White Supremacist Posts Response to Community

[Startop]

He even mentions us by name. Apparently whenever people call out his ignorance about his subject matter, this guy gets pretty pissed. See here for the first thread, which he references.

http://www.vdare.com/stix/080728_debate.htm

“Debate Community” Organizes To Silence Critic—Me!

By Nicholas Stix

The academic "debate community"—the teachers and professors who run high school and college debating teams—is increasingly devoted to suppressing debate, in the service of multicultural totalitarianism. The argument many of its leading members implicitly advance on behalf of such suppression—that only members of the community may criticize it, and only those who uncritically embrace the community's reigning political dogmas may be members—is a self-contradictory loyalty oath requiring blind faith.

I found this out the hard way: My June 26 VDARE.com article, Towson Debaters Mau Mau Liberal Judges, was about how a pair of incompetent black debaters won the Cross Examination Debate Association's (CEDA) national college tournament by refusing to debate the assigned topic, and by instead accusing the “debate community” of "racism". Although a few “debate community” e-mail and message board responses to my article were supportive, most were not. There were five types of responses:

1. “The best team necessarily won”—which implied that the “debate community” is perfectly just. Had the judges used this criterion against Towson, which insisted that the “debate community” is racist, they would have had to give the tournament championship to the University of Kansas squad (UT-Dallas student Wes Dwyer, aka Startop , e-mailing me anonymously as theouterheavenproject@hotmail.com);

2. Ignoring my arguments, and repeating rationalizations for Towson that I had refuted in my article: Max Williger. [email]

3. Obfuscation: "Fairness is not the most important issue in the round; first, we must address questions of the structural integrity of debate" (Max Williger again). What the heck is "structural integrity"? This sophism reminds me of the "structural racism" charge, where someone implies a factual claim, but has no evidence to support it. Translation: “It's o.k. to be unfair to white guys, but it's metaphysically forbidden to hold blacks to the rules.”

4. Reason and logic mean fundamentally different things to whites and blacks—therefore, it's wrong to hold blacks to our concepts of them (Chase Burton; [email]). If this claim were true, it would likewise be the case that we cannot hold whites to "black" standards of reason and logic. However, this argument ultimately entails incommensurability, i.e., whites and blacks cannot possibly debate each other.

5. Ad hominem attacks against me and VDARE.COM—including guilt by association. By far the most common response. ("Ignorant hate-monger", Dwyer again, anonymously; "ignorant f-k", Dwyer again, this time openly; "a writer with ties to the KKK", successful University of Wyoming debate coach ,and blogger, Matt Stannard[email]); ("VDare is a white supremacist journal", Stannard again).

Ultimately, led by CEDA message board moderator and debate coach Ankur Aggarwal, the dominant group there resolved to "respond" to my arguments with a letter-writing campaign to any media outlet that had ever published me, demanding that it never publish me again. ("There is nothing like a grassroots war of economics to change someone's mind", Aggarwal).

It apparently never occurred to Aggarwal that his statement and conduct were the antithesis of debate.

(Readers may wish to play count the fallacies in my opponents' responses.)

Peer group pressure in the “debate community” is obviously serious. Otherwise sensible Golden (CO) High School debate coach Tammie Peters was so frightened that the totalitarians would see that she is not with the program that she desperately triangulated, alternately between ritual denunciations of me ("vitriolic rhetoric") which had nothing to do with my arguments, rational support for them, and throwing herself into the campaign to silence me by providing e-mail addresses for many outlets that have published my work. She wrote:

“1) I personally don't get the issue of racism as inherent in debate…. This topic came up last summer and I remember noting a number of students of African decent [sic] receive trophies at Nationals in CX, LD, PF, and Student Congress (as well as the non-debate events). I can't think of anything specifically racist about what we do, some policy or belief that states or implies that kids of color cannot do what we do.

“2) I do understand the financial strains top-notch debate can demand of students…. But it can be (and is) outside of the realm of possibility for white kids as well as those of other ethnic decent.

