The Two Sides of Race-Relations

So what I am getting from all of this is this..

We either post according to Ceci's rules or we are wrong.
We accept Ceci's definitions or we are wrong.
We must not disagree with Ceci's findings.

What is wrong with this picture?

No thank you.

Semper

From Post #2950395

Originally posted by ceci2006
I am so tired of white people ...
I am also tired of white people ...
I am so tired of white people ...

From Post # 2949515

Originally posted by ceci2006
So ignore me and continue with the color-blind mess. I don't care

Originally posted by semperfortis
No thank you.

Amen.

Semper, I don't think that's the theme of the thread at all. Are you sure you are reading the original post correctly?

Or else, if you have something else to contribute corresponding to the original questions in the first post, please do.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
From Post #2950395

Originally posted by ceci2006
I am so tired of white people ...
I am also tired of white people ...
I am so tired of white people ...

From Post # 2949515

Originally posted by ceci2006
So ignore me and continue with the color-blind mess. I don't care

Originally posted by semperfortis
No thank you.

Amen.

To any mod/supermod that is reading this thread, FlyersFan continues to bring up my past posts and use them in the form of personal attacks. She is also trying to use personal attacks as a way to derail the thread. This has nothing to do with the original topic.

She has knowingly edited my comments in order to stir up disruption and conflict on the board. Furthermore, she has used this tactic as another form of personal harassment.

In the past, she has used threats and intimidation in the same manner towards me. Most recently, she had been told to cease and desist from addressing my posts. Unfortunately with this latest post, she has demonstrated that she has a problem with taking the requests from the staff/mods/supermods to curb her unruly behavior. She willingly violates their admonishments repeatedly in the name of causing disturbance and discord.

I apologize that I have to do this measure, but this will be marked as a record of her personal harassment and abusive behavior towards me.

Thank you very much.




[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
FlyersFan continues to bring up my past posts and use them in the form of personal attacks.

Continues? This is the one time I have brought up a past post of yours on this thread. Oh ... and February 12th is the date of your post which isn't a 'past post'... that was five days ago. That's RECENT -

www.abovepolitics.com...

She is also trying to use personal attacks as a way to derail the thread.

Get over yourself. 'Try to derail the thread'? You aren't important enough for me to make any effort in that area. And since YOU brought up personal attacks, best not to throw stones around Ceci .. glass houses and all .... (for anyone interested .. see the above referenced thread in reference to 'personal attacks')

This has nothing to do with the original topic.

My post showcasing your racist quotes have EVERYTHING to do with the topic. It wasn't a personal attack ... it was EXPOSING your racist agenda. That's definately on topic.

she had been told to cease and desist from addressing my posts.

... By you - which means nothing.

she has demonstrated that she has a problem with taking the requests from the staff as a way to curb her unruly behavior.

DEAD WRONG. LIAR! I have NEVER been told by ANY staff member not to address your posts. I have NEVER had my posting rights decreased in ANY way. No member of this staff has EVER said I have unruly behavior. Never .. at any time .. or in any place ... in any manner.


As Semper said ... NO THANKS.

Edited to add - the unending roll by of edits and reedits ....

Originally posted by ceci2006
[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

In the past, she has used threats and intimidation She willingly violates their admonishments in terms of stopping the disruption from thread to thread.

Another edited add on .... and more untruths ....

AND THE THIRD REEDIT -

Originally posted by ceci2006
She has knowingly edited my comments in order to stir up disruption and conflict on the board. Furthermore, she has used this tactic as another form of personal harassment.

In the past, she has used threats and intimidation in the same manner towards me. Most recently, she had been told to cease and desist from addressing my posts. Unfortunately with this latest post, she has demonstrated that she has a problem with taking the requests from the staff/mods/supermods to curb her unruly behavior. She willingly violates their admonishments repeatedly in the name of causing disturbance and discord.

I apologize that I have to do this measure, but this will be marked as a record of her personal harassment and abusive behavior towards me.

The FOURTH reedit

Originally posted by ceci2006
To any mod/supermod that is reading this thread, FlyersFan continues to bring up my past posts and use them in the form of personal attacks. She is also trying to use personal attacks as a way to derail the thread. This has nothing to do with the original topic.

SOMEONE take her edit button away ...



[edit on 2/17/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ceci2006
FlyersFan continues to bring up my past posts and use them in the form of personal attacks.

Continues?

This is the one time I have brought up a past post of yours on this thread. Oh ... and February 12th is the date of your post which isn't a 'past post'... that was five days ago. That's RECENT -

www.abovepolitics.com...

She is also trying to use personal attacks as a way to derail the thread.

Get over yourself. 'Try to derail the thread'?

