to insult you, twist your words, or anything else I simply wanted you to think about how we are all guilty of doing things unintentionally that hurt others or make them feel less than welcome
3. I hope you understand that no matter what you think of me that I for one respect you and value the challenge you present to much of my way of thinking. Growth to me only happens when pushed and you are a prime source of that challenge for me here and I respect and appreciate it. So I truly hope you don't lever leave.

Jamie Stick wrote: Buckle up, kiddo, this bus is taking you to school.

Today's lesson: how to read a sentence. Class is now in session.

Jamie Stick wrote: I'm sorry that my use of nuance, of drawing distinctions, was far beyond your ability to grasp.

Jamie, it is statements like this that seem to highlight the disconnect between a desire for "friendly debate" and actually participating in adversarial discussion. Injecting emotionally charged statements into an otherwise clearly stated point damages the credibility of the speaker. It is also detrimental to making a point when we attack others for their inability to understand it rather than explaining it further or moving past it altogether.

You have such great information to offer, and you offer it from a rare and valuable perspective. I want to hear you, and it frustrates me every time these conversations turn into bickering. I believe it frustrates you as well, which was the point I took from the original post.

We are all guilty of becoming adversarial, and when we do we miss opportunities to further a constructive discussion. We miss opportunities to both teach and learn. I want to learn from you, Jamie, so don't give up even if we leave a lot to be desired in the way we communicate.

MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie Stick wrote: MadHatter,

You talk about respect, you talk about wanting to see me grow but I feel none of it from what you've done. This post wasn't
about racism, sexism, transphobia or any of that. This post wasn't me accusing anyone. It was me trying to explain, to build understanding, to bridge a gap so that people like you could understand where I'm coming from. Instead this became about racism and appropriation. Instead this became a private conversation dragged out into the public.

You say you didn't send me a message out of respect for me asking you to not contact me via PM, but there was a full hour between my statement in which I answered your question and me asking you not to contact me. In that time you composed three messages to me but not once did you ask for clarification or rephrasing.

Jamie in the PM that we discussed that matter the last post from you was you asking me not to contact you which is why I didn't. It's that simple.

Further, you might not feel those things because I tend to be blunt and maybe I need polishing on how I approach things sure I'll grant that. However when your message comes across as saying that people are unsafe when they disagree with you on things you consider fundamental to your being well how else can it feel but accusatory.?
Also what I was trying to point out is that you often come across in the same manner in which you said others come across to you. I was trying to get you to think about the fact that you don't often intend to cause others to feel unsafe, unwelcome or any other negative emotions do you? Yet you have made me feel exactly that for a brief instant before I let it go. What I was trying to get at with that is that your intentions are generally good so maybe you should try to give people a little more slack and take some matters slightly less personally.

So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

Jamie Stick wrote: So you felt that it was appropriate to air out your dirty laundry, dragging me in in the process, on the very first post I made regardless of what the topic was?

You've taken upon yourself to try to educate me, to "teach me a lesson" as it were, but what gives you that right? Furthermore, you equate your feeling unwelcomed (which I am not disputing at this moment) to what I'm talking about, but what gives you that right? How are they the same?

You ask me not to take things personally, but this post was supposed to illuminate a reality that I live in which I can't not take these things personally. To do so would be to pretend that we're not talking about policies, ideas, and people who threaten me and my loved ones. Please explains to me why I shouldn't take that personally?

No not regardless of the post. I felt that the situation had bearing on what was said. Its a matter of how some conversations can make others feel and that was an example of how we are all guilty of it. Some people say things that we take to heart but were not meant the way we take them. As we saw with my misunderstanding of your statement.

What gives me the right? The fact that this is a free forum and anyone can respond to the topic at hand in any manner they see fit so long as the response follows site guidelines. How are they the same its all perception of how things are said or meant. That is what makes them the same.

Finally, you say that you cant help but to take these things personally as they are a threat to you or those you love. How? How is disagreeing with your views a threat?