Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think policy debate culture is really bad, not any other events. People in PF and LD typically run more "normal" arguments and dont get involved in gender politics and stuff like that. As a result, everybody is a lot more level headed there and issues like gender discrimination and race stuff don't come up. The issues you hear about almost always come from policy debate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think policy debate culture is really bad, not any other events. People in PF and LD typically run more "normal" arguments and dont get involved in gender politics and stuff like that. As a result, everybody is a lot more level headed there and issues like gender discrimination and race stuff don't come up. The issues you hear about almost always come from policy debate.

 

Troll of the year. 

 

Everyone who downvoted this post is officially on the "I don't understand satire" list. ;)

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've watched any debates on the reparations topic, you'd know that because of the common standard for pf being "normal" arguments, that they are not aware of America's faux post-racial status, and make arguments like "reparations non-uq slavery was too long ago, racism isn't prevalent anymore, we have a black president, blacks should just work harder, they get more sports scholarships, etc." I have heard all of these at one tournament. The "non-normal" arguments in policy may be overwhelming and cause flustering in the beginning, but eventually creates citizens who actively reject racist dialogue in their daily lives. 

I haven't been involve in debate for like 3 years tbh so I didn't understand any of what you just said.

 

I'm not talking about the societal implications of debate; I'm talking about the culture of debate. The only time you get complaints about this coach being sexist or racist or things like that is from policy teams. Why? Is it because policy coaches are more sexist than pf or ld coaches? No, it's because policy debaters project their cases onto real life; they can't see the disconnect between the round and real life. They're more prone to make these complaints because they want to see racism in the world. A policy race debater would hate a world without racism or sexism because they couldn't legitimize their victimization in round.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a few years ago a debate coach was accused of racism because he threw a tub (empty, no evidence) at one of his students. The student was black (they had some sort of argument). Was this wrong? Yes, teachers (or faculty) should never assault student; teacher should be fired. but to call him racist is exploitative of the student. They're using the student's status as a black man to further their debate agenda (debate is racist, vote neg to reject racism). It's disgusting to be so exploitative of black students to win a goddamned extra-curricular activity. When I was in debate, there were literally 0 black kids on my team (my area was more diverse with Asian people than black people). The white kids ran racism saying that debate disenfranchises black students so they should vote neg. They were white! How are you enfranchising black students by voting for the team that, despite decrying the society that puts white subordinate to blacks, benefits exactly from their position as white kids by using their position as a negative? You vote for those white kids you're just enfranchising more white kids to exploit the disenfranchised status of minorities to win debates. You want to help black students? Stop stealing their trump card; run something normal.

Edited by NorikoSatsume
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll of the year. 

 

Everyone who downvoted this post is officially on the "I don't understand satire" list. ;)

 

No, it's because you're not allowed to have fun on this website. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that people are simply grasping at straws; they're trying to find sexism where it doesn't exist. I think they should be more worried about gang rapes in india and women being stoned to death for driving or going outside in Saudi Arabia. Disproportionate representation in a debate tournament is not "patriarchy"

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that people are simply grasping at straws; they're trying to find sexism where it doesn't exist. I think they should be more worried about gang rapes in india and women being stoned to death for driving or going outside in Saudi Arabia. Disproportionate representation in a debate tournament is not "patriarchy"

I have partial feelings about this. Yes, there sexism and patriarchy are more apparent in other countries, but I do not think simply because women aren't stoned in America, it allows one to write off their suffering as absent. The reason America is patriarchal is because this violence in normalized, and often subliminal. 