You aren't important enough for me to make any effort in that area. And since YOU brought up personal attacks, best not to throw stones around Ceci .. glass houses and all .... (for anyone interested .. see the above referenced thread in reference to 'personal attacks')

This has nothing to do with the original topic.

My post showcasing your racist quotes have EVERYTHING to do with the topic. It wasn't a personal attack ... it was EXPOSING your racist agenda. That's definately on topic.

[quote[ she had been told to cease and desist from addressing my posts.

... By you - which means nothing.

she has demonstrated that she has a problem with taking the requests from the staff as a way to curb her unruly behavior.

DEAD WRONG. LIAR! I have NEVER been told by ANY staff member not to address your posts. I have NEVER had my posting rights decreased in ANY way. No member of this staff has EVER said I have unruly behavior. Never .. at any time .. or in any place ... in any manner.

As Semper said ... NO THANKS.

This is a second demonstration of FlyersFan's inability to cease and desist from abusive behavior. As a record, this reflects her personal harassment of me through intimidation, threats, personal attacks and knowingly re-editing posts in order to taunt me and disrupt the thread.

She has been requested to cease and desist with her behavior by the staff. And unfortunately, this second post to me demonstrates that she does not take the requests from the staff very well.

I apologize that I have to post this second record of her latest abusive attempts toward me in this thread. I only request that her foul behavior stops toward me, the thread returns on track without any derailment, and in light of her personal harassment toward me that she would stop addressing my posts or referring to me in any of hers. I refuse to confront her. I also refuse to add to the disruption of this thread by addressing her.

This is for any mod/supermod to read and take note of Flyersfan systematic abuse of me and my posts in this thread.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
She has been requested to cease and desist with her behavior by the staff.

More lies ... :shk:

Originally posted by ceci2006
knowingly re-editing posts

As evidenced by my capture of FOUR reedits of your posts .. that would be YOU who reedits posts over and over and over ..... :shk:



[edit on 2/17/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ceci2006
She has been requested to cease and desist with her behavior by the staff.

More lies ... :shk:

Originally posted by ceci2006
knowingly re-editing posts

As evidenced by my capture of FOUR reedits of your posts .. that would be YOU who reedits posts over and over and over ..... :shk:



[edit on 2/17/2007 by FlyersFan]

This is the third post in which she has continued personal harassment, threats, intimidation, stalking, and knowingly re-editing my posts to derail and disrupt this thread and to personally harass me. She personally harasses me on many threads and will not stop. This post will further serve as a mark to highlight FlyersFan's campaign of abusive behavior towards me.

I only request that her foul behavior stops toward me, the thread returns on track without any derailment, and in light of her personal harassment toward me that she would stop addressing my posts or referring to me in any of hers. I refuse to confront her. I also refuse to add to the disruption of this thread by addressing her.

I apologize to the staff that I have to do this, but this is a record for any mod/supermod to take note of her unruly, disruptive, abusive behavior towards me on the board. Not to mention her inability to take requests to cease and desist from the mods/supermods in this matter.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

If any member has a complaint of another member, use the function that we are all aware of. Posting off-topic posts of other members about how the other is derailing, is slightly hypocritical. However, I would like to insert my two cents on one aspect of this latest development. If a member uses our previous posts as an arsenal to undermine our position, it is completely relevant to the discussion at hand. If I sit here saying how I am a good man, very kind hearted, and give to charity on a regular basis, but members can read twenty previous posts about how I lie, steal, and cheat.. well there is some hypocrisy in my statements. I feel it is the members responsibility to acknowledge this. I don't think FF is attempting to derail this thread, I believe she is acknowledging some tendencies you have displayed and hoping you will make an attempt to clarify the contradiction in your posts. On one hand you talk of respect and acceptance, but on the other you go against everything that you are saying. When someone acknowledges this, we are pushed aside as "trolls". It really is not the case.

I think the posts following the initial two or three between you two are completely off-topic and actually have derailed the thread. But the initial comment that ceci believes was the cause, was completely necessary and should of been acknowledged appropriately. Our posting history does matter and is on topic to the discussion.

You are saying one thing but behaving in another. We merely ask for a clarification. Your denial, or attempts to slander the message, are merely providing the clarification for us.

...I think Semper hit the nail on the end. Abide by the pre-set rules by one member or be chastised for it. Fortunately the T&C govern these pages, and I've seen very little that deserves any form of action. In my opinion of course.

I look forward to this discussion getting back on track. Ceci, your history does pertain to what we are discussing. I would like to see you acknowledge it and attempt to clarify the discrepancies.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by chissler]

I'd like to add that the thread IS about discussing the "two sides of race-relations" (whatever those are). And the truth is that the OP has set forth "the rules" and definitions for that discussion in the first few pages.

Semper has made a concise, obvious statement of those rules. If I may, I'd like to add a rule I have seen in pracitce:

The Rule-Maker obviously isn't required to follow the rules.

