Vision Circle

I agree that it's not smart to label anyone based on how they lean on one or three issues. Gotta look at the whole kiboodle. But there is going to be an overall tendency, a decided lean. Cuz these issues simply don't have equal weighting.

I'm not sure that the source of angst here is mainly about people choosing one camp over another, but rather the nature/tenor of the intrapolitical dialogue.

p.s. Sounds like you WANT to make a choice, but you can't get past the more extreme elements of either side?

Or do we just label you a "you can't label me" guy?

I'm with you, DarkStar. A Black Nationalist is both liberal and conservative, and neither liberal nor conservative. There are very few issues that make me foam at the mouth, and no one will ever get my vote because of their stand on a single issue (unless it is completely outrageous.)

You would think we lived in the matrix, where everything was really just a zero or a one, a two-dimensional world with no colors, no shades of gray.

That's why we have to endure words like flip-flop. No room to change your mind; what you said you believed in during your 20's you better darn well believe in during your 40's. How silly is that?

if the goal is service to black folk, we simply cannot afford to fall out over tactics. if the goal is affirming our tangential status to white folks ideologies and practices, then there is no point because democrats and republicans will both yield varying degrees of unsatisfactory conclusions. while names usually don't mean too much, it would be interesting to know what the implications would be if black democrats and black republicans met as democrat blacks and republican blacks...and by extension christian blacks or muslim blacks or american blacks and african blacks and caribbean blacks...i think the implications for the conversation are different.

at some point, the back and forth about uninformed opinions is absurd. for example, nuclear physicists don't seriously entertain the "opinions" of folks who are beyond the discipline. why should they? the effects would be disastrous. that is no less true for black folk going back and forth on "issues of race" which they have neither studied nor labored on to much effect. in other words, prove it or pipe down...and if you can't prove, convince me...and if you can't convince me (read as the broader collective or team), defer. if you're unwilling to defer and move on to the next agenda item, it's time for you to bounce or build your communication skills. you may be ahead of your time, but you have to carry the day - regardless of your "persuasion."

this conversation is really about extending an invitation to rigor. after all, it's fairly easy to distinguish between those who know, empirically and personally, the condition and prescriptions vs. those who simply recite and repeat positions with roots outside the collective. we may not all agree after our studies, but we will have a stronger basis for collective action than "Well, I feel..."

It seems to me American politics has largely deteriorated into cult worship. That would explain the doctrinaire partisanship; the willful dissonance on display for almost every issue along with the preoccupations with conformity and deference to authority.

I'm not really surprised that Blackfolx are succumbing to this condition, for we remain mostly ignorant as to our cultural identity. We're so busy trying to feel good, we'll glom on to whatever movement, group, etc., expedient that'll produce a halo effect.

The call goes out in the post and the response is in here in the cheap seats commentary. I’m honestly not sure what T3 was rigorously attempting to prove in the last half of that comment, but i'm thinkin this (visioncircle, and the blogosphere, generally) is hardly the place to "prove" anything. It's the spitcup for opinion. Tho, yes, the more "informed" (if the post is mainly about some fact of some matter) the better. But I shun any elitist suggestion that “right study” always trumps/invalidates personal experience. It’s thru the back and forth of discussion that new ideas are absorbed, or at least elicited. If you think you know something that may add flavor to the mélange, gwaan den an preach. Truly, it’s all good. It’s just ‘shop talk.

I'm of the opinion that outside of most of mathematics and some areas of science, there’s rarely a theory of any substance that can be proven “absolutely.” Normally, it's just conjecture and perhaps a discussion of some "evidence to suggest." all kinds of wild ideas and theories are bandied about in science, many born from some happy accident, trying to better explain this phenomena or that. that's fine. they only gain traction, however, if the proposed QED experiment is testable, works and is reproducible by others. A discussion about race may include “empirically sound” data points, but it is not of itself “science.” This space be a cauldron over a fire, not a test tube over a bunsen burner.

I’m supposing D*, at the end of the day, is really just asking us to put down the Kool-Aid. Sure, you may tend to vote one way, but remain open to switching “sides” if an individual candidate, on balance, professes a stance that is more in keeping with your primary needs/philosophies (and that of your fams’ and peeps’) than the competition. Kool. I can drink to that.

But I still contend that in the present day political system, after the points from your carefully crafted, one-off issue-matrix are tallied, it comes down to which (party) box you checked off behind the votin’ curtain. I still say, to some extent, party matters.

all i was really getting at is that within and beyond the blogworld there is (with respect to the questions pertaining to black folk) a tendency to convert and convince solely through the expression of opinion, which may be necessary, but not sufficient...just as an empirical approach is necessary, but not sufficient.

but, even with your (memer) balanced critique, it's not clear to me that "we" fall out over irreconcialable differences - except that our knowledge bases are soooo different - and the longer those differences obtain, the more we identify with our position along a knowledge continuum...simply, we become what we know, what we don't know, and what we choose to know/learn/ignore. that's a problematic approach to discussing/collaborating on "race." our approach, generally, is informal and predicated on opinion - until you get to the stage where folks are working together in organizations...think about your days in BSU's in college...my personal experience at different schools suggested that the back and forth on opinions helped many folks grow, but it was essentially a turn-off to many folks who needed a more structured approach that would yield tangible results. not everyone had a desire to study anything related to the past, present or future of black folks, but we all had an opinion...and my essential point is "so what." the right to have an opinion is not the same as the value that should be ascribed to an opinion. the right is sacred, the value is earned.

bsu's, for many folks, constitute the first effort to formally together...for many other folks, bsu's are second to church experiences...still, the notion of collaboration and communion based on a "shared experience or perspective" is a big part of the offering...the problem, operationally, is that our experiences are increasing divergent. and our approach is still unempirical and not conducive to improving our collaboration. bsu's do great work, but the attrition rates at most schools, is enormous. there is a small cadre who does lots of heavy lifting...i believe it's largely a function of approach rather than a lack of common values.

and if you've never had a deeper discussion with someone (beyond opinion), your organization could be headed for trouble. after all, if the end game is wealth building or political empowerment, there are many empirical approaches to achieving that end...however, if the end game is simply chewing the fat on a blog or in the streets, then opinions are sufficient. but, i can't think of an effective organization that operates based on expressed opinions in the absence of some intellectual work...

it's okay to ask, "what do you know?" so long as the answer is not a cynical, "you are what you know." our only limitations are in what we are willing to learn/become through education (and i don't really mean formal schooling) and experience.

btw, it's really not all good in the blogsphere when cats like Michael King are talking that professional widow business. that type of discourse is a reflection of throwing bs up on the wall and seeing if it sticks...no rigor, no nothing, just opinion and bs. it's sloppy and is part and parcel of too many organizations.

all i was really getting at is that within and beyond the blogworld there is (with respect to the questions pertaining to black folk) a tendency to convert and convince solely through the expression of opinion, which may be necessary, but not sufficient...just as an empirical approach is necessary, but not sufficient.

but, even with your (memer) balanced critique, it's not clear to me that "we" fall out over irreconcialable differences - except that our knowledge bases are soooo different - and the longer those differences obtain, the more we identify with our position along a knowledge continuum...simply, we become what we know, what we don't know, and what we choose to know/learn/ignore. that's a problematic approach to discussing/collaborating on "race." our approach, generally, is informal and predicated on opinion - until you get to the stage where folks are working together in organizations...think about your days in BSU's in college...my personal experience at different schools suggested that the back and forth on opinions helped many folks grow, but it was essentially a turn-off to many folks who needed a more structured approach that would yield tangible results. not everyone had a desire to study anything related to the past, present or future of black folks, but we all had an opinion...and my essential point is "so what." the right to have an opinion is not the same as the value that should be ascribed to an opinion. the right is sacred, the value is earned.

bsu's, for many folks, constitute the first effort to formally together...for many other folks, bsu's are second to church experiences...still, the notion of collaboration and communion based on a "shared experience or perspective" is a big part of the offering...the problem, operationally, is that our experiences are increasing divergent. and our approach is still unempirical and not conducive to improving our collaboration. bsu's do great work, but the attrition rates at most schools, is enormous. there is a small cadre who does lots of heavy lifting...i believe it's largely a function of approach rather than a lack of common values.

and if you've never had a deeper discussion with someone (beyond opinion), your organization could be headed for trouble. after all, if the end game is wealth building or political empowerment, there are many empirical approaches to achieving that end...however, if the end game is simply chewing the fat on a blog or in the streets, then opinions are sufficient. but, i can't think of an effective organization that operates based on expressed opinions in the absence of some intellectual work...

it's okay to ask, "what do you know?" so long as the answer is not a cynical, "you are what you know." our only limitations are in what we are willing to learn/become through education (and i don't really mean formal schooling) and experience.

btw, it's really not all good in the blogsphere when cats like Michael King are talking that professional widow business. that type of discourse is a reflection of throwing bs up on the wall and seeing if it sticks...no rigor, no nothing, just opinion and bs. it's sloppy and is part and parcel of too many organizations.