Avatars -- A Virtue Attached To Assuming Recreational Skin
Comments
-
Krow-
I don't think anyone intended to make MHA feel threatened at all. Rather, we've been trying to warn him about revealing so much about himself when he clearly does not want to be identified. His sense of anonymity is somewhat naive. Several people here have independently deduced his identity. Although none of the regulars here bear him any ill will, if the loss of his anonymity poses a threat to him, he needs to be much more careful about what he reveals about himself. If several people have already figured this out, it is entirely possible that whoever MHA feels threatened by could figure it out also. Many of us have been trying to tell him this since page 1 of this thread. Whatever one's opinions about the virtues of anonymity, the reality is that if you aren't extremely careful about the information you post, that anonymity is only an illusion. -
Not that I've ever cared enough to dig up the identity of anyone on this board, but it should be noted (if it hasn't already, someplace in the huge blocks of text in this thread) that some people will take on a challenge simply because it's been presented to them. If said challenge has been presented by someone perceived as a sabre-rattler, there's even more incentive to push aside that gauzy veil of anonymity, if only to be the gleeful provider of disillusionment.
-
^^^ This is part of what drove/drives white hat hackers.
I can't say I had a "drive" at all. As Carnivore alludes, MHA's identity became painfully obvious to me as I simply went about my life. ....others became aware as well.
I firmly believe it is mean spirited to watch and laugh at unaware people embarass themselves without making them fully aware of the situation.
In Krow's case (see above) I offered her my resume to let her know one could hold the viewpoint I hold, while being around non-white and/or non-middle class people for an extended period of time.
I thought of Krow's comments on my way home from work yesterday, as a well-endowed thirty-something black woman played with her Iphone. Clearly unknown to her, one of her breasts had "escaped" from her low cut blouse.
...the entire subway car pretended not to notice, yet made eye contact with each other as we wondered what the protocol was. Some tried not snicker, others were just uncomfortable. Finally, another black woman alerted her to the issue.
And, life went on: The boob was put back in the blouse, and boob's "owner" continued to ride the subway to her destination.
BTW, as of 2:30 PM Friday, my PM to MHA remains in my outbox. MHA has not yet opened it.
Clearly, he has hobbies and interests he enjoys outside of this website. ....I have acted to help him preserve them.
[edited a few times on Friday, but it doesn't show b/c no post followed it] -
Carnivore wrote: Krow-
I don't think anyone intended to make MHA feel threatened at all. Rather, we've been trying to warn him about revealing so much about himself when he clearly does not want to be identified. His sense of anonymity is somewhat naive.MHA wrote:
Whynot made an explicit threat to reveal MHA's identity (the threat MHA refers to above). I don't have time or energy to go through all of whynot's posts to locate the exact location. Perhaps MHA knows where it is, I don't know. But it was made.
And then there is a moderator who said to me via PM essentially, 'Relax despite Whynot_31 alluding to knowing who you are [and saying smugly, 'You are just asking to be taken out of your recreational skin (an online lynching???)'] no one can know who you are..' -- but then HERE another moderator says 'Well the thing is we KNOW who MHA is' (!!!)
On the same thread, multiple posters joined in with "oh, I know exactly who MHA is" which in this context contained an implicit threat. The implicit threat then resurfaced on this thread from whynot when he wrote that anonymity can be "broken".
Carnivore, I have no idea if you were involved in the previous thread (or, if so, how you were involved). My comment had nothing to do with the legitimacy of sustaining an anonymous online presence. (I'm certain, in fact, that many Eastern European gangsters could read me back my identifying details if they were so inclined.) My comment was referring only to the threat of an "outing" that was made as a power tactic against MHA.
While the threat was initiated by whynot, I saw the way that others joined in (with their comments of "we know who he is too") as a disturbing phenomenon of "group think." The others were swayed away from their everyday consciences towards disruptive and disreputable behavior. A "mob mentality" was in play. As I said previously, I think whynot's behavior in initiating the threat was deplorable. -
whynot_31 wrote:
This is disturbing on so many levels.