 

I remember a few years ago a debate coach was accused of racism because he threw a tub (empty, no evidence) at one of his students. The student was black (they had some sort of argument). Was this wrong? Yes, teachers (or faculty) should never assault student; teacher should be fired. but to call him racist is exploitative of the student. They're using the student's status as a black man to further their debate agenda (debate is racist, vote neg to reject racism). It's disgusting to be so exploitative of black students to win a goddamned extra-curricular activity. When I was in debate, there were literally 0 black kids on my team (my area was more diverse with Asian people than black people). The white kids ran racism saying that debate disenfranchises black students so they should vote neg. They were white! How are you enfranchising black students by voting for the team that, despite decrying the society that puts white subordinate to blacks, benefits exactly from their position as white kids by using their position as a negative? You vote for those white kids you're just enfranchising more white kids to exploit the disenfranchised status of minorities to win debates. You want to help black students? Stop stealing their trump card; run something normal.

Right, and this is sadly the case for a lot of people. (e.g. when white people read wilderson, it's pretty messed up.) However, I feel that debate has allowed me to recognize the ways in which I am the oppressor, and the ways in which I can reverse said roles. I've actually had a lot of discussions with people on my team about how we can combat whiteness, and try to recognize the roles we play in systemic violence. Debate can be harmful, but in my experience, has only been beneficial; absent me knowing that our knowledge production is tainted with privilege instilled via the academy I would not know that I contribute to this invisible cycle of violence attributed to those under these systems of power. I think all too many times, suffering is commodified which is obviously bad, but is it bad enough to attribute the whole system as corrupt and incapable of sparking any change?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat whiteness? Like being white is inherently a crime? Ignoring the societal context of who's in power and who's not, "whiteness" is not synonymous with "oppression". 

 

 

I would not know that I contribute to this invisible cycle of violence attributed to those under these systems of power

You speak like you're in a fucking cult, dude. This is what debate does to people; convinces them that they are toxic and part of a problem, not that they are empowered to solve a problem. It's like AA for white guilt (you must accept that you have no power, and that black people will always be better than you, if you don't want to be racist). Find a better cause to affirm yourself in than reveling in other peoples' misery.

 

No, debate can't spark any change, when you speak 3000 words per second, people write you off as a lunatic. Debate can only educate the people in debate of whatever issues you're talking about, but when you dogmatically repeat shit like "I am part of the problem; I must first accept that I encourage systemic violence", you're just screaming speed drills in an echo chamber that you don't have the sense to realize isn't real life and that nobody outside of the debate community gives a flying fuck what you're saying. Don't believe me? Look up speed drills on youtube. The ones that get covered on the news. Is anyone there in the comments discussing the resolution or the philosophy in this dude's K or how this debater is fighting racism? No, they're talking about how the kid is screaming like a goddamned lunatic. The only way debate can spark change is through education, an we're not educating ourselves if we just read some dude who says "white people are bad" and think "oh voting negative will solve for racism". No it fucking won't, debate can't solve shit.

 

Let's be realistic: you want to effect social change? Study some kind of science. Which do you think did more for the people of the world: Judith Butler or the Smallpox Vaccine?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. I have no idea what sweets debate is
B. I'm really unsure if Noriko is a troll.  I lean towards no given all of the subsequent posts, but if this is just a lot of commitment I gotta say: well done.
C. It's really weird hearing about this Whitman thing from two different sources who were on the Whitman debate team...and hearing them give completely different (and contradictory), explanations of why Whitman was shut down.  I'm not sure how much I care about what happened/don't want to get caught up in teh dramaz!!!!!1!!1!111!!1!1!!!1!!  Weird though.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat whiteness? Like being white is inherently a crime? Ignoring the societal context of who's in power and who's not, "whiteness" is not synonymous with "oppression". 

You speak like you're in a fucking cult, dude. This is what debate does to people; convinces them that they are toxic and part of a problem, not that they are empowered to solve a problem. It's like AA for white guilt (you must accept that you have no power, and that black people will always be better than you, if you don't want to be racist). Find a better cause to affirm yourself in than reveling in other peoples' misery.

