That's not surprising at all, since the way I got to know him in the first place was because he declared war on me. He can certainly get rather verbally trigger-happy at times, and personally, I had to resort to a conversation with him on AIM to negotiate a cease-fire.
It occurred to me that it was potentially cruel of me to send him to you . . . but you were irritating me too, and I don't trust myself not to be overly polite and understanding with you. Quentin is extremely unlikely to be guilty of that.
I haven't actually read the argument yet, so I don't yet know what I'm commenting on, and I don't have time to deal with it right now either. But later, this evening or tomorrow, I'll go check up on it and help you out if you need to be defended.
He pulls all of the tried and true attacks in the book. He actually said, "More DuBois, less Garvey". *LOL* Had he read DuBois, he would know that DuBois was not into the whole idea of Black men being submissive to white people because they say so. *shakes head*
I'd be extremely surprised if Frank hasn't read DuBois (I think I may be getting slightly ahead of Frank in novel-reading, but I know he's way ahead of me in reading academic theory of all types), and therefore I suspect that wasn't what he meant by that comment. However, I'm rather confused as to what Frank actually did mean by the "more DuBois" thing, so I can't know for sure.
I read through your arguments with him just now, and I have one question for you. It's an open question which I have not preconceived any answer to. The question is: What is your purpose in choosing to debate in such a snide and condescending tone?
Or: What are you afraid would happen if you refrained from the heavy sarcasm?
I've been known to write furious and sarcastic rants to the owners of websites which declare that queerness can't be a choice, and I've sometimes been asked by them why I write in such an angry and sarcastic tone. It's not that my wrath is genuinely out of control and unrestrainable; I've heard it all so many times before that I'm quite capable of simply yawning and ignoring it. I deliberately choose to write in an angry tone, however, because although the fact that the offense is part of the status quo does make me less able to muster up any more wrath for each repeated occurrence, it does not make the incidents any less worthy of anger, so I strive to muster up a semblance of wrath because I don't want it to appear to them as though the fact that they're part of the status quo makes their behavior any less shocking and appalling.
However, if I receive a reply of any kind which is not equally angry in tone - even if it doesn't show the slightest sign that the person has actually understood a word I said - then I usually match my next reply to their tone as closely as possible. For example, if they say, "I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying at all. I assure you that queerness can't be chosen, because I tried to un-choose mine and it didn't work," then I reply, "I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying at all. I assure you that queerness can't not be chosen, because I chose mine and it worked just fine." If they are apologetic but dense, then I match them and reply in an equally apologetic but dense manner, because I think my initial angry tone has already made its point, and continuing to yell or call someone names once they're apologizing could make me look unreasonable, but I can make my point in a faux-apologetic tone just as well as they can make theirs.
The tone you're getting from Frank is hard for me to find a specific name for; it's not an apologetic tone but it's not half as sarcastic and snide as yours is. In your place, I'd choose to match Frank's tone. Do you have some other line of reasoning that I don't understand which causes you to choose to maintain the snideness and sarcasm?
It isn't condescending nor snide to me. That's an interpretation, not my truth. Passionate, yes. Brutal, possibly. Not sugar-coating, definately. But condescending... that's a word. But it wouldn't be mine.
He did not imply that it should be used as though it were his name. You chose to address him by it repeatedly and continually. I fail to understand how you can possibly not consider that "snide."
First - I have a very limited tolerance for prolonged nasty arguments taking place in my email inbox. I like checking my email to be a primarily pleasant experience, and when several days pass in which every time I open my email box I have to watch people I like calling each other rude names, it ruins my mood continually and I become very irritable. Realizing that the majority of this argument, and practically all of the nastiest parts, did not end up in my own email box but did end up in the email boxes of friends of mine just makes it all worse. It makes me extremely irritable and after it's gone on a few days I start dreading to even check my mail at all and at that point I either start deleting everything unread or I go on a murderous rampage and try to delete all the people who wrote it instead.
Second - I bit my tongue about several things you posted right after our AIM conversation, because it didn't feel like a good time for me to start complaining all over again, but they grated on me and they're not going to stop grating on me until I mention them so I'd better do so now. One: I'm sure you didn't know it, but the correct pronoun to refer to me is "he," not "she." With nouns I identify as a woman, but with pronouns I go by either male ones or genderfree ones when online - the idea being, basically, I don't consider myself male but I don't wish to submit to the traditional gender system's pronoun segregation rules. And two: don't EVER call me a "girl." That word makes all the hair from the back of my neck to the tip of my tail stand up straight and my claws unsheathe themselves and start begging me to sink them into flesh.
right, which is why he was so opposed to booker t. washington's insistence that black americans should learn and excel at craft, at labor, making themselves useful to the white establishment.
dubois wanted to prove that blacks could compete on an equal level with whites in all things INCLUDING LANGUAGE. he wanted legions of lawyers and doctors and academics. this eventually morphed into his parallel economy idea and eventually into a kind of segregationism as his disapppointment with both white america and black america wore him down.
dubois is a personal hero to me, actually, and while i intend to read him more deeply i am not unfamiliar with his stance.
garvey, of course, wanted all black americans to get on a boat back to africa (which would likely not have had much appeal for west indians or other aborginal peoples, huh?)
Re-read that... you are missing part of his arguement, honestly.
and it still smacks of a racist utterance... um, when did I advocate for going back to Africa? I think, as I have thought all along, that _you_ persume too much.
DuBois is a hero to me, too. Although he is not infallible... but I see, I _live_ in the spaces he wrote about. I know it. No one is above criticism, not even myself. But, please, return to that reading, read it deeper.
