Avatars -- A Virtue Attached To Assuming Recreational Skin

MHA wrote: I don't see how THAT is relevant to the what this thread is supposed to be about: A virtue attached to recreational skin (AVATAR), nor do you make the point why it is clear.

huh. I was able to see her points pretty clearly. ...and saw them as being completely on topic.

Okay, I read, like, the first 4 or 5 posts in this thread and couldn't stomach any more. Am I right in assuming that this is all some big ego trip?

WhyFi wrote: Anonymity =/= credibility. Also, if you haven't learned it yet, stick around for it to really sink in - one of the surefire ways to make board members tune out your message is to open statements with 'you whitefolks,' 'you people,' 'you *anything*'

Not to mention posts that are incredibly long, condescending ("little young thing"), offensive (substitute "white folks" or "you people" with another ethnic or racist term coming out of a "white folk"'s mouth and see what happens), and include phrases such as "I don't care what you think about whether or not I am a rational human being....".

It's tedious and it got old a long, long time ago.

MHA wrote: You people.....

well, at least that post was short.

Wait, y'all can actually see my picture and my name? Uh-oh.

I guess I am in disguise during the winter beard months.

whynot_31 wrote: [quote=anthonycm]Wait, y'all can actually see my picture and my name? Uh-oh.

I guess I am in disguise during the winter beard months.

shhhhh, don't make Hamilton realize his webcam is on.


.

what webcam, i don't even have a computer. i'm using the one at the 72nd pct while waiting to get booked.

MHA wrote: I think that avatars are a great thing. Avatars ain't new either, Inelson. A number of folk, Black and white used them in the horrible days of racial violence in the South to make reports about what was going on. In fact, the FBI used them to great effectiveness to infiltrate said white supremacists groups that you so despise.

OK, I'll take the bait.

MHA, why single me out when you mention this? Do you suppose I don't know it?

For instance, doesn't a white hood an avatar make? Those've been around for what, 2010-1865=145 years.

In any case, I'm going to work for an organization that was founded officially in 1971, and its foundation is based on work that dates back...well, it's impossible to pinpoint when reportage on hate groups began. I'd be hard-pressed to pinpoint a date relevant to the United States alone. Long before I was born, long before you were born, long before anyone posting on this board was born. I'm not starting a tradition and I'm not a pioneer. But I do think I'm doing the right thing, and I'm proud and honored to have the opportunity. I'm not doing it for you or for Black people, nor am I doing it for "The Jews." I guess I'm doing it for myself and for the future of America. I love this country. I think it can be better. I want to help make it better and this is the best way I can think of to do that.

MHA, you may or may not respect the person you think is behind my avatar, but I am not deserving of your derision. At best I'll be effective, at worst - at least I hope this is the worst I can be - just another naive young Ivy-educated Jewish denizen of the east coast liberal elite, trying to save a world I don't understand. But I haven't failed yet. And it bugs the hell out of me that you seem to think I'm not the right person to try. On what basis? My youth? Idealism? Race? Religious background?

I'll bring this back to avatars again: I haven't said anything as an avatar that I wouldn't say in person. I think avatars can impede genuine communication when it is called for, and I think it's called for between you and I. I'd be less well-spoken in person than I am well-written on this board, but I stand by what I write and I would say it to you as clearly as I could. I will talk with you to your face if you wish, or in public on this board, or in private or over a loudspeaker. I guess I didn't think I had to say this, but I also talk the talk, in online and in person. Maybe that matters too.

MHA, you're an interesting dude. I'm interested in you at least. I doubt we're destined to be BFFs, but I don't doubt we could have a worthwhile conversation - at least it would be worthwhile to me, and if you truly to want to change people's minds as you say you do, then it wouldn't be a waste of your time because my mind is as open as I can pry it. The best way to overcome naivite, ignorance, and the misunderstandings and prejudice that often result - in me too, I admit it without shame because it is a human failing that no one is above - is to acknowledge and deal with it directly by respectfully listening to and trying to understand people whose perspectives and experiences differ vastly from one's own. Which I try to do and will continue try to do every day for the rest of my life.

And you? Do you just want to change people's minds, or is your mind open as well?

MHA wrote: Gave it some thought Whyfi: Anonymity and CREDIBILITY are not mutually exclusive.

Never meant to imply that it was, but that it's much more difficult to be credible and anonymous...

...but it says something when one resorts to (or is fiercely protective of) anonymity, feeling that who they are hurts their credibility (fear of backlash is another issue, but one that you seem to harbor, as well). In any event, the rantings of someone with no skin in the game don't really interest me.