I thought of Krow's comments on my way home from work yesterday, as a well-endowed thirty-something black woman played with her Iphone. Clearly unknown to her, one of her breasts had "escaped" from her low cut blouse.
...the entire subway car pretended not to notice, yet made eye contact with each other as we wondered what the protocol was. Some tried not snicker, others were just uncomfortable. Finally, another black woman alerted her to the issue.
And, life went on: The boob was put back in the blouse, and boob's "owner" continued to ride the subway to her destination. -
I think whynot's behavior in initiating the threat was deplorable.
As you are aware, I don't view telling him that I and others were aware of his identity as a "threat" at all.
It's a quick imperfect analogy, but I view the alternative as letting someone (MHA in this case), sit in the subway car with their boob hanging out and doing nothing to mitigate the situation.
BTW, I rode the subway home around 6:30 yesterday. The boob was "free" from at least Atlantic until GAP.
P.S. The PM remains unread as of 8 PM Friday. Have an excellent weekend. I'll be back online Monday. -
[quote="whynot_31"]
You didn't just tell him that you were aware of his identity. You told him publicly during a heated exchange that you could reveal his identity to the board.
As you are aware, I don't view telling him that I and others were aware of his identity as a "threat" at all. -
.
why not 31
thanks for keeping us abreast of your subway moment, I feel you should have shown some compassion by discreetly approaching the well-endowed woman and in a whisper advised her that her Recreational Skin was exposed.
I think pointing out her race wasn't necessary and i'm sure when MHA reads your post he will anoint you Brooklynian's new residential racist, a title I've worked hard to retain. -
Apparently I can't get a weekend off.
Krow,
Are you referring to this thread?
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58534&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
Starting at around 7/25/10 11:08, I tried to state, "Man, people know who you are, I am one of them. Do not tempt them to out you."
I stated this to him over and over, and tried to do it in a discreet enough way people who had not already figured out who he was would not PM me asking who he was.
He seemed to not understand the message.
I even did some more here:
http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58711
Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:46 pm EST
...and then typed waaaaay too much here:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58534&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135
Don't get me wrong, I support quick and complete on line destruction of trolls.
When someone acts like a complete jerk and is acting over and over in a way that I feel they never would in person ....damn straight I (and the mods) go after their sorry ass to ensure they feel very unwelcome and never come back. (in many ways, this site is unlike much of the internet as a result)
Here's an example:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=693073&sid=152ab6d056086fdf90f2d95f3d46aa5b
Clearly a troll, a new poster came on under the name Westchester N e w s, and began breaking various rules despite the mods telling her to cut it out, and deleted her name calling posts to show her that her behavior would not be tolerated.
Despite this, she continued.
All is fair in war, and she clearly wanted to engage in war. She acted like a troll, called people a "douches" (this seems like a weird thing to be an insult, but I digress), and folks (including myself) decided to respond in kind:
a. We "outed her" for who she was and called her the same thing she called us.
b. After finding Miss former beauty queen's photos and name on the internet, the mods retroactively inserted them on her posts and as her signature.
c. One of them also wrote a few lines of code that changes Westchester N e w s to automatically appear as "Westchester Douche" (post Westchester **** without the spaces to try it yourself).
Why? Because she was dumb enough to have her name and photos associated with her avatar all over the internet, yet still wanted to abuse her anonymous status. Karma, when combined with stupidity, can really be quite entertaining.
Back to MHA:
Even in his "embarrassing beginning stage" (a stage many posters go through) I didn't perceive him as being a troll, and have consistently given him advice that I feel is in his best interest.
I wanted him to get his points across in a way that the readers of this board could digest, and in a way that would not get him banned. The mods saw this "promise" in him as well; he clearly had some viewpoints he wanted to get out and wasn't a "simple troll".
As a result of his adjusted his "style".