(i.e. he didn't want all doctors and lawyers, etc. He knew that some men (as he said) were meant to be woodworkers and some philosphers. He felt that educating Black men to simply be doctors and lawyers when they clearly should be, would be happiest being crastmen was the worst thing that could... and did... happen. Yes, read him again, please.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2002-01-04 10:26 am
no subject
It occurred to me that it was potentially cruel of me to send him to you . . . but you were irritating me too, and I don't trust myself not to be overly polite and understanding with you. Quentin is extremely unlikely to be guilty of that.
I haven't actually read the argument yet, so I don't yet know what I'm commenting on, and I don't have time to deal with it right now either. But later, this evening or tomorrow, I'll go check up on it and help you out if you need to be defended.
no subject
He pulls all of the tried and true attacks in the book. He actually said, "More DuBois, less Garvey". *LOL* Had he read DuBois, he would know that DuBois was not into the whole idea of Black men being submissive to white people because they say so. *shakes head*
I got a good laugh out of it.
no subject
I read through your arguments with him just now, and I have one question for you. It's an open question which I have not preconceived any answer to. The question is: What is your purpose in choosing to debate in such a snide and condescending tone?
Or: What are you afraid would happen if you refrained from the heavy sarcasm?
I've been known to write furious and sarcastic rants to the owners of websites which declare that queerness can't be a choice, and I've sometimes been asked by them why I write in such an angry and sarcastic tone. It's not that my wrath is genuinely out of control and unrestrainable; I've heard it all so many times before that I'm quite capable of simply yawning and ignoring it. I deliberately choose to write in an angry tone, however, because although the fact that the offense is part of the status quo does make me less able to muster up any more wrath for each repeated occurrence, it does not make the incidents any less worthy of anger, so I strive to muster up a semblance of wrath because I don't want it to appear to them as though the fact that they're part of the status quo makes their behavior any less shocking and appalling.
However, if I receive a reply of any kind which is not equally angry in tone - even if it doesn't show the slightest sign that the person has actually understood a word I said - then I usually match my next reply to their tone as closely as possible. For example, if they say, "I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying at all. I assure you that queerness can't be chosen, because I tried to un-choose mine and it didn't work," then I reply, "I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying at all. I assure you that queerness can't not be chosen, because I chose mine and it worked just fine." If they are apologetic but dense, then I match them and reply in an equally apologetic but dense manner, because I think my initial angry tone has already made its point, and continuing to yell or call someone names once they're apologizing could make me look unreasonable, but I can make my point in a faux-apologetic tone just as well as they can make theirs.
The tone you're getting from Frank is hard for me to find a specific name for; it's not an apologetic tone but it's not half as sarcastic and snide as yours is. In your place, I'd choose to match Frank's tone. Do you have some other line of reasoning that I don't understand which causes you to choose to maintain the snideness and sarcasm?
Re:
no subject
What on earth DO you think would be snide, if that isn't??????
Re:
*shakes head*
Remember?
no subject
Re:
no subject
Re:
Sorry.
But, normally, I do spell it correctly. Why all this angst?
no subject
First - I have a very limited tolerance for prolonged nasty arguments taking place in my email inbox. I like checking my email to be a primarily pleasant experience, and when several days pass in which every time I open my email box I have to watch people I like calling each other rude names, it ruins my mood continually and I become very irritable. Realizing that the majority of this argument, and practically all of the nastiest parts, did not end up in my own email box but did end up in the email boxes of friends of mine just makes it all worse. It makes me extremely irritable and after it's gone on a few days I start dreading to even check my mail at all and at that point I either start deleting everything unread or I go on a murderous rampage and try to delete all the people who wrote it instead.
Second - I bit my tongue about several things you posted right after our AIM conversation, because it didn't feel like a good time for me to start complaining all over again, but they grated on me and they're not going to stop grating on me until I mention them so I'd better do so now. One: I'm sure you didn't know it, but the correct pronoun to refer to me is "he," not "she." With nouns I identify as a woman, but with pronouns I go by either male ones or genderfree ones when online - the idea being, basically, I don't consider myself male but I don't wish to submit to the traditional gender system's pronoun segregation rules. And two: don't EVER call me a "girl." That word makes all the hair from the back of my neck to the tip of my tail stand up straight and my claws unsheathe themselves and start begging me to sink them into flesh.
Re:
Sorry Gayle, this isn't working out for me.
I don't have time for you and your stress.
Nice getting to meet you.
Peace,
Q
no subject
(Anonymous) 2002-01-06 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
Oh wait, we can't look because you're afraid to tell us who you are.
Re:
no subject
dubois wanted to prove that blacks could compete on an equal level with whites in all things INCLUDING LANGUAGE. he wanted legions of lawyers and doctors and academics. this eventually morphed into his parallel economy idea and eventually into a kind of segregationism as his disapppointment with both white america and black america wore him down.
dubois is a personal hero to me, actually, and while i intend to read him more deeply i am not unfamiliar with his stance.
garvey, of course, wanted all black americans to get on a boat back to africa (which would likely not have had much appeal for west indians or other aborginal peoples, huh?)
Re:
and it still smacks of a racist utterance... um, when did I advocate for going back to Africa? I think, as I have thought all along, that _you_ persume too much.
DuBois is a hero to me, too. Although he is not infallible... but I see, I _live_ in the spaces he wrote about. I know it. No one is above criticism, not even myself. But, please, return to that reading, read it deeper.
(i.e. he didn't want all doctors and lawyers, etc. He knew that some men (as he said) were meant to be woodworkers and some philosphers. He felt that educating Black men to simply be doctors and lawyers when they clearly should be, would be happiest being crastmen was the worst thing that could... and did... happen. Yes, read him again, please.)
Peace,
Q