MHA's comment above brings to mind an incident my younger sister witnessed when she was in college, a very liberal liberal arts college on the east coast:

She was at a party that included lots of people's friends from out of town, including a 19-year-old who was set to ship off to Iraq within the week. One of my sister's college buddies, a guy, got into an argument with Mr. Iraq-bound, saying belligerently that he disagreed with the war and thought Mr. Iraq-bound was contributing to a bad cause - basically going there to murder innocent people.

Mr. Iraq-bound was not pleased with these comments and said so.

Mr. Liberal Arts College contended that it's a free country, he has the right to say whatever he wants. The argument continued.

Eventual consequence for Mr. Liberal Arts College was that Mr. Iraq-bound slugged him.

I remember that my sister, 19 at the time, was enraged at what she saw as a violation of her friend's right to free speech. I pointed out that first of all there's no way this was a First Amendment issue, and that secondly it sounded like her friend had been an asshole - that while he was entitled to say what he wanted, it's not surprising that the army recruit, more than likely anxious (at least) about his eventual fate and upcoming move, got pissed off and punched him. Not that turning to violence was the right thing to do, but that her friend was also in the wrong and had acted like an insensitive, entitled brat.

I guess a lot of parallels exist here. I didn't call up this incident to draw a parallel between my reaction to this violence and mugging poster's reaction that the mugging victim got what they deserved for being in the wrong place in the wrong time - as I see it, in my example, my sister's friend represents what happens when people who don't care who's in the room make comments accordingly. In real life, this kid got punched. Obviously that wouldn't have happened if the exchange had taken place online.

So I hear you, MHA. But I wonder if you feel you've ever "abused the medium," a possibility you described above.

And I wonder if you've considered how much of a threat revealing your actual identity to some of us, learning more about who's "in the room," might not actually be a threat at this point. We're not all idiots, surely you've gleaned that. I wouldn't punch you (or, since I'm a girl and let's be realistic about what kind of reprisal I have access to, shout for help causing you to be at risk), and I'd bet that Cool the Kid and WhyNot wouldn't either. To greater or lesser extents, you know a fair amount about each of us as individuals. So at this point, what sort of threat does identifying yourself to certain members of the board present? I'm out of here in 2 days and wouldn't have time to meet you even if you somehow agreed to, but I wonder if you would, theoretically. Is the possibility that we'd each have to be more tactful in person, more considerate of each other as individuals than we are on this board, really still a threat? Couldn't it serve some positive end? After all that's been exchanged and all that we know about each others' perspectives, it's hard to imagine that injecting the kind of moderation that comes with a face-to-face meeting would water down the discourse to a degree that would outweigh the positive benefits of such a face-to-face encounter. Rather, I think, it would give each of us a chance to chill out and learn more about who's who for real, maybe improve our understandings of why each says what s/he does.

(On the other hand, I think without question that before we'd "met" and "introduced ourselves" online, a face-to-face meeting absolutely could have been full of counterproductive self-censorship, coming from both sides.)

What do you think of this hypothetical, and why? NB, I am asking about the case of you and people on this board who have expressed an interest in meeting you, not a hypothetical involving hypothetical people.

Have I not been clear? Have I equivocated or namby-pambied too much? Should I have PM'd you? I prefer to keep things public, and let me not beat around the bush: MHA, you have offended me.

Let me refer back to the passage I quoted earlier, from the "spit" thread.

MHA wrote: If you want to argue the semantics of who the Jews are, and whether or not they constitute a homogenous fist, or an idle wiggling hand, then just think about the fact that if any of the countries neighboring Israel (or even those that don't) decide to act aggressively they will be nothing but dust the next day. I respect that. That's what I want for African people. All of you peacenik Jewish folk do your country a disservice begging for peace with Palestine. Swallow your bitter pill and live with the guilt of your neo-Manifest Destiny; and when the line is drawn in the sand, and the Iranian nuke is on its way, I wonder whose side you're gonna be on, because, baby, I have no doubt that it's comin'...

When your people were being baked and fried by the Nazis, there was no time for your ancestors to luxuriate on whether or not there was an 'us' or a 'them'. Because there WAS an us and a them.