And, thru his thought out arguments and discussions with several posters (perhaps ME in particular), I am confident that he has made a lot of people on this board think about issues in ways that they have never thought about. Ah, the beauty of avatars and a neighborhood message board!
But I fear he lost many people in his beginning stage, some of whom will now not give him the time of day.
more rambling......
I try to act in a way that I feel allows this medium to reach its potential.
...those who believe this medium can be used to simply piss people off, and not engage in intelligent discussion are often quickly informed by the moderators and folks like myself to "cut it out".
As the mod Jeffery points out over and over, this medium allows for people to have almost any opinion ...but some decorum is required, and is enforced.
I view "decorum" as follows: Basically, one should express their opinion in a way that attempts to convey a degree of respect to the person they are speaking to. ....even though they can not see the receiver, and even though they believe they can not be seen.
....folks who don't abide by this decorum find lots of enemies, very quickly. Call it "group think" if you like, but that's not a term I would use to describe it.
Those who expect this medium to be completely anonymous, are either wrong or in for a ton of work.
Those who believe they can act in a manner that the mods believe meets the definition of being a "troll" are simply wrong.
If you give us no other recourse but to sink to your level, we will...
Hamilton: I've created a thread to meet you needs.
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=701959#701959
Krowonhill: Again, welcome to Brooklynian.
[edited mostly for grammar]
P.S. I believe I learned who MHA was in early June, and have warned him he was being sloppy ever since. I choose to reveal his identity to himself NOW largely because my hints have not worked. -
Update: My PM to MHA has been opened by him.
...the ball is in his court. I will not post on this thread until requested by MHA.
He and others can use it as uninterrupted forum to discuss my actions if they wish.
I have expressed my views on the situation, often repeatedly and long-winded-ly. -
I think some of (definitely not all.) krowonhill's sentiments may actually be justified in light of this new example.
You guys have already taken the steps of "outing" a poster basically because you didn't like them. Yes they violated the TOS or w/e, but so did the posters who outed them. The correct + adult course of action in dealing with a troll is a simple banning...
As a victim of a message board "outing" I too am a little put off by the past behavior of the board... the mod sanctioned outing of "Westchester News" is disheartening news for me, and a +1 to MHA's power of insight. And while some may see telling MHA that his identity as known is just advice, whether they realize it or not they've also made an implicit threat, which strikes to the heart of why he dons an "avatar" in the first place. The manner in which the knowledge of his identity was revealed can definitely be percieved as a threat, as it was done in the heat of a charged discussion- a PUBLIC discussion, not a private message....
I still disagree with him in that his opinions can only be made in a public forum behind an anonymous screen name, or amongst other black people he deems trustworthy. In fact I think such behavior only serves to further validate the world view that MHA has subscribed to. I think discussions like the ones we've had can be had- but it has to be in the right CONTEXT. I also don't think MHA should stand for continual marginalization by superiors because of his race... but there are ways and means of standing up for one's self in corporate America that won't necessarily jeopardize one's career or w/e. But that's another thread, and not really one I would want to participate in at this point anyway....
I think certain posters and the moderating staff really need to take a long hard objective look at some of the actions here... in retrospect I realize at times that I've been wrong, but when I was I had the full support of the mod squad here. On the flip side, while MHA has definitely inflamed, which only further clouds the issue, he has often been marginalized and punished simply for having a different world view. Again my offer of speaking in public still stands- we still stand to gain a lot in a face to face exchange outside the realm of this board, but that's on you. Still though I think there's a lot of truth in MHA's complaints, and some merit in the breadth gained by all in really hearing what he has to say....
IDK though... my view of Brooklynian has changed a bit in light of this new info. Not sure what to think. I'm kinda siding with MHA here -
Just a dismissible side note - whynot is right up there with the least malicious people I've ever met, all talk of his 'threat' is amusing to me, in that light.