 

No, debate can't spark any change, when you speak 3000 words per second, people write you off as a lunatic. Debate can only educate the people in debate of whatever issues you're talking about, but when you dogmatically repeat shit like "I am part of the problem; I must first accept that I encourage systemic violence", you're just screaming speed drills in an echo chamber that you don't have the sense to realize isn't real life and that nobody outside of the debate community gives a flying fuck what you're saying. Don't believe me? Look up speed drills on youtube. The ones that get covered on the news. Is anyone there in the comments discussing the resolution or the philosophy in this dude's K or how this debater is fighting racism? No, they're talking about how the kid is screaming like a goddamned lunatic. The only way debate can spark change is through education, an we're not educating ourselves if we just read some dude who says "white people are bad" and think "oh voting negative will solve for racism". No it fucking won't, debate can't solve shit.

 

Let's be realistic: you want to effect social change? Study some kind of science. Which do you think did more for the people of the world: Judith Butler or the Smallpox Vaccine?

Health problems aren't the same as socio-political problems; Judith Butler did a lot for people who didn't know how to feel with regards to their sexual attraction which they viewed as being "outside", it helped a lot of people cope with the problems of being queer and allowed individuals to be empowered, rather than alienated. While it is true that the smallpox vaccine helped millions of people; that's a question of health, not of identity. 

 

So, for instance, to ask the same question: Which do you think did more for identity in the 80's-10's: Judith Butler or the Smallpox Vaccine? 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll of the year. 

 

Everyone who downvoted this post is officially on the "I don't understand satire" list. ;)

a. It's not satire

b. If it is satire, why are we satirizing women's oppression in debate.

Edited by FettyWap
  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll of the year. 

 

Everyone who downvoted this post is officially on the "I don't understand satire" list. ;)

Ironic racism is still racism

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALSO LOL JUDITH BUTLER V SMALLPOX VACCINE WOULD BE THE MOST METAL BOXING MATCH

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b. If it is satire, why are we satirizing women's oppression in debate.

 

I'm pretty sure you belong on that list Maury mentioned.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this thread has an astounding lack of intelligent criticism and discussion of OP's article within it. I leave you young'uns alone with Snarf for like a month, and now all of a sudden your critical thinking skills have disappeared and you're giving out mindless upvotes like this is Reddit?  :sob: Let's try to fix that, however temporarily.

 

 Both Kevin Kuswa’s letter and a recent op-ed about debate made several factually inaccurate claims about debate culture that have tokenized me as a woman in debate, implying that because I’ve had success, there can’t possibly be a problem. There has been a consistent theme of tossing around women’s wins as a sign that there’s no discrimination and that sexism is solved. Two pieces published in The Pioneer reference the Sacramento State tournament in which Emma Newmark and I, the only woman-woman partnership on the squad, advanced into finals following a discussion with the other two Whitman debaters present. I have never been so ashamed as when I watched people betray me by placing my success on a tokenized pedestal.

 

Letter: http://whitmanpioneer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dear_Pioneer_Directors_Letter.pdf

Op-ed: http://whitmanpioneer.com/opinion/2015/04/23/guest-column-debate-suspension-stifles-critical-thinking-about-discrimination/

OP says "several factually inaccurate claims" were made in these links. However, OP does not quote the claims that she takes issue with, and provides no elaboration. I'm inclined to think that if there were real factual inaccuracies, she would have pointed them out specifically. To not do so is a pretty significant oversight. Maybe OP is treating the phrase "factual inaccuracies" as synonymous with "misleading implications", but for her to do so is rather misleading itself, because implications and facts are two very different things.

OP claims that the links "tokenized her", and implied her victories prove that sexism is absent from the Whitman debate team. I think this is a fair criticism of the op-ed, but it doesn't apply to Kuswa. Kuswa discusses sexism in a much more adequate way. He mentions that Whitman has a high proportion of female debaters, that he's made extra effort to expose debaters to gender sensitivity training materials, and that the recent suspension was caused by a violation of the alcohol policy specifically (yet OP tries to imply the opposite in her above post!). He mentions in passing that Whitman's women are generally successful debaters, but interpreting this as tokenizing seems very unfair. Whether or not Whitman's women are successful is a significant and relevant piece of information, he's entitled to disclose it. Additionally, Kuswa never claims nor implies that sexism is dead; OP's characterization of his attitude is totally wrong.

