If you cannot find the excerpt box, you can turn it on by going to the Screen Options tab at the top right hand corner of the screen, right under your screen name.
Open the Screen Options and make sure the Excerpts is checked off. If it is not checked off, click on the box to turn it on. You should only have to do this once. Note that all of the options in the Screen Options Box must be turned on in order for the system to operate properly.
Also note that the Excerpt box may pop up in the right hand column or underneath the text entry window, so look for it in both places.
06/12/2020 @ 4:13 pm
The jerky jerky nature of this site is such that you might do well to take a “now, you see it, now, you don’t, approach and attitude.
Your title and post are not in conformity with “the rules”. However, there’s not much that can be said or added re verbiage that could improve or enhance the video’s message….
White folks are constantly challenging our capacity to write effectively so they tend to discount our superior ability to COMMUNICATE without engaging in ostentatious verbosity.
Or to put it in other words superfluous bullshit.
I’m reminded of a debate that took place before your time
It took place in 1965 between William F. Buckley one of the most highly Regarded conservative thinkers and conservative rhetorical theorists of the time and James Baldwin one of the topmost authorities and authors re the African-American experience of the Civil Rights Era.
When it became apparent the he was losing the debate on the merits, Buckley had the temerity to attempt an exercise in white privilege and criticized Baldwin’s use of language and mode of speech….
You must watch this to fully appreciate the nature and scope of what is taking place:
My problem is that the competition here isn’t anywhere near as stimulating or challenging as might be expected of a debate that can result in the enlightenment of all concerned.
06/13/2020 @ 6:11 am
Let’s examine the concept of “Color of Authority” as it applies to a recent incident on BindleSnitch, and an anonymous “editor” acting from that position of authority.
First it must be understood that a conflict existed between a now defunct member, and a present one (reduced officially by the anonymous editor to “subscriber” as part of the official act). The defunct and now missing member who used the name Reggie Williams, made certain specific claims. These claims by Reggie are substantive subordinate elements to the color of authority concept, specifically referred to in the law as “color of title.” The now missing “Reggie” claimed 1. To be new. 2. To be black (of African descent).
These two claims are significant because they “color” or adjust the way one perceives his actions. With regard to being “new”, “Reggie” is asserting by exclusion that he is indeed not an existing blogger, possibly with an ax to grind. Ostensibly, this “new” member has appeared from nowhere (specifically claimed Minnesota), and had certain claims about how black Americans should feel about current events specifically, and the country broadly. The color of title aspect involves the difference in perception for a white person making these claims versus a black person. It is intuitive that a white person’s perspective about what black people think or know is an outsider’s perspective, and has an agenda, where a black person’s perspective about what a black person thinks or knows has the patina of experience. It is a form of misdirection.
To complement this use of identity is the color of authority aspect. That involves the use of office or authority to execute certain functions. This began with the delivery of an email message with the title of “editor”, but no signature or further identification. The anonymous editor made certain claims which operated on certain community principles. The message communicated motives with the following words.
“Bindlesnitch was created with the idea of giving people the opportunity to share their ideas in a forum that not only created a sense of community, but which would also allow the site to grow and become a product that could be beneficial for all members…”
Here, the anonymous editor mentions acting on behalf of a community. This is a standard level of official regulation. However, implicit in this authority is that the official is not acting on his or her own behalf. To imply a custodial responsibility is deception, and not consistent with its stated intent.
The “editor” continues.
“You have recently written published two posts that have crossed that line. Your most recent post violates the Bindlesnitch policy against hate speech. You clearly doubt the claims of one of the members of the site but, without proof to the contrary, have written a post that is clearly “incendiary” toward a person of a different race…”
In the above portion, the “editor” mentions “two” posts, without listing them. Then the “editor” says that the unlisted posts, “crossed that line.” Bad writing notwithstanding, this is not how legal transgressions, or community standards are addressed. This is shady, disingenuous, and arbitrary.
As it proceeds, it goes from poorly conceived to sloppily erroneous. I ask you to pay close attention to the following. “You clearly doubt…”. My question is, as evidenced by what? What gives this anonymous person the authority to attest to my state of mind, and also making no citations.
Further, “written a post that is incendiary…”. Again, no citation, only baseless opinion.
Then the extremely peculiar, “toward a person of a different race…”. Please take note of that particular portion. The “editor” claims in this email that I, a black man, made an incendiary post about another black man, “Reggie Williams”, which he uses to claim “hate speech” and justify his official action.
If it is not already obvious, the actions of the anonymous “editor” can not be valid. Let’s look at the evidence that does exist. “Reggie Williams” is among the missing. No complaint from the missing person exists. Reggie Williams, undoubtedly can’t be found because he does not exist. So this observation and charge exist entirely in the mind of the anonymous “editor”. Ok, so the missing Reggie Miller identified himself when he did exist as a black man. Again, I am a black man. If those two things are true, how is my post “toward a person of a different race…”? (The anonymous editor’s words). I maintain that they my posts were not hate speech, but the claim that it involved a conflict on the basis of race is a false statement to support the “hate speech” assertion.
Did this anonymous “editor” construct a false scenario using color of title (identity), and execute based upon color of authority (official position/editor)? Isn’t it necessary for the “editor” to be “Reggie”, now missing, and with no record of complaint, for this to be consistent with the claim in the original quote?
I maintain that the “editor’s” execution of the email is a confession of the violation of the official position, and the perpetration of a fraud in the character of “Reggie Williams” to justify that act.
It is also clear that the anonymous “editor” acted unilaterally, which, at the very least, makes it a suspicious act. I maintain that this was done to conceal the fact that the “editor” was also “Reggie Williams”…who is now missing.
“This is not behavior we will tolerate and so we are informing you that further occurrences of this nature could and will result in your termination from Bindlesnitch. We want to provide…”
With so much use of the word “we”, why was this act considered and executed unilaterally? The implication is yet another deception. The use of “we”, and the implication that it gives is essentially a Color of Office violation, where an official gives the appearance but exceeds such authority.
06/13/2020 @ 12:09 pm
I have hesitated to post here except in the comments, for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is my perception of one person. I believe that one person has portrayed their own self here as being more than they are. I also believe that one person has portrayed their own self as being less than they are.
To say more could require rumor mongering or could be seen as libel so I won’t do it.
As for the lesser writing ability of the black contributors, it is pure BS to say it exists.
Many in this changing society are frightened by their grip being loosened, their self perceptions and delusions outed, and their self ordained authority being questioned.
That’s a very good thing.
06/13/2020 @ 3:32 pm
Thanks, Art.
I can say this with full certainty. The person who did what he did to my status in the ay described is a criminal. The person lacks impulse control. The person is endowed with capabilities which exceed his capabilities. To represent himself as someone else, then act on it, then essentially destroy evidence to cling to such a shabby, easily disproven story is criminal. The email goes on about a “community”, but that was not about community at all. That was personal, and fraudulent. It’s filthy. No two ways about it.
The now missing “Reggie” said some weird things. He commented on the value of my home, calling me “$400,000 home boy.” What the HELL is that about? That’s in addition to “Reggie” calling me a pedophile. That’s defamation of character. Serious stuff. “Reggie” is gone, and never coming back. I’ll bet you that. Oddly, the “editor” acted on “Reggie’s” behalf, but never mentioned the things that “Reggie” said…like invitation to fight, “pedophile” etc. How does an official intervene in a dispute and NEGLECT to even mention that? Not a word. You know, and I know, “Reggie” is not a real person. “Reggie” is someone’s creation.