If there are benefits to communicating thoughts as a faceless name, I guess that the above is one of the arguments for the opposite - good ol' fashioned analog interaction. -
Did MHA finally decide to abandon the board after all of the threats -or advice (depending on your perspective)?
Or, was he banned?
I suppose the end result is the same. -
There were no threats, in fact only advice.
-
Uhboy....
Whynot, thank you for you benificence and your great sense of honor. You can imagine how well I rest knowing that my 'secret' identity is safe with you -- and the wonderful unbiased moderators of the Brooklynian, who in their participation in this thread have contributed little except to insinuate that they too know who I am, and are kind enough not to tell anyone -- and think it naive of me to think that I walk around Brooklyn unmasked.
But whynot_31 is an honorable man!!!
How powerful you all are! How absolutely protective of the mask And the Virtue Attached to Assuming Recreational Skin.
Speaking of 'recreational skin'. It is a tad creepy to me that Whynot compared my assumption of writing safe in my avatar to him and a trainload of leering people playing voyeur to a dark breast, unbeknownst to its owner, on display. The pun he uses to describe what he saw when he saw the exposed breast and what he sees when he sees me is 'boob', but I wonder if the true analogy is his own apparent agape' at looking at something -- peeking at something he has no right to see -- looking at the 'recreational skin' from a vantage point that effects him with little consequence (peeping avatar?). He seems to gaze at me with the same ardor as he does the black breast inadvertently on display. Again, CREEPY.
But Whynot_31 is an honorable man!!!
CTK, thank you for your prose. I've read it at least ten times, and I think it's truly well written, well thought out, and as of yet absolutely no one has responded to it. So, you have been rendered invisible and mute by no one taking you on.
Here's the thing: Whynot_31 has claimed in his private message that he knows who I am, but he knows who I am as much as Google Earth knows who I am. Whynot_31, you DON'T know who I am. You THINK you do, but you don't. Seriously, YOU don't. I've given great thought as to why you would want to know -- why anyone would want to know who I am, and I still come up empty (Maybe your name says it all). I have absolutely no desire to sit down with anyone I've engaged in discourse with here and to see who they might be beyond who they say they are, here. I think that the personality we craft here -- the one that exists within the recreational skin -- is akin to the personality we express in any other context. I engage in other forms of recreation, with other people in other contexts, but I don't necessarily want to have a beer with them, or go to their houses and talk, or get to know them any better outside of the context in which we discourse usually. I know better than to breach that line. I respect their space. I don't flaunt in front of potentially thousands of people that I know who Mamacita is, or I know who whynot is, or anyone else for that matter. Why DO that? How responsible is that? It's not responsible. Whynot KNOWS that he cannot say "MHA is _______" He is well aware that the moderators will NOT allow him to do that. So what does he do? He feigns concern, YET says essentially, "MHA it's so easy to figure you out. All one has to do is a, b, c, d,e, et al, or go to this HTML link to figure it out(!)"
But Whynot_31 is an honorable man...
And the moderators are mum about this. They see no harm done, because after all, it's MHA we're talking about. They say they have given me advice. Carnivore, I have never ever read any 'advice' from you. Neither you Mamacita. So when you say 'we' have done this, when did y'all do this?
And this all plays back into whAt Virtues there are Attached To Recreational Skin. It's important, and those who safeguard this virtue have an AWESOME job that they ought not to allow personal opinion to influence -- AS IT HAS.
Whynot frames my 'toning down' as a function of some advice he has given me. What a fucking joke. I seriously think this guy has a terrible white man's burden complex. Seriously. Dude, I'm not YOUR noble savage, okay? So from your crouched perch amidst Odin's bushy brow, could you clam up with the - 'I'm responsible for the new MHA' rhetoric?
But whynot_31 is an honorable man.
The truth is I have adjusted HOW I express mha'self because I just got tired of Jeffrey's (a moderator) shrill responses, and CONTROL. I realized long ago that the treatment of me was biased, and I made an amoral decision to deal with it pragmatically. As ChuckD says in 'Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos', "I realized the suckas had authority..."