 

 Emma and I became partners following her decision to quit the Parliamentary Team after a tournament in which she was not only ignored by her teammates but by her coach. Throughout our time as partners, we were the only team members who were expected to qualify our worth to the team. We made different arguments that were “useless” to everyone else, and while these same arguments have been previously cited as evidence of the team’s willingness to embrace inclusive debate, they were in no way accepted.

This season we were never traveled with the entire team, were consistently told we were not good enough regardless of the fact that we’ve competed for the duration of our time at Whitman, and were the only people who had to explicitly ask for drills and assignments. To put it into perspective, this is the equivalent of having to ask your professor to assign you homework and tests while they simultaneously fail you for everything you don’t turn in. Unlike the other debaters, neither Emma nor I had our own workspace in the Whitman prep rooms, while everyone else had their own desk and dual-monitor computer set-up. Kevin Kuswa has directly cited the “inclusivity” of this environment in his recently published letter, but none of these practices seem particularly inclusive to me.

Never once in my career as a debater have I felt equal to other members of the team. First they said I was new, then that I didn’t have a good enough record, and then that I just wasn’t committed enough. I don’t know why I stayed through tournaments where I was barely spoken to, had a judge from another school stick his hand up my shirt, and never felt like I had any preparation, but I did because I didn’t want to wash out. The worst part is that it’s hard to put my finger on why I’m so miserable in debate. I constantly wondered if I just couldn’t hack it. Every time I did come forward and say something, I was treated as an entitled brat or dismissed completely.

It seems clear that OP was not well liked by her teammates. Should we view this as evidence of sexism? I don't think so, necessarily. We know from Kuswa's letter that there were 11 other non-male debaters at Whitman, so if OP and her partner were "the only team members who were expected to qualify [their] worth to the team", it seems likely that this was for reasons specific to OP and her partner. One obvious candidate reason is the fact that her partner was brand new to policy debate. Another possibility is that OP's arguments were not particularly well liked. A third possibility is that OP was bullied by the rest of the team for non-sexist reasons. There are many other possibilities here too, but my point is that characterizing all forms of perceived conflict as sexism is intellectually immature. We should avoid that trap.

One aspect of Kuswa's letter that seems odd to me is that, apropos of nothing, he transcribed the requirements Whitman debate places on members in order for them to be eligible to travel with the team. In that context, OP's complaint that she never traveled with the rest of her team seems very suspicious. I think Kuswa might have anticipated OP's choice to criticize him on this basis. Again, outright sexism is a possibility that would explain his actions, but it's also possible that OP failed to meet her obligations as a team member. If that were the case, I think it would simultaneously explain why she didn't get along well with other members of the team, why no one bothered to give her assignments, and why she didn't have her own established workspace in their debate room. To me, that looks like a much more parsimonious explanation than vicious sexism infecting all Whitman debaters, including the women, so viciously and thoroughly, despite all the recent efforts they've made in support of reform.

Finally, even if OP's account were entirely accurate, the message that we take away from it shouldn't be "boo Whitman debate", but "boo sexist debaters". There's a rather gigantic gap between those two things. Let's not say "oppose Sweets debate", but instead "support a better Sweets debate". It's already going to be a year or two until they're back, let's try not to delay that any longer than is necessary.
Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it shouldn't be "boo Whitman debate", but "boo sexist debaters"

"Not all Whitman debaters!" he whined, wiping the cheeto dust off his fingers.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

Relying on mockery rather than argumentation? That's not what good human beings should do.

