EnviroLink Forum

RF wrote







Neither do I; principally because race (as distinct from culture or citizenship) was not an issue when the usage was established.



I agree that it represents a dichotomy that white people might naturally adopt to represent self and other; good and bad etc. and may be said to be based on racial identity. I seem to recall reading, however, that this dichotomy is more human than race based and is not actually confined to white races. In that case it probably has more to do with the human preference for Day, visibility and relative safety; over Night, invisibility and relative insecurity.



"Therefore", should introduce the conclusion of an argument. You have provided no argument. This is simply a re-statement of your first proposition above viz: "to blacken/sully" is, "inherently racial".

That, "to blacken", here is a metaphoric reference to the phenomena of darkening or loss of light (e.g. eclipse of the Moon / setting of the Sun) and all that that implies, and has nothing to do with the colour of anyone's skin or hair, should be obvious from the fact that it makes perfect sense to speak of denigrating a black person viz: darkening that person's character.

My argument is that this word refers to character, which has no colour, is a [i]phenomenological/i] metaphor and has nothing whatever to do with racial hostility.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

RF wrote



It was indeed RF



You are welcome RF - least I could do



Apparently so, it's the time warp, never ceases to amaze me: something to do with the Sun I think



Or could have been had I seen this post before the other - in which case I wouldn't have had to apologize twice

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Hi NT



Thank's NT but it's O.K. You've brought an important, long standing, issue to a head and I hope it will now be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to all.



You may say it in any English you care to adopt NT. That is praise indeed (and contra my usual detached and objective posture I'm not even listening to any remarks to the contrary) BTW NT, your English is really very good and not at all unsophisticated.



Yes I did.



I have been trying - I think the Forum is worth saving, but moderating is definitely my last throw of the dice.

NT, I saw your next post and will check my private box.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

RF- You are doing this to be antagonistic... your smallcox posting is another example. One more of these and I will ban you. I will not discuss this further as I have no time for immature bs like this.

-josh

You do what you want, Josh. Apparently my being polite isn't enough, and I really fail to see how I can avoid being antagonistic. (And nowhere did I see that a self-depracating joke was verboten. Course...it was hard to comment on without calling attention to the underlying intent of the original comment.)

But like I said, I don't see how I can avoid being antagonistic. I don't see how anyone here can when interacting with their opposition.

Main Entry: an·tag·o·nism
Pronunciation: an-'ta-g&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : opposition of a conflicting force, tendency, or principle <the antagonism of democracy to dictatorship> b : actively expressed opposition or hostility <antagonism between factions>

But if you want to ban me, I can accept that. After all, it isn't much different than those hunt sabbers being deliberately antagonistic to hunters...though they don't seem to accept the consequences as well. You seemed to gloss over that...in fact, seemed to be saying that antagonism was nothing but smart politics...but as I earlier predicted....you sing a different tune when the situation is reversed.

(BTW...if my argument was merely "immature BS", you think someone could have addressed it and disposed of it. I do understand how difficult that is when an argument follows your own rationale and reason, but still...)

You could have posted a complaint about the original comment by xveganx without then making fun of the fact that she made a complaint about another user's disability. It was ill-advised and not done out of a sincere concern for the state of things on this forum... it was done to "go after" another user by whining to me.

I did dispose of the thread you started, as well as others posted by other users who were doing the same thing.

-josh

RF

I, "disposed of, your argument on, "nigere", fairly well, I thought. Certainly presented a rational explanation of it's (non-racist) use.

Josh is obviously right about the rest. Your post jeering at Phantomuk's dyslexia was a disgrace. IMO, if you had a proper sense of the immaturity and enormity of what you did you would apologise to Phantomuk - and mean it. You can't expect a crude self-deprecating joke (which certainly didn't raise the general tone of the exchange) to wash the slate clean.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Well that's your story, and since I am apparently not allowed to pursue my point, I suppose your story can stand.



Enormity? That's a bit dramatic. All I did was laugh at the joke.



That wasn't the intent, and I don't really understand why you would make that assumption.

I certainly don't see that the tone of my post was "whining". Nor was I going after xveganx. Was just noting a bit of irony, is all. Where I was going was wherever that irony applied.

I'm sure Josh didn't mean you were not permitted to carry on a discussion of the semantics. But let it go. It's not relevant to the discussion really.





That's what I mean by a poor sense of the, "enormity", (size) of the offence. It wasn't a joke it was an instance of laughing at / jeering / poking fun at / a person's disability. Pretty crass joke.





Not an assumption; an inference from something you said later to Josh. I thought you were saying that you had also made a joke against your self - as if that made it alright.

I still think you (and the originator of the, "joke") owe it to yourselves and everyone else to apologize.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Could someone please clarify - is the use of



an indication that the author is making a joke?

_________________
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

- The Animals

No...all I did was say that I wasn't aware such jokes were against the rules. And noted that the joke was probably very difficult to respond to.



No...I don't owe an apology to anyone else. You might be right that I owe it to myself, though. But then, I have lots of debts I have incurred to myself that are unsettled.

However, I can't get past this niggling (OMG!) little perception that I have seen no such persistent suggestions for apologies given to some who have engaged in even more enormous insult than some giggling over what I still perceive as a funny rejoinder.

Now I will admit that I sometimes pay little attention to official rules except to see how close to the line I can go. But I pay close attention to the rules that others show they personally play by. And that joke in question seems entirely within Phanto's rules.

Don't get me wrong. I sorta like the kid, despite our polarity on certain issues. But a little appreciation for the irony of his own situation contrasted with his own words wouldn't hurt him any.

RF"





I'm not sure they are. We are still evolving the rules. I'd say your joke word, being coarse but clever was borderline. People vary on this question, obviously, but it is a public forum and I suspect we'll opt for a conservative position on coarse language in the end to avoid giving offence.





Not a good idea really, IMO.



Your final rejoinder to XveganX was clever and I grant it was funny too, despite the coarseness of the language; and even justified in view of XveganX's comment to you. That wasn't the issue. My suggestion of apology relates to your treatment of Phantomuk - not XveganX.

As to precedents I think you'll find quite a few apologies, from both sides, if you go back through the posts. However, in all the cases I can remember the people reprimanded for giving offence offered their apology without being asked. Still you are right; equally offensive or perhaps worse things have gone by (or been deleted) without apology offered or sought. Perhaps you just walked in at the wrong moment. Perhaps I think you are worth the effort. I'm not sure. Anyway, it's your decision. If you don't think it appropriate, obviously you won't do it.



What a surprise



Possibly but it isn't the point. In the first place, while Phantomuk has used some extremely strong and offensive language, particularly, in response to ridicule re his occasional dyslexic formulations, he has apologized to Josh and has re-formed. In the second place it isn't only Pantomuk who is reading your posts.



It isn't about who you like.



Let me see now. Publicly ridiculing Phantomuk's dyslexia is supposed to help him appreciate the, "irony of his situation". Yes? No, sorry! Can't grasp it. Would you care to elaborate?

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Perhaps pantomuk should have been upfront about his 'condition' a little sooner. Afterall, the first mention is in the thread in question, and he himself treated it as a joke. I guess that would make him the 'originator' that owes everyone an apology?

Or maybe you're being played by both sides, and that's the real humor of the situation?

_________________
I'm just a soul who's intentions are good,
Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

- The Animals

It is not the first time I have mentioned it and no I did not find it a joke I did not know how to respond without getting banned. Let just say we would have been fighting if in the same room and that was the extent of my feelings at the time.