I knew it was a mhatter of time before I was 'found out'. I didn't make it difficult. But, this is not about MHA. It is about mhA Virtue Attached to Assuming Recreational Skin: I have made GREAT attempt to write what virtues I have found, and the responses I've gotten are MOSTLY from detractors -- MODERATORS (i.e. those who do have access to people's identity!!) saying well, WE know who YOU are....
Motherfuckers, OF COURSE you know who I am!!!! You're moderators!
What is missing is the moderator's perspective. How does it feel having access to identity, yet being RESPONSIBLE for it as well? Apparently most of y'all don't have that sense of responsibility. But it would be nice to hear. It was disheartening to read that someone was actually 'outed' by some of the moderators -- simply because they didn't like her (didn't like what she had to say) -- when all they really had to do after forewarning her was to ban her -- identity intact.
What Whynot (close friend to ALL the moderators by the way) and ALL the moderators have said here is that it is NAIVE to assume thAt there is Virtue Attached to Assuming Recreational Skin -- and the only reason I can evince why such is the case is because of a belief that THEY have the power to reveal it, and to peel it, and to hang YOU like e-stranged fruit from the e-tree, and leave you swinging, revealed and denuded for all the world to see......
But Whynot_31 is an honorable man.
And there IS A Virtue Attached to Assuming Recreational Skin, but not if people are constantly peeking underneath it where the mask buckles and reveals a little, and don't have the COURAGE to tell you in GOOD CONSCIENCE that you need protect it, PRIVATELY. Or if they Believe that if they pOint, whisper and gesture at all Others who have opportunity to also peek and amongst themselves snicker Beneath their breath, they aren't committing a misdeed.
But whynot_31 is an honorable man...
Where is Brutus when you need him? -
....I don't know some of the mods, but do know that many of them don't know who you are. I predict they don't care.
As you state above, only you know who you are as a genuine person. Or, why you now seem to publish the same views in a manner that it is more palatable to readers. Others, like me, just guess.
Much like Hamilton, you are your own person. I take no credit or blame for you.
In "avatarland", as well as real life, everyone has to defend themselves from being subject to others definitions. However, some people are seemingly constantly defined by others and have to CONSTANTLY defend themselves.
RE: the real life name that we wander around the real world in...
...I believe the consensus is that if the mods try to get someone to have decorum, and if they do not comply, we are told something along the lines of "fire at will!". The 12 year old in me loves the fun of sinking to a troll's level, getting the last word in and then watching the mods ban them.
You are aware that you not viewed by me as a troll.
...I don't think I've called you, or treated you as a "savage" either.
Welcome back! Avatars are fun.
You avatar definately has some opinions that aren't heard too often. I often share your opinions, but -as you are aware- not always.
Now if we could only get the masses to listen to us. We could then have the great revolution. ...or at least figure out who Ceasar is, and point Brutus in his direction. ....then become benevolent dictators! -
I thought you weren't going to say anything unless otherwise invited to do so??
-
MHA wrote: I thought you weren't going to say anything unless otherwise invited to do so??
I occassionally answer to "Brutus". He was a well meaning guy.
Do you want me delete it?
Et tu? -
whynot_31 wrote:
Once again whynot reveals the perverse underworkings of the Brooklynian, complete with the violent imagery of "fire at will!"
...I believe the consensus is that if the mods try to get someone to have decorum, and if they do not comply, we are told something along the lines of "fire at will!". The 12 year old in me loves, the fun of sinking to a troll's level, getting the last word in and then watching the mods ban them.
And again whynot unwittingly supports MHA's claims, while unselfconsciously claiming to detract from them. Bluntly, whynot: this is not acceptable behavior for the moderators of a site that is obstensibly about fostering community. -
Unwittingly? I have never denied MHA's claims, and in fact, even went out of my way to advise him (and all other readers) of what I perceive to be this site's norms, as well as the fact that his identity is known by some of its readers.