“3) The claim that debate is not accessible to young African Americans because of the language also perplexes me. Even my white students from million dollar+ homes don't come in talking about Foucault, counterplans, political capital, etc….

“4) There are many of us old-schoolers on this forum who have bemoaned some of the changes that have happened in CX debate over, say, the past 10 years. One reason some folks (I think of my father here, especially -- a coach for 40+ years) hate kritical debates [sic, but this isn't just a spelling error, but a whole phony-baloney intellectual movement] is because they CAN diverge SO far from the original topic. The actual topic has become, seemingly, in some cases, an excuse to debate everything else. That, I supposed, is part of what disturbs me a bit about the approach of Towson, Long Beach Jordan, and the Louisville Project. The arguments about the state of debate have no connection (and don't even try to create a link) to the topic at hand….

“I am not defending the method in which this author chose to make these points. A more civilized discussion could have been done. But, underneath the vitriolic rhetoric, this author brought up some issues very close to the bone in our community….” [Link]

How, then, could I be so "ignorant" of the "debate community," as my opponents raged? Why did no one on CEDA's board condemn Tammie Peters as being equally "ignorant"?

Given the ad hominem attacks of most of my critics, including leading coaches like Matt Stannard, and the racist and dishonest statements by the Towson debaters in the first place, for Tammie Peters to charge me with "vitriolic rhetoric" is absurd. What Stannard and others are unwittingly saying is that they are intellectually unable to defend their support for black racial privilege.

The CEDA group claimed that its primary complaint was my lack of "journalism ethics". But they provided no supporting evidence. They were too cowardly to admit that they sought to destroy me merely for criticizing them.

Who is worse—a Matt Stannard, who coaches debate in order to suppress it, or a Tammie Peters, who believes in debate, but triangulates against her natural allies in order to buy peace from her enemies?

By the way, the reference to VDARE.com as a "White Supremacist Website" came from The Pretend Encyclopedia, as I call Wikipedia, whose entry for VDARE.com had only hours earlier been conveniently vandalized—doubtless by a member of the "debate community"—to reflect my critics' prejudice.

As bad as the students are, the coaches are the worst part of this story. Debate coaches do not stand high in academia's pecking order, but they play a crucial role in encouraging intellectual freedom. As I demonstrated in my Towson story, however, the tape of the CEDA final round—particularly the pro-Towson judges' rationalizations quoted at the end—and the coaches' responses show that many of America's leading debate professionals have betrayed their calling. Instead of promoting intellectual freedom, they promote the Platonic-Marxist notion of an educational dictatorship that would limit what people can say, in the belief that that would limit what people can think.

My naysayers call themselves "critical" thinkers (see also: "tolerant"). But that is merely a leftwing code phrase for being bigoted against America, and against white, heterosexual, able-bodied males.

PC bullying, and anti-intellectualism have long dominated academia, the schools, and the socialist MSM. Doubtless PC perpetrators would prefer to imprison, torture, and murder their critics, as their comrades abroad have done. But until they are in a position to do so, destroying their critics professionally will have to do.

And that is why I have long emphasized the importance, for private individuals who write honestly about politics, of using pseudonyms.

We live in an increasingly post-intellectual world.

As a boy in a racially fraught New York area neighborhood, I lived surrounded by violence and madness that seemed to be spread like airborne plagues. I sought a refuge of sanity and order, first in the Army, and when I flunked my physical, in academia.

Initially, I found that refuge, cherished it, embraced it.

But today's academia is itself a purveyor of violence and madness.

There is no more refuge.

Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men’s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.





He (predictably) misses this boat entirely. Not only does he not even have to journalistic integrity to fact-check basic assumptions that he makes in this article (he claims several times that cross-x.com is the official CEDA forum), but he also indulges (again, predictably) in the very things that he condemns in his (poor) defense of this ideology. The most glaring example is his constant critisism of the community’s use of fallacies and ad homs, while using them in the same breath.

“5. Ad hominem attacks against me and VDARE.COM—including guilt by association.”

And then a few lines later…

“PC bullying, and anti-intellectualism have long dominated academia, the schools, and the socialist MSM. Doubtless PC perpetrators would prefer to imprison, torture, and murder their critics, as their comrades abroad have done. But until they are in a position to do so, destroying their critics professionally will have to do.”

Ad hom much? Comparing our discrediting his piece with the torture and murder of poltical dissidents in the U.S.S.R. does sound a bit like guilt by association to me. If his first article was frustrating, this one is at least laughable.

[Shes legal in dog years]

im waiting for kids to cut him as an answer against project teams.

[Jiggle Billy]

OMGZ IM FAMUS.

This guy is a pompous prick.

[Ankur]

well, he chooses which emails to 'read' 'publish' and 'respond to'.

of course he'll choose the ones which make him look great... and he would never choose mine which made him look like an ignorant, uninformed buffoon.

its the M.O. of stupidity - ignore intelligence and proclaim victory.

i just say throw him aside... the world has already passed him by in the sense that he isnt being published by a legitimate source anyways...

[Synergy]

no one cares, stop adding fuel to the fire with more of these threads

[retired]

Originally Posted by Ankur

well, he chooses which emails to 'read' 'publish' and 'respond to'.

of course he'll choose the ones which make him look great... and he would never choose mine which made him look like an ignorant, uninformed buffoon.

its the M.O. of stupidity - ignore intelligence and proclaim victory.

i just say throw him aside... the world has already passed him by in the sense that he isnt being published by a legitimate source anyways...

dont take this sitting down, maaan

that dude hates you because your brown (and smarter than him).

[Ankur]

brown envy.

[Chase]

Ol' Nicholas isn't the sharpest when it comes to reading comprehension.

[TheScuSpeaks]

Oh my, this is a beyond funny "article."

[Mattythekid]

Damn I don't like this guy, i remember looking into him when we had that theory lecture at UNT, but damn, he is one huge ass hypocrit.

Originally Posted by Startop

As bad as the students are, the coaches are the worst part of this story. Debate coaches do not stand high in academia's pecking order, but they play a crucial role in encouraging intellectual freedom. As I demonstrated in my Towson story, however, the tape of the CEDA final round—particularly the pro-Towson judges' rationalizations quoted at the end—and the coaches' responses show that many of America's leading debate professionals have betrayed their calling. Instead of promoting intellectual freedom, they promote the Platonic-Marxist notion of an educational dictatorship that would limit what people can say, in the belief that that would limit what people can think.

Because allowing the kids to win based on speaking out on what they thought was wrong is just so...so...limiting?
But you said that was bad?

Originally Posted by Startop

As a boy in a racially fraught New York area neighborhood, I lived surrounded by violence and madness that seemed to be spread like airborne plagues. I sought a refuge of sanity and order, first in the Army, and when I flunked my physical, in academia.

So thats the reason for all the fail in your mind? 'Cause you were to weighted down by all the loserness to not pass the easist phyisical in all the armed forces?
And you've been into academia since you were a young adult, and the people you critizied were into since their freshman year of high school, but you know SO much more about it.

Originally Posted by Startop

One reason some folks (I think of my father here, especially -- a coach for 40+ years) hate kritical debates [sic, but this isn't just a spelling error, but a whole phony-baloney intellectual movement]

This single set of brackets disproves any credibility he has to write about debate.

Ignorance (and hypocraticism) is truly bliss i suppose.

[TheScuSpeaks]

Originally Posted by mattythekid

This single set of brackets disproves any credibility he has to write about debate.

You would think these white supremacists would know their german, wouldn't you?

[Bruthaman]

Man, it is so funny it hurts to see you white boys dodgin' and weavin', shuckin' and jivin'. You can't even see that you the fool. Y'all look like fools on those videos, y'all sound like fools on this website. Of course Aggarwal ain't goin' to 'fess up how ignorant you look, he owns you too. But everybody else can see plain as day in those YouTube videos out there. Do you realize how gutless you look? The other white boys they all be arguin' by the white debate rules, then the bruthas get up and say "you white boys are racist!" and y'all just crumble. Y'all be listenin' to the bruthas debate, nodding, foreheads be all wrinkled with concentration the way you white boys do, and then the camera catches you and all we can see is sweat -- flop sweat -- when you understand this ain't a joke, and that you are going to have to say something, do something, show some b@lls, and you just too white-boy-scared to do it. H*ll, watch that video: y'all are too afraid even to LOOK at each other, afraid to see even a flicker of recognition in each other's eyes, y'all be pretendin' so hard. A black man respects a white man, but gutless white boys ain't nothin'. No pushback, no standing up for yourselves. Hell, I seen a chicken with more guts. Mr. Tolson taught us Wiley College men that we could play the white man's game and win. Bruthas Deven and Dayvon taught black men that we don't even have to play the white man's game to win it. We just have to tell y'all that you racist and y'all fold like a deck of cards. But see it's no fun just to win. It's no fun to whip some white boy and have him say "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" Y'all see it everyday: two-three bruthas all up and around some white boy on the subway and ask him for five dollars and he snatch out his wallet and give it to them just like that! He tell himself and his woman it was charity, it was HIS decision, when the truth is he was just about to wet his pants like a baby. Bruthas who got the five dollars, they happy, they just walk away. Me? I'm not happy. Why? Because the white boy gets to tell himself that it was HIS decision to get whupped, to get robbed. He gets to save some self-esteem and pride, playing like HE is still in charge and HE decided who the winners were, who got the five dollars, who got the debate medal. Me? I enjoy explaining to white boys why y'all are worthless and how the bruthas own you. That's how I get my nut. I didn't get the debate medal. I didn't get the five dollars (because I don't rob gutless white boys - there's no challenge). But I do get to put you in your place and take away the lies you tell each other. You see, you deserve no self-esteem and no pride. Y'all been owned and y'all know it. You are so gutless you didn't have a chance once Bruthas Deven and Dayvon started whuppin' on you. Know this: every brutha who sees those YouTube videos is laughing his @ss off. And believe me, your women know it, too.

[artie]

Originally Posted by Ankur

brown envy.

Brown envy indeed.

<3 Ankur

[retired]

Originally Posted by Bruthaman

And believe me, your women know it, too.

.. what?

[Ankur]

i find it funny stix cited ankur aggarwal... instead of me. and mr anonymous 1 post continues with the same....

[retired]

isn't that the ankur who debated @ Marquette HS (Milwaukee) and then... harvard?

[Mattythekid]

Originally Posted by Bruthaman

Man, it is so funny it hurts to see you white boys dodgin' and weavin', shuckin' and jivin'. You can't even see that you the fool. Y'all look like fools on those videos, y'all sound like fools on this website. Of course Aggarwal ain't goin' to 'fess up how ignorant you look, he owns you too. But everybody else can see plain as day in those YouTube videos out there. Do you realize how gutless you look? The other white boys they all be arguin' by the white debate rules, then the bruthas get up and say "you white boys are racist!" and y'all just crumble. Y'all be listenin' to the bruthas debate, nodding, foreheads be all wrinkled with concentration the way you white boys do, and then the camera catches you and all we can see is sweat -- flop sweat -- when you understand this ain't a joke, and that you are going to have to say something, do something, show some b@lls, and you just too white-boy-scared to do it. H*ll, watch that video: y'all are too afraid even to LOOK at each other, afraid to see even a flicker of recognition in each other's eyes, y'all be pretendin' so hard. A black man respects a white man, but gutless white boys ain't nothin'. No pushback, no standing up for yourselves. Hell, I seen a chicken with more guts. Mr. Tolson taught us Wiley College men that we could play the white man's game and win. Bruthas Deven and Dayvon taught black men that we don't even have to play the white man's game to win it. We just have to tell y'all that you racist and y'all fold like a deck of cards. But see it's no fun just to win. It's no fun to whip some white boy and have him say "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" Y'all see it everyday: two-three bruthas all up and around some white boy on the subway and ask him for five dollars and he snatch out his wallet and give it to them just like that! He tell himself and his woman it was charity, it was HIS decision, when the truth is he was just about to wet his pants like a baby. Bruthas who got the five dollars, they happy, they just walk away. Me? I'm not happy. Why? Because the white boy gets to tell himself that it was HIS decision to get whupped, to get robbed. He gets to save some self-esteem and pride, playing like HE is still in charge and HE decided who the winners were, who got the five dollars, who got the debate medal. Me? I enjoy explaining to white boys why y'all are worthless and how the bruthas own you. That's how I get my nut. I didn't get the debate medal. I didn't get the five dollars (because I don't rob gutless white boys - there's no challenge). But I do get to put you in your place and take away the lies you tell each other. You see, you deserve no self-esteem and no pride. Y'all been owned and y'all know it. You are so gutless you didn't have a chance once Bruthas Deven and Dayvon started whuppin' on you. Know this: every brutha who sees those YouTube videos is laughing his @ss off. And believe me, your women know it, too.

uhh, do you relieze some white people do project affs too?
anddd its not just white people bro, youtube = not the full story

EDIT: curse right dumbASS

[Ankur]

Originally Posted by retired

isn't that the ankur who debated @ Marquette HS (Milwaukee) and then... harvard?

yes to marquette.
i dont know about the rest.

[retired]

he was gud. especially with manav

[Fox On Socks]

Aw, did the itty, bitty kids typing on their computers make the big, mean published reporter cry? And further demonstrate that he has neither testicles nor a spine? How sad...

[tpeters]

This response by Mr. Stix really bothers me -- mostly because I believed the posts I was making on this forum were for the eyes of members of our community: coaches, competitors and those who have been actively involved in what we do in other capacities. Folks who have a sense of who I am and the broader context of the issues within our community. I wanted to work through some issues that had been perplexing me and I wanted some feedback from those within the community. What I would say to insiders is VERY different from how I would make similar points to outsiders (I probably wouldn't make such points to outsiders as I want to promote forensics in all possible forms). I'm angry, I'm hurt, I feel violated (somehow). I fell like someone spied on a semi-private conversation (after all, what casual observer would want to read posts on a debate forum?). I chose not to email Mr Stix; my role in this issue was limited to providing a list of Mr. Stix's publishers. But now my comments on this forum are out there for whomever to see. My name as a coward. And just when I am hoping to have credibility linked with my study.

And I do try to make peace -- that's part of my personality. Mr. Stix makes that seem so . . . dirty. I'm not sure how I "triangulated."

Also, I'm not part of CEDA. CEDA isn't at the high school level. Of course, folks who are IN this community know that.

I'd like to be able to laugh at this article -- maybe the next time I read it.

[Fox On Socks]

Tammie, had Nick Stix intended to do any due diligence on his "articles" then he would have posted here himself to ask questions of us in the community or at least attempted to arrange interviews with those he cited. He took comments out of context, didn't cite the correct people, and committed other journalism taboos that simple questions (a PM asking Ankur his last name, for example) would have resolved.

Try not to be bothered by hacks in reporters' clothing...

[Startop]

I agree. He doesnt seem to understand that people can actually attempt to resolve and accommodate other's ideas and beliefs through discussion. Your attempts at having an intellectual conversation, with the goal of a better understanding of the issues is way, way above this guys intellectual capacity to understand. You must be just caving to our totalitarian browbeat.

[Ankur]

He responded to my email declaring it 'inappropriately familiar' and 'sophomoric'.

I was pretty amused!

I responded with an instruction for him to learn Newton's 3rd law

[Shes legal in dog years]

does anyone else find this amusing.

Whenever a debater tells a project team in a debate round that they should focus on the resolution and maintain a policy-orinted round, they are associated with just maintaining old-school policy, "ill read more cards than you" debaters.

when somoene outside our social circle calls those projects out, they become KKK, racist pigs.