Edited to add: How is anyone supposed to want to discuss race relations under these very constrained and "double-standard" set of conditions? If our opinions don't matter (are wrong) and we must follow strict rules that not everyone is required to follow, what possible reason would there be for us to want to be involved?

Right. None. No, thanks.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I would most certainly like to get back to the topic. And I would like to say this:

My personal harrassment issues has been addressed by mods before.

Other than that, I would like to note something that BH addressed: "the rulemaker isn't supposed to follow the rules".

It is really funny that she would say that because there are many studies that have shown that when social norms, social values, culture, behavior and language is transmitted by the majority, the rules are always being subverted one way or another in society. For those left out of the system, they have to work with and sometimes work against the rules to survive; for the ones in the system they implement the rules and change them as a way to establish power and continue self-preservation in terms of keeping the transmission of their social attributes flowing along.

Someone always ends up being on the short end of the stick while another ends up on top.

That's why power-relations are extremely important.

There's truly nothing to get emotional over; it's just the way society works. There are people who receive the privileges of society while others don't. To address the inequalities of treatment, there has to be a language to establish who is part of the majority and who exists in the minority.

But, even when the rules are subverted, people get upset.

That's why I wonder if it is possible for people from different races to be ever on the same page when it comes to "ground rules" and "language" in the midst of discussing race-related issues. The problem is that people are always trying to put their personal feelings in the way instead of relying on sources.

-----------------------

And speaking of being "constrained" by rules, how do you think a person of color feels when they are backhanded by institutional racism as well as the prejudice from others on a daily basis? A person of color has to constantly play along with the system or it might cost them their job, their life, their home and everything else they hold dear.

You are extremely lucky to say no thanks.

A lot of people don't have the privilege or the freedom to refuse the dominant culture's rules.

But when the rules are against you, aren't you a bit perturbed?

Welcome to learning the first actual lesson of Race-relations 101 on ATS.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

ARE Y'ALL HIGH?

The term dominant group comes from SOCIOLOGY!! Don't take that up with Ceci; take that up with the discipline of sociology. Damn, why is that so hard to understand?:shk:

[edit on 17-2-2007 by truthseeka]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by truthseeka]

This is like attempting to nail jelly to the wall. What am I missing in all of this? It's like, we ask one simple question and we are inundated with all of this jargon that, looks good on paper, but has nothing to do with the issues that have been brought to your attention. A member acknowledges your posting history, which indicates a contradiction in your approach. This is completely off-topic and a personal attack to you as a person. In your opinion of course. But what it actually is, is an attack on the message you are attempting to preach to us.

Our eyes and ears are open. We want to hear what you have to say. Well, I know I do. But it is quite frustrating when we ask a question and you go off on some speech about different terms and the definitions we have put on them. Semantics, all of it is semantics.

And no, we are not high. We are merely attempting to take something from this discussion that makes any sense. We have read the OP's opinions, we have heard her thoughts. This is a discussion. When we raise a point, the point should be acknowledged and clarified. Not ignored and used as a stepping stone to the next speech on the semantics of the process.

Thanks for your defense, truthseeka. After all, I didn't create these definitions. Nor did I change them.

However, it is rather interesting to see what happens when the rules are out of the hands of those who are used to making them.

-----------------------------------------------------

Chissler, I am explaining myself. I am sorry how I post is not suited to your reading or discussion tastes. And I have answered other people's comments--since the first post. And, I have included some insights of my own trying to pin-point where the semantic disconnect happens. Anyone else is welcome to include their opinions of where the divergence in understanding the same issue goes wrong in mixed-race discussions. That would be very helpful.

I just find it unfortunate that people don't have any more suggestions. I am saddened that people are still hung up on the definition of "dominant culture" even to the point of trying to derail the thread. But, that's what I expect.



[edit on 17-2-2007 by ceci2006]

This thread is in the "Political Slug Fest" forum, and as such, anyone with "thin skin" or who becomes frustrated by heated exchanges better stay away.

As for inferences of any member or poster attempting to apply alternative rules specific to "their thread", any expectation of this is completely misplaced. There is only one set of rules, with a degree of latitude offered in political debate, and slight more so in this particular forum. Members should expect that any response may be inspired by their topics, and as long as presented with civility, is both encouraged and embraced.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I would most certainly like to get back to the topic.

Really?

Originally posted by ceci2006
So why do you follow that comment up with something that is completely off-topic?

My personal harrassment issues has been addressed by mods before.

Tried to sneak that little off-topic rant in there?

Originally posted by ceci2006
It is really funny that she would say that because there are many studies that have shown that when social norms, social values, culture, behavior and language is transmitted by the majority, the rules are always being subverted one way or another in society. For those left out of the system, they have to work with and sometimes work against the rules to survive; for the ones in the system they implement the rules and change them as a way to establish power and continue self-preservation in terms of keeping the transmission of their social attributes flowing along.