MY "neo-manifest desitny"? I don't consider it my "birthright" to "return" to Israel or claim it as my own. Not to mention the fact that Halachic authorities don't consider me Jewish enough since, whoops, my ancestors - rather than being "baked and fried," to use your terms - were chased out of Eastern Europe by Cossacks long before the Holocaust and forgot, in the midst of fleeing, to take whatever proof might have existed to satisfy Israel's ultra-Orthodox theocracy that I am truly Jewish. Ain't MY 'manifest destiny:' if I ever go to Israel it will be as a tourist, not because of some bogus "birthright." I'm proud of my true birthright, which makes me an American citizen with all the rights and liberties that does entail. This is the country I defend and work to improve, not some country that was invented in 1948 by guilty Europeans. Not to mention that my ancestry makes me an amalgam of Eastern-European-Jewish (or more generally Ashkenazi, the Jewish tribe that pronounces it "Shabbas" instead of "Shabbat" and has a genetic predisposition for Tay-Sachs), Italian, Irish, and some other nationality that I can't identify because after bequeathing his last name upon my paternal grandfather, the ancestor belonging to this mystery nationality, being a drunkard, left and never returned to reveal his country of origin. "Nelson" sounds English, so let's say I'm Ashkenazi, Italian, Irish and English. Whatever led all those people from all those places to come to America, it wasn't only straight-up persecution (though it was with the Eastern European Jews, whose last name, town and even country of origin are lost to history) and it certainly wasn't fear of being baked, fried, sauted or braised and served with a green salad.

Moreover, how dare you presume to know how the Holocaust affects my opinion of "my" people and their politics? I feel sorry for the people who founded Israel believing they were doing the right thing. I've met survivors who were part of that fight and I'm sorry that they reached the conclusion that forming Israel was the best option. I'm sad that no one gave them a better one. It's disgusting that they were rejected by so many nations of the world. They were psychologically damaged and rejected and traumatized and terrified, and believed that starting their own country was the best way to go. How fucking horrible. But that doesn't make their nation-building, however twistedly heroic in its own sick context, right. But my political calculus does not prioritize the Holocaust. It was a terrible, unforgivable event. It was despicable and inexcusable. A lot of former Nazis got away with little or no punishment afterward, largely because America and England's priorities shifted from de-Nazification to anti-communism. Yes, a lot of evil bastards got away with murder, and everybody knew it. Does that make me mad? Yes. Does it make me unequivocally support Israel? No. And I don't see a conflict. I'll be explicit: Jews' victim status, historic and recent and blah blah blah, does not entitle 'us' to the land that once was Palestine, period. If I could go back in time I'd stop Lord Balfour from saying the Jews could have Palestine in 1917 and I'd stop the UN from recognizing Israel. Heck, maybe I'd give Alsace-Lorraine, a territory desired by the Germans who started the war and the French who did little to stop it, to displaced Jews as a "homeland." Certainly they would be more entitled to that land than to Palestine.

Even more moreover, MHA, and more to the point - What if I made an assumption about your allegiances presuming your politics were predicated on blaming the confederacy of African peoples - the Fante, the Asante, some other group - that was complicit in sending your ancestors across the Atlantic to suffer as slaves? What would you think of me then? I think you would dismiss me as an idiot. And I would be an idiot, because your politics, at least as far as race, ethnicity, and Black power go, are clearly not based on those particular past offenses. I know this because I have been paying attention to the perspective you've expressed and I respect you self-identification as a pan-Africanist. I may or may not agree with that perspective - to be honest, I don't know enough about the philosophy/orientation to know what I think of it. What matters for the purposes of this board is that you have called yourself a Pan-Africanist - a concept that arose long after these offense against your ancestors were committed - and I have no right to declare that you are intrinsically otherwise based on history, culture, art, religion, or sheer cussedness. In any case, I've been paying attention to you as a person "in the room" and I hear how you've identified, and therefore I would be dumb to think that you prioritize the role of African confederacies in bringing your ancestors to this hemisphere.

What I wonder is, have you heard me and simply chosen to ignore what I say? Or is it you think you understand Jews better than I do, even when I am the Jew in question?

](*,)

Dammit, you won't even agree to disagree. To put our relative perspectives in metaphor, I quote the song of a wise (and increasingly old) Jew: "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

Of course, he was also into looking for America. But I digress.

In any case, I'm soon to slip out the back, Jack. And while I intend to maintain this avatar and Brooklynian identity, I will, I hope, manage to stop caring so much about the fate of this thread.

Normally, anyone that uses the word, "umbrige," would earn my contempt... but Jezuz if I can't be bothered to give two shits about this guy, either way.

Guess that's the difference between an avatar and a person, and I'm beginning to think that the person has become lost in the avatar.

Whooosh.