I cannot know whether his perceptions of the potential dangers of being known are valid, because -frankly- I am not him. I do not know the characters he interacts with in the real world. I let him know that people as dumb as me were smart enough to figure it out, that's all.
You, of course, are free to perceive me as having threatened to "out" him in order to silence him in a discussion. I do not perceive my actions in that manner, and the mods also seem to not perceive my actions in that manner.
....yes, I believe your debate is with the mods. You seem to wish for them to have a different, stricter definition of "decorum" then I perceive them as having.
As noted on the prior page, I believe that anonimity carries responsibility. Simply put: Trolls must die, and the mods (not I) get to define who is a troll.
I seek to continue bantering about life with MHA. -
Egg-zacktly Krowonhill....
I feel like Obama --not saying nothin' while Hillary shot herself in the face repeatedly.
For the record, no moderator ever sent me a private message asking for decorum. It was all, 'bang bang bang!' as Femi Kuti says... -
An interesting issue....
Should mods PM users whom they feel are violating the rules?
...or should they put their comments on the thread, in red, below the "offense" as they do now?
....how long must one be polite in response to rudeness?
The advantage of the present method is that it tells OTHERS the offender was warned, whereas a PM would not accomplish this.
CTK, MHA, and Krow seem to believe that, under no circumstancess should users be granted permission by the mods to "feel free to sink to their level and fire at will".
....should they just be banned and deleted?
should no one ever be banned or deleted, and Brooklynian end up like Craigslist rant and raves (with everyone calling each other ephitets all day)?
http://newyork.craigslist.org/rnr/ -
Dude,
I thought you said that you weren't going to say ANYTHING until asked??? -
I offered above to delete my posts, and told you I occasionally answer to Brutus. You didn't respond. The offer is still there.
....I'll delete and be gone from this thread if you want.
Maybe it will sit idle as a result.
...maybe 1000s of users will feel I am a saboteur of all that is possible on a neighborhood website. -
whynot_31 wrote: ...I believe the consensus is that if the mods try to get someone to have decorum, and if they do not comply, we are told something along the lines of "fire at will!". The 12 year old in me loves the fun of sinking to a troll's level, getting the last word in and then watching the mods ban them.
Ummm....
While I enjoy engaging in trading humorous quips, it takes two to make a joke funny... and it seems like most of the laughter in conversations involving MHA have been at him and not with him....
While I STILL don't agree w/a lot of his beliefs... in retrospect I'm realizing the real "tragedy" here was not in the inability of us all to come to some kind of ideological consensus, but more the way MHA was continually railroaded, and the fact that said railroading was encouraged by mods
It sucks, because while I still disagree with MHA's stances on race relations in America, the actions of many posters + mods here has only served to reinforce + validate them
I'm conflicted -
whynot_31 wrote: An interesting issue....
In the interest of respecting the privacy and moderating the boards, yes, standard protocol would call for a simple banning of uncooperative posters. You guys are well within your right to ban as you please- you can possibly enter a world of legal trouble by revealing people's identities. Plus the whole idea of a message board whose moderation staff bands together to "out" posters they don't like doesn't seem like a place worth posting
Should mods PM users whom they feel are violating the rules?
...or should they put their comments on the thread, in red, below the "offense" as they do now?
....how long must one be polite in response to rudeness?
The advantage of the present method is that it tells OTHERS the offender was warned, whereas a PM would not accomplish this.
CTK, MHA, and Krow seem to believe that, under no circumstancess should users be granted permission by the mods to "feel free to sink to their level and fire at will".
....should they just be banned and deleted?
should no one ever be banned or deleted, and Brooklynian end up like Craigslist rant and raves (with everyone calling each other ephitets all day)?
http://newyork.craigslist.org/rnr/ -
"While I STILL don't agree w/a lot of his beliefs... in retrospect I'm realizing the real "tragedy" here was not in the inability of us all to come to some kind of ideological consensus, but more the way MHA was continually railroaded, and the fact that said railroading was encouraged by mods...It sucks, because while I still disagree with MHA's stances on race relations in America, the actions of many posters + mods here has only served to reinforce + validate them..."