Thats great. But what does any of it have to do with what we are addressing?

Originally posted by ceci2006
Someone always ends up being on the short end of the stick while another ends up on top.

Society's Victim Mindset

Originally posted by ceci2006
There's truly nothing to get emotional over; it's just the way society works. There are people who receive the privileges of society while others don't. To address the inequalities of treatment, there has to be a language to establish who is part of the majority and who exists in the minority.

But, even when the rules are subverted, people get upset.

Do you need to generalize everything? We are talking about one specific case here. But the lights, the cameras, and the smoke screen is absolutely beautiful.

Originally posted by ceci2006
And speaking of being "constrained" by rules, how do you think a person of color feels when they are backhanded by institutional racism as well as the prejudice from others on a daily basis? A person of color has to constantly play along with the system or it might cost them their job, their life, their home and everything else they hold dear.

Society's Victim Mindset

Originally posted by ceci2006
A lot of people don't have the privilege or the freedom to refuse the dominant culture's rules.

Generalization.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the hypocrisy comes out.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thanks for your defense, truthseeka. After all, I didn't create these definitions. Nor did I change them.

Your thanking a member for attacking us. A member attacks us, and you thank him. How can you continue to say one thing, but behave in a manner that completely contradicts? We attack your message and get attacked personally for it. Then you proceed to thank the member for it. Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Chissler, I am explaining myself.

Well explain how your posting history is off-topic to the discussion?

Originally posted by ceci2006
And I have answered other people's comments--since the first thread.

No you respond to specifics with semantics and generalizations.

Originally posted by ceci2006
But, that's what I expect.

What happened to the optimism that you've been preaching for a constructive conversation?

Edit: Mishap on the bbcode

[edit on 17-2-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thanks for your defense, truthseeka. After all, I didn't create these definitions. Nor did I change them.

No.. you just conveniently use it as a 'diplomatic' way of saying 'all whites'.

However, it is rather interesting to see when the rules are out of the hands of those who are used to making them.

What? 'We' don't make the rules.. seems you think attacking the.. [ahem] dominant culture is some sort of payback.

I'm certain this post was much shorter when I pressed quote.

Anyone else is welcome to include their opinions of where the divergence in understanding the same issue goes wrong in mixed-race discussions. That would be very helpful.

So what are your thoughts on classism and the elite then? Oh thats right.. you ignored it as it explained how whites are not the dominant culture. Are you even able to have discussion on race without putting all whites under the same banner? Have a try.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by riley]

Originally posted by chissler
This is like attempting to nail jelly to the wall. What am I missing in all of this? It's like, we ask one simple question and we are inundated with all of this jargon that, looks good on paper, but has nothing to do with the issues that have been brought to your attention. A member acknowledges your posting history, which indicates a contradiction in your approach. This is completely off-topic and a personal attack to you as a person. In your opinion of course. But what it actually is, is an attack on the message you are attempting to preach to us.

Our eyes and ears are open. We want to hear what you have to say. Well, I know I do. But it is quite frustrating when we ask a question and you go off on some speech about different terms and the definitions we have put on them. Semantics, all of it is semantics.

And no, we are not high. We are merely attempting to take something from this discussion that makes any sense. We have read the OP's opinions, we have heard her thoughts. This is a discussion. When we raise a point, the point should be acknowledged and clarified. Not ignored and used as a stepping stone to the next speech on the semantics of the process.

I have no idea who you're talking to, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Facts are facts. In sociology, the majority in a society is called the dominant group. Too bad if some of you think Ceci's trying to attack you by using this term. It seems to me that y'all don't like the dominant in the term...too bad. This is a sociological definition, so like I said, contact the leading sociologists if y'all don't like it.

If two people are in agreement, it means that one of them is not thinking.

Ceci is very intelligent. I do not dispute that. But, it is my opinion, that she is taking a definition and construing it to fit her approach. This opinion is not an attack on her, nor you, but it is an attack on her approach. The two are quite different. The only thing that has gotten personal as of late, is your comment on whether or not we are high. And then Ceci thanked you for your comment. That appreciation goes against everything that she is saying. But it indicates that the rules only apply for Ceci when a member disagrees with her content.

We disagree, therefore we are attacking. You agree, so you are immune to her negativity.

We continue to wait for clarification on these overt contradictions.

I see...

So, you think Ceci is using the term as derogatory for whites? I guess (and someone called ME paranoid ).

And, you think me asking if y'all were high is an insult? Well, for one, it's a reference to Dogma (you can be sure "what are you, stoned?" will be the next one used ). And two, there is nothing BAD about being high (on weed, that is). I've spent quite a bit of time high myself; I'm just too busy to cheef nowadays...