Everything is an experiment in life. Gandhi's autobiography was titled, "My experiments with truth". Like I said, I didn't bring my race into the discussions....others do. I didn't create the persona of being a white racist hick - others did. I brought up my race not to win an argument, but to show how off that perception is...and how you can't judge someone's race based on their words or deeds. But that point was never captured. Because people were more focused on winning a debate then learning. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.... In any case, it's time to end this whole debate...I think the productivity out of this is done with. There's really nothing left to say on this. Hopefully, you guys can stop heckling me about my race...if you think what I say lacks credibility, you're welcome to put me on ignore. Just like I've put Jo Mama on ignore because he has no credibility in my book.
yes you did - you initiated everything by introducing your race into the discussion in order to defend senator macaca. no, you just created the persona of someone who will vigorously defend white racist hicks. i dont think anyone is heckling you about your race. i for one am heckling you because you lie about your race in order to bolster your arguments. ha ha - i have no credibility b/c i point out the fact that you have no credibility b/c you are a liar. thats rich!
This seems rather pretentious to me. Are you planning on running for office or something someday? Look we all express controversial views depending on where people stand on the issues. While I'm glad you find my style not antagonistic that doesn't mean that I don't take a strong stand on issues and won't shy away from debating forcefully, although civilly, on issues. You seem to be mistaking intense debate with antagonistic debate when you can have a very focussed and intense debate on issues without being antagonistic. Further you seem to be putting yourself into a Batman, the superhero not the poster, like role where somehow you don the metaphorical cape and mask of NewYorker the poster empowering you to be controversial and push people's buttons. The problem with this is that you are and have gotten upset and defensive when other people come back at you by trying to push your buttons. You're using your own anonymity as a clutch for you to run your rhetorical experiments and lob rhetorical bombs but then get upset when you feel people are getting personal at you since you're only a mask and people shouldn't be offended by a mask. This will come off as being hard but I find your position craven and disengenious. If you're going to take a stand on an issue that you believe in passionately enough to get heated about why hide behind a mask? Why bother getting uptight about anything else anyone says? All that says is that you don't really believe in what you're saying and that your positions are of no relevance since the only way you will support it is behind a mask. My poster name is my real name. I've even had a real picture of me posted here. I did that by mistake when I first registered. While I've thought about changing my handle at times I haven't bothered. Not because I want anonymity but because I think "Yao Ming Kick's Ass" sounds a lot cooler than "Sishir Chang." What I say here is no different than what I would say in person and even on other D & D type sites, like the NYTimes forums which I used to frequent, my posting style was still the same. Anonymity might be fun but in the information age we're in its not that difficult to crack it but besides that I value what I post and what I would hope to be the honest opinions and thoughts of the other posters enough to not have to play some game of anonymity. Sure there is a check in regards to calling someone a f(cking @sshole but I don't see anything wrong with having a check like that. Too many people act like sophmoric blowhards already on the internet so anything that would encourage people to act civilly online is a good thing. As I said though that still won't stop me from taking a strong stand on a subject and vehemently disagreeing with someone. I just do it without calling them a f(cking @sshole. And if I ever do call someone a f(cking @sshole online you will know I mean it.
But this is exactly the point that people are trying to tell you. You have no credibility when you yourself say that this is all just a thought experiment and you won't post what you believe without anonymity. Frankly that tells me that even if I knew you in real life to not trust what you told me there since you won't take controversial stands without anonymity. As far as real interaction or contrived reality yes existentially we are just text on a screen but there are minds behind that text. Anyway how do you know how contrived this is? What if I have advanced Lou Gehrig's disease (I don't) and the only way I could communicate is through typing things out. Would that make my communication more contrived? Here's the way I look at it. Its true most of us don't know each other outside of this online environment. I could be riding in an elevator with you, Deckard, Jo Mama and we all might not realize who else is in there. In that case there is no reason to take things personally or get personal since we don't know enough about each other. At the same time that we bother to come and debate with each other we should do the the courtesy of considering that at the other end of the T1 connection there is someone else there who wants to interact with us. Anonymity is fun, I mean who doesn't like to pretend that they're something they're not every now and then, but when it becomes a mask and a crutch then I think its disingenious.
If we were in person I could still take controversal stances...there just wouldn't be a permanent record of it on the internet. Unfortunately, I work in a field where I have to publish papers and speak in public at times, and while I don't for see myself running for office in the future, I'd rather not find myself in a place where something posted on a BBS could come back and haunt me. It's just being wise to me. That's my personal choice. Now...you see how people jump to conclusions here and say I must be anti-chinese or a racist or what not. Imagine if that came back to a job interview. Perhaps some here might be interviewing me...and so you see, you just never know. Whether you chose to trust me or not is irrelevant. Just as whether or not I chose to trust you is. I look at what you write, and respond to it. Does it matter to me who you are? NOt at all, that's not what's important. The discussion is. So fine, I have no credibility. BUt whats credibility on an internet forum? Not sure. What I do know is that I never thought anyone here has credibility, and well I still debate with them. So I don't see what the whole point of trusting me or not is.
I think you're worry way too much about the impact of this internet forum. And if some employer is stupid enough to not hire you solely because of a political opinion posted on a basketball forum, then I wouldn't exactly think of that company as a great place to work at. I realize its your personal choice, but it just seems a bit silly to worry so much and confuse the hell out of everyone else.
confused? why would people be so confused? You know what's really interesting....is how much passion there seems to be about this issue. Really...I think people here worry to much about other people and it seems a bit silly to be so concerned with just one poster's "credibility" or "personal choices" or "race". I must say I'm really touched at the amount of discussion I've inspired. Credibility or not....I do seem to provoke responses....
YoYao and Macbeth would tell you that isn't necessarily a good thing here. <~~~~ notice smiley thingy.
You know, you're really tempting me to develop a big ego - all of this analysis and imagination into my psychology is really feeding into my narcasistic side. Pretention and disengenous? Well, to some who can not understand what I'm trying to do, I can see how they might see it that way. Although it's my responsibility to control the preception of who I am on here, I really don't care to - so perhaps that's why you see me that way. In any case, I whole appreciate your thoughts and your investing the time to devote your analysis....and congrats on your candor and ability to show who you are on here. I definitely think you're an open person Sishir Chang. I would advise you to be careful of writing anything controversal though...
Well, someone has to spice things up around here....I think i'm also not good at indicating sarcasm and humor in my writing, so people take me a bit too seriously. I guess I should put more of those winks and smiles in there...
This is why people are so confused by you. You apparently have a reason for what you have done but I still don't quite get what that reasoning is. I gaterh now it has something to do with not wanting to get screwed in job interviews? or just wanting to avoid having a trail of records follow you? But either way, I am still confused by all of this. Isn't that somewhat self-defeating. The purpose of coming onto a forum named debate and discussion is to debate and discuss even if our opinions may be slightly controversial. That's the whole novel concept of open political discourse and a marketplace of ideas.
It's because your recent justification has been explained until now, and during that topic you seemed indifferent on the issue of your race. After your supposed lie, your indifference turned into antagonism. You've claimed to want to debate on the merit of the facts, well the information you reveal can also be considered as so. You have inconsistencies. Spelling isn't the issue. If I did, I'd have to assume the rest of the Simpsons as a microcosm of our society. You've been telling some members to travel outside their borders, but you're also assuming the majority doesn't know better. What are the issues you have with the extremist PC crowd again? I said it before, the lack of Indian roles in the media isn't the fault of the Simpsons, which is a deliberately inaccurate portrayal of reality. It's because the Simpsons is the only show with an Indian character that people refer to that stereotype. Your ethnicity feels inequality, so do many others. After years of activism in the media by Black, Mexican and Asian groups, their successes came only when they had a market that advertisers wanted. The Indian market has only begun to be realized as a strong demographic. The minor roles minorities you mention have now isn't a great leap in diversity, but if its any comfort to you or Indians, we'll see more Indian "technician" or "medical practitioner" roles in the near future. IMO, if your issue is greater inclusion of minorities, I can't see the connection of that with George Allen's comments. But if it's an Indian-specific agenda, then the issue of personal biases get a little trickier, doesn't it? Maybe I'm missing something here...
Chris Wallace Ignores 20,000 Emails Demanding He Ask Rice About The U.S.S. Cole More than 20,000 people emailed Chris Wallace and demanded he ask Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this question today: Wallace didn’t ask the question or any question on the topic. It’s the twenty-fourth time Rice has been on Fox News Sunday since 9/11 without being asked about the U.S.S. Cole. Last month, Fox’s Chris Wallace asked President Clinton why he didn’t respond to the Oct. 12, 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. He asked the question even though the “CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible” until early 2001, which foreclosed the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration. Wallace claimed he asked the question of Clinton because “I got a lot of e-mail from viewers.”