Cool The Kid
=D> =D> =D> -
MHA was "railroaded"?
All I remember is lots of warnings from mods. and other users about how careless he was being with his avatar ...despite him claiming it was of utmost importance.
In the instance of the westchester n e w s, she had posted her name and photos all over the internet, and on her own website. Some googling turned up some articles re: her record of past run-ins with the law.
No one has said recently that MHA is a troll, but --going forward--:
Do mods and fellow posters have a responsibilty to treat an individual differently so we do not support their "world view"?
i.e. If someone feels they have been the victim of unfair persecution, are we prohibited from merely prosecuting them?
I can't say a fear of legal trouble ever entered my mind.
Actually, I'm not aware of any expectation of privacy in this "big brother" age of Google Analytics. Just by getting on the internet and visitng a site, the website instantly knows an incredible amount about the user, such as their IP address (equivalent to one's "name"), location, and sites they have visited in the past. http://www.google.com/analytics/features.html
....all of this is known to a site's host BEFORE the user types in anything about themselves. In otherwords, before they become "careless" and state things that people who are mere users could use to identify them.
If this "Legal risk" from disclosing someone's readily available identity exists, do you believe this legal risk of "outing a user" applies to hosts AND users?
I don't think I've ever been assured of confidentiality on any site I've ever visited, except maybe my bank and healthcare stuff.
I guess my claim that folks decided to not post his information on the board "merely because we have consciences and don't want to hurt a well meaning stranger" is given no weight. [I'll recover from this injury, I promise]
Re: the humor of it. Several people tried to tell him how "not behind an avatar" he was. ....should I (and others) have not told him and kept snickering?
Or is this merely a debate over whether I should have been more discreet in how I and others told him?
[Krow might continue to believe I used my knowledge of his identity to my advantage in discussions, but I continue to dispute that. That issue is going to come down to a matter a perception and intentions. ...there will never be a winner]
Suffice it to say, he wasn't the first, and he probably won't be the last.
If you'd like, you guys can take the lead responsbility of letting new people know that they should act as if everything they type can be tracked back to them in real life....
P.S. I've learned that you should make sure you tell everyone this ^^^, that way you can't get accused of bias. ....but, yes, such accusations do bring a smile to my face. -
Well here's the thing Whynot_31. You are an arsehole for saying that you know who I am -- publicly. That was irresponsible. You have consistently hinted at it, and used this knowledge, and your vanity about it tackily. You then CONSISTENTLY lay out comprehensively how you THINK anyone can find out who I am; OR ANYONE IS. You obviously DON'T value the notion of the avatar -- the virtue of it -- as it relates to other people; especially if you disagree with their politics. It's funny how you are so quick to tell me how you (THINK) you know who I am, but alas, YOU remain unseen. That is as VILE as the peeping tom who gazes lustfully at someone from some dank, dark spot, PEEPING. And you expect to be viewed honorably?
Your smug sense of self DISGUSTS me. I don't give a fuck whether you know me, (or know who I am) or not. YOU disgust me. The next time you see me, and you smile and say hello, just remember that. -
MHA-
I can't find out who anyone is. ...only those who make it obvious to me.
Yes, anyone could find out who you are. ....they would simply need to participate in the community to the same degree I do, and it would become painfully obvious.
As you point out, I am not real smart. I also lack magic powers.
I also find it interesting that you feel I disagree with your politics. To the contrary, I believe that the techniques of nation building may be one of the most powerful, effective means of reaching minority youth in this country.