How many Whitman debaters do you think are sexist? I see no good evidence indicating that any were. If that is the case, then "not all Whitman debaters" is THE OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT RESPONSE. What I actually said, however, was closer to the opposite: "Not only Whitman debaters". We shouldn't target Whitman specifically when criticizing sexism, just as we shouldn't target black people specifically when criticizing criminals. There is no reason to conflate the institution or group with the specific flaws identified, both because the flaws are rare within the group and because the flaws are common outside the group. Don't round off people's arguments to the nearest cliche. Stop being a stupid bully.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Cheeto looked at the article written by a victim of sexual harassment. He crossed his pasty arms and thought to himself: 

 

tumblr_lbwd5on0td1qdxqhuo1_500.jpg

 

Captain Cheeto refreshed the thread, and had been called out. "Muh privilege!" he squealed, and grew increasingly man-raged.

 

13646471.gif

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Cheeto looked at the article written by a victim of sexual harassment. He crossed his pasty arms and thought to himself: 

 

tumblr_lbwd5on0td1qdxqhuo1_500.jpg

 

Captain Cheeto refreshed the thread, and had been called out. "Muh privilege!" he squealed, and grew increasingly man-raged.

 

13646471.gif

 

You're gonna make me lose my shit in this 300 person lecture.

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snarf has given me literally thousands of downvotes in the past couple years, many many many times in contexts where the downvotes make no sense. You can view my reputation tab via my profile if you want to see how obsessed he has been about it. He accuses me of being racist, sexist, etc. all the time even though I'm quite the opposite. He rarely uses arguments to support his beliefs, and instead prefers insults and snide implications and bullying tactics. To my eyes, he is overconfident and too judgmental, and he's highly intolerant of people who don't share 100% of his ideology, so he basically embodies all of what's wrong with the online social justice movement. In his eyes, I am a disgusting nerd misogynist who uses "rational" skepticism or arguments as excuses for underlying prejudice.

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snarf has given me literally thousands of downvotes in the past couple years, many many many times in contexts where the downvotes make no sense. You can view my reputation tab via my profile if you want to see how obsessed he has been about it. He accuses me of being racist, sexist, etc. all the time even though I'm quite the opposite. He rarely uses arguments to support his beliefs, and instead prefers insults and snide implications and bullying tactics. To my eyes, he is overconfident and too judgmental, and he's highly intolerant of people who don't share 100% of his ideology, so he basically embodies all of what's wrong with the online social justice movement. In his eyes, I am a disgusting nerd misogynist who uses "rational" skepticism or arguments as excuses for underlying prejudice.

I don't know the past quarrels between y'all so I'll stick to this instance, but from what I can tell this is actually incredibly accurate. I stalked your reputation just to make sure, and it is for the most part true. 

 

@ Snarf, If you really think there is something wrong with the way Chaos goes about his life/comments on a supposedly inclusive and safe debate forum, passive aggressive down-voting and blatant mockery is probably not the best way to change the way Chaos comes about conclusions, and probably just recreates said problems. (It also probably reinforces similar behavior, which would be bad considering you've been hashing this out for how long?) It also probably produces the antithesis of what this forum is supposed to be; inclusive. 

 

This does not mean you can't point someone out for being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. However, it does mean that you shouldn't attempt to create some form of internal resentment wherein the defendant is bashed for being sexist, when in reality was critiquing a generalization. Yes, racism is bad. Yes, a lot of white people are racist. No, not all white people are innately racist. It's equivalently applicable to the situation we are in now. I don't know more specifically in the case of Whitman debate, however I do feel as if saying Whitman debate is, and always will be sexist, is 1) probably pessimistic and a self-fufilling prophecy and 2) incorrect. Yes, there are sexist people in this world, but that does not mean this world is inherently sexist. Even if it is, saying Whitman debate is bad because it is/was sexist, probably just allows us to abdicate our responsibility of critiquing/dissenting other forms of sexist activities within the debate space because as we become compensated with tackling the monster of Whitman, we allow equivalent forms of patriarchy to run rampant. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...