Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

[Jazz Spazz]

I couldn't agree with this more.

It also just happens to be to their benefit when the bare principle is decontextualized because then they don't have any personal responsibilities on the matter.

Could you expound more on what you think a person of today's personal responsibilities on the matter are aside from not being a racist and correcting racism where it truly exists?
Do you think there is more that should be laid upon the shoulders of people today for what happened in the past? ( just assume the people we are talking about are not racists today, otherwise they would have to correct and deal with what they heap upon their own shoulders.)

 

[Darkwing Duck]

just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action)

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a medium-length historical perspective on this issue.



OK... person3 is the least helpful person in this exchange because he accepts person2's premise for limiting the historical context of the discussion. He isn't balancing the conversation; instead, he tips the conversation in favor of person2 (and this issue is perhaps the most critical one for person1). The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses a false balance.

Person 1 wants a diachronic study.
Person 2 wants a synchronic study.

Both are useful, are they not?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Serious question here (I'm not just trying to be provocative, even though it sounds that way):

What value is there in asking someone to limit the historical sense they have of a concept?

This move is either saying, "your history is wrong" or "your history is right in many respects, but we can't handle too much context... the only hope we have is through parsimonious accounts."

One thing is certain, this move does nothing to enrich our understanding of the concept under investigation. The only value I can find is the precedence it gives to a certain method for evaluating things. This method has nothing to do with the concept; rather, it is a moral process of measuring things that comes in from elsewhere and starts governing the discussion.

Next srs question:
What value is there in this person interceding in this debate with his "general theory of evaluation"? What do we get out of this??

 

[Jazz Spazz]

just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them and let it consume every living moment of my life, and let me pass blame where it is due to the 4th generation.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action) It's not helping, so lets do nothing.

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a robust historical perspective on this issue, and keep them in mind as we do what we can to correct the effects patiently and consistently and help the people that were wronged while still keeping balance in life and society.



OK... person3 is the most helpful person in this exchange because he accepts both people's premises and ideas. He is not only balancing conversation but helps to find a compromise so the boat doesn't tip to far either direction and sink the whole boat. The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses zero balance and tips the boat completely the other way to make up for a prior tip. Classic case of over correction, which usually leads to an accident

fixed

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Person 1 wants a diachronic study.
Person 2 wants a synchronic study.

Both are useful, are they not?

Not always. See above.


(and, for another discussion: there are plenty of valuable critiques out there about the follies of (a) the ways synchronic studies frame their object, (b) the misapprehension of time in diachronic studies, and (c) the problematic dualities of synchronic-diachronic studies)

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

fixed

not surprised to see you dismiss a moment when I'm actually engaging. Like you, I'll go back to trolling. Call me "BALANCE MAN".

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Serious question here (I'm not just trying to be provocative, even though it sounds that way):

What value is there in asking someone to limit the historical sense they have of a concept?

This move is either saying, "your history is wrong" or "your history is right in many respects, but we can't handle too much context... the only hope we have is through parsimonious accounts."

One thing is certain, this move does nothing to enrich our understanding of the concept under investigation. The only value I can find is the precedence it gives to a certain method for evaluating things. This method has nothing to do with the concept; rather, it is a moral process of measuring things that comes in from elsewhere and starts governing the discussion.

Next srs question:
What value is there in this person interceding in this debate with his "general theory of evaluation"? What do we get out of this??

Less of limit the historical sense of a concept, and more of a balance of not letting it consume you. Know everything you can about history, nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you take steps back to see the big picture again before you start making changes. Getting so zoomed in you can often lose sight of how other things are affected by the one thing you are trying to "fix" while honed in on a topic.

You are not understanding what I am saying here obviously.

Looking at a history and topic from different viewpoints and with different lens can help in coming to the best solution of an issue.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

not surprised to see you dismiss a moment when I'm actually engaging. Like you, I'll go back to trolling. Call me "BALANCE MAN".

not dismissing, actually was a serious fix. If you want me to attach my name to it, that's fine.

Just pointing out there is another way to look at it.

Sorry if it offended you.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Not always. See above.


(and, for another discussion: there are plenty of valuable critiques out there about the follies of (a) the ways synchronic studies frame their object, (b) the misapprehension of time in diachronic studies, and (c) the problematic dualities of synchronic-diachronic studies)

I think that's being done in spades in this thread, don't you?

I already made mention of the extreme emic view One Brow seems to be taking in this thread, dismissing any etic viewpoint.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Less of limit the historical sense of a concept, and more of a balance of not letting it consume you. Know everything you can about history, nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you take steps back to see the big picture again before you start making changes. Getting so zoomed in you can often lose sight of how other things are affected by the one thing you are trying to "fix" while honed in on a topic.

You are not understanding what I am saying here obviously.

Looking at a history and topic from different viewpoints and with different lens can help in coming to the best solution of an issue.

^everything you wrote here confirms that you are entering a conversation about a concept (racism) via trying to establish the terms of judgment. I'm questioning the value of exactly what you're doing. Why do we need your moral lens for this issue? Srs question.

My first research as a graduate student was in the Caribbean. I met hundreds (maybe thousands) of professionals that had probably spent more hours studying racism than anybody you've ever met. Nobody seemed "consumed" by it (whatever the hell that means), and every single one of them was using their knowledge in socially conscious ways (e.g. teaching, community activism, etc.). But on a more basic level, their engagement with the concept of "race" was vivifying the world they lived in by teaching them more about how things have become what they've become (in other words, kinda the opposite of "consumed"... weird, eh?).

Part of the reason discussions of racism get so exhausting is because there are so many person3s out there trying to distract people. Add something of your own sense of the concept, with whatever historical depth, or politely shut up.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I think that's being done in spades in this thread, don't you?

I already made mention of the extreme emic view One Brow seems to be taking in this thread, dismissing any etic viewpoint.

One Brow's version of liberalism has huge blind spots. But, he adds more to discussions than person3s.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

One Brow's version of liberalism has huge blind spots. But, he adds more to discussions than person3s.

That, in and of itself, is irrelevant to me. In this particular topic, I think neither "helps" the discussion.

The problems that would seemingly be more prudent to attach to socioeconomic issues are affixed to racism, which leads more into semantic argument than any cultural discussion.