For example, I know that I (as a white guy) sometimes have limited success at reaching minority youth. Given the racial history of this country, the barriers are simply too large to overcome in the limited time that I and "youth at high risk" have together. In those cases, the most responsible thing to do is to "pass" the youth to a coworker who may be able to connect with them. When doing so, it is important to not refer the kid to someone whom they perceive as an "Oreo".
Sometimes the obstacle is even larger: The youth not only perceives myself and co-workers as not being able to understand and help them, but -indeed- the entire agency I work for is perceived as being part of an "oppressive white system".
In those instances, it is both necessary and responsible to refer them to an agency which is staffed by people whom the youth believes "looks and thinks" like them. It is crucial that the youth believes that those working with him/her share his worldview, otherwise he will simply ignore them.
Frequently, however, the youth is too angry and damaged to be reached by anyone (regardless of their race or whether their world view resembles their own and perhaps Malcolm X's) ....and, sadly, --despite our best efforts--- they often pursue teenage logic: "I can beat the odds and win at the Street Life."
And, before long, bad things happen:
they drop out of high school, and/or
get addicted, and/or
become pregnant for all the wrong reasons, and/or
become a victim of violence, and/or
victimize others with violence, and/or
go off to OCFS or adult prison.
There are exceptions, of course, but they seem to be few and far between.
My old professor (a very successful black nationalist who has written books on how oppression has affected much of America's black population, as well how nationalism can and should be utilized to both "save" and "mobilize" youth to allow them to achieve a different reality on behalf of themselves and other members of their nation) taught me well.
If you can't get down to Morgan to take one of his classes, I'd encourage you to at least read his book. Here's a pretty good summary: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb003/is_2_18/ai_n28892497/
True, I may believe that eventually it is best for such youth to be able to get along with everyone and work productively with bosses and coworkers of all views and complexions.
Yea, I do have a bias for assimilation in the long run.... but, as the saying goes, "we all live and die in the short run". As a result, I perceive Nationalism to be certainly as good as other strategies, and even the preferred method in many situations.
Alas, I've typed all this before.... Seriously, I think you are splitting hairs if you choose to focus on such minor details. After all, the only person exactly like you is in the mirror.
Maybe it annoys you that someone whom you despise, and you believe despises you ...actually doesn't.
Maybe it annoys you that I've had bosses, coworkers, and staff that have been strong proponents of Black Nationalism: I've been promoted by "them". I've promoted "them".
It is also becoming clear to me that you want so badly to be separate you are quite annoyed when someone "like me" seems to want to join with you in your struggle to save "your peeps". If you don't want me to join you, fine.
But you are again naive if you think that I will not continue to put forward invitations for you to join me. This situation is dire enough that I will work with anyone, perhaps you perceive the situation as ok?
It is also becoming clear that you believe you have all the answers and no one but you (or someone who agrees with you on everything) has anything to contribute.
Am I perceiving this incorrectly?
Yes, we've seen each other on a few occasions, but until recently I have chosen to let you maintain your preferred illusion: No one but you knows who you are.
I believed I was following your wishes.
I now learn that although you have repeatedly stated you have "no interest in meeting me", you now accuse me of remaining unseen, peeping or lurking. (?!)
Man, you can't have it both ways. I keep very few secrets, and have nothing to hide. ...I don't even keep secrets from those who, for whatever reason, don't seem to like me.
I have now sent you a Facebook "friend request". Even if you deny it, you'll be able to see me in all my short, paste-y, slightly portly, non-threatening glory. If you want, maybe other people on this thing will Friend you too. I hear Facebook has become pretty popular, and one can simply click whether they "like" a comment.
Does anyone else believe that this conversation would easier in person? ....have we moved from silly to absurd?
....but I also believe that we lost most of our readers on this thread long ago. I suspect the regulars on this board have either reached the conclusion that we are either "brilliant, but repetitive" or simply "repetitive".
As I've said before, this medium is best suited to:
Kill an inordinate amount of time, and
Converse with folks you might not otherwise talk to, and
Bring a smile and laughter to one's face.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds