THE MUSIC BLOGGING HIVE MIND
Baudolino
Baudolino
Add To My Trusted Moggers

THIS POST

Posted about 1 year ago
will be my last on here. I'm sorry, but the ill-informed tendentious bigotry of another poster, who appears utterly unable to accept that his position is factually incorrect, and can, apparently without any trace of irony use the words "the natural human abhorrence for reggae music", indicates a nasty racist undertone, with which I feel wholly uncomfortable. And before anybody raises the "right to free speech" issue, I am not seeking to silence the poster that I regard as bigoted; he retains the democratic right to spew his obnoxious bile here. I'm just not prepared to accept it.
2

Comments (48)

  1. waydutch
    waydutch says I'm sorry to see you going, you're a great part of this community, and on account of one poster. I seldom comment on your posts, not really much knowledge of the genre beyond what I've picked up from you, but listen to them pretty regularly. Also, appreciate you posting red buttons. Anyway, there's always gonna be a few assholes in any community this big. I hope you'll reconsider.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  2. Marigold
    Marigold says I for one to will sorely miss you. As someone who has spent just over a year here on MOG, I can attest to the fact that your issue is with ONE person. There are thousands of wonderful people here that are interested in what you have to say. I understand where you are coming from and it is sad that you two are not able to resolve this issue. From the knowledge you shared in your post it is quite clear you are the superior in the knowledge of reggae. I would simply ignore him and or ban him from posting on your threads by deleting his comments. IF you must go I will try to understand, but once again please know most people here are interested in your perspective.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  3. brittanybf
    brittanybf says Baudolino, both Marigold and waydutch have already said what I wanted to say. I hope you'll reconsider knowing that there are many of us who enjoy your posts. I also often listen to your posts, even if I'm not always leaving a comment. Your knowledge and music taste will be missed.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  4. Bartleby
    Bartleby says I will only repeat what the respondents have already so eloquently said... While I respect your decision, your departure will be a great loss for this community.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  5. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says When I read your post title I thought immediately of the words Woody kept on the side of his guitar case. Whether or not you intended the allusion, it is not wholly inapt. Even without your specifying, I am nearly certain whose onscreen handpuppet made that "edgy" and characteristically stern, pedantic, impliable remark about Reggae, which is nothing more than a lightly dressed-up way of saying the music and its makers are subhuman. Do you know how to "block" Moggers who go beyond the pale from commenting upon your page? It can be done. But what of those here who value you, and who have retained a civil tongue with you? I wish you would think about this for one more day before pulling the plug. Thanks.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  6. ivylander
    ivylander says This is where free speech becomes something of a curse. And it's not about you selfishly seeking to curtail the rights of others. None of us should be deprived of your company (and your first-rate taste) because someone is speaking abusively. I'm hardly a nanny-stater, but I do believe that many of the people who whine about "political correctness" are, in effect, arguing, "I want to be able to say whatever I like, no matter how irresponsible it is or how badly it hurts someone, because otherwise my freedom is compromised." Fuck that. Does this same person want to crap in the punch bowl as an exercise in self-expression? You need to let the MOG cops know that this asshole is soiling our collective nest. I've got no problem with people not liking reggae, or country, or whatever. But none of us can or should shrug and accept bile.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  7. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says P.S.: But if you are sure you must leave, please do not delete your profile (and with it, all your posts; they are a pleasure and a resource we are richer for having around).
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  8. ivylander
    ivylander says Amen, Petey.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  9. Mindful
    Mindful says This is perhaps one of the saddest days of my life. I respect and accept your decision. However For pure selfish reasons I would ask you to reconsider as you have brought such musical fulfillment to my life. I get tingerly? when I see you have posted a reggae delicacy and not only that... you have shared your invaluable knowledge of the history of reggae. My blogs will always have the memory of your name. So in the words of Bob Marley They have so much things to say right now
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  10. Bartleby
    Bartleby says For selfish reasons, I will also second's Petey's plea. Please leave your account live.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  11. zarpex
    zarpex says Good riddance. As the "spew[er]" of "obnoxious bile" who has apparently relieved us of this numbskull, I invite anyone who's interested to look over the comments I made on his post and form their own conclusions. They can be found at: http://mog.com/blog_post/view/165447#comment-622239 I am indeed tendentious (or "opinionated," as anyone who wasn't trying to seem superior or intimidating would have said), a word Baudolino has flashed twice now in my mercifully brief acquaintance with him - once in a misguided attempt to strike terror in me, and now in an attempt to create the impression that we're losing some sort of towering intellect with his departure (far from it). If you can't handle dissenting opinions, you're on the wrong website. Having been called a racist twice now by Baudolino, I feel I should provide the background into which he neglected to inquire, for all his pontificating about "gathering evidence." I'm looking over the list of "Our Daily Picks" that appears at the bottom of every MOG page a couple days ago, and there's one about "Possibly the first real reggae recording" or something. Okay; let's check it out. Click. Wasn't even that bad a song; I gave it a "like." Knowing only what was offered up on this single page, I took the "Possibly" in its title to mean that Baudolino might not consider himself the world's leading authority on reggae music, and offered the story of its origins that I had read in a book whose title and author I shared (not having it ready to hand, and having read other books with similar titles and works by authors with the same last name, I misidentified these slightly, but was quick to correct my error, and, if you look over my comments, I think you might hopefully agree I was candid and humble about my mistake). I also expressed my opinion of reggae music, which is decidedly unfavorable, and, as is my policy, I did not mince words. He came back with a spirited (if rather overlong) defense, as I'd hoped he would, and I extended my hand (figuratively) in friendship and respect, and told him he was now among my trusted (or, as I enjoy putting it, "zarpex-Endorsed™") MOGs. He added me to his own "trusted" list, so I was a bit taken aback at his response to my comment, which (again, you can read this for yourself) took a sneering, hostile tone. Well, I can see how a starkly dissenting opinion might offend someone, and I did, after all, get the title and author I'd cited slightly wrong, so I again responded in a friendly, self-effacing way, calling myself an "imbecile" for my error. Surely this would placate him, right? Nope. Again with the spite, again with the hostility. So he's looking for a battle, is he? And he's read a whole three books on the subject, has he? Fair enough; a battle he shall have. I don't think I can add anything to what you can read for yourself. I was getting ready to write my response when I discovered that Baudolino had fled the proverbial kitchen, hastily announcing his martyrdom and (again) calling me a racist explicitly, which I resent deeply. I would have enjoyed the fight he insisted on and then ran away from, but so be it. His face was turning a disquieting shade of scarlet, anyway.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  12. mollifire
    mollifire says Noooo! Don't go Baudolino! I truly respect your decision, but like the rest of the community here, I feel there must be another way. Blocking the ignoramus should do the trick, have you tried that? I'm shocked at this news, especially since I regularly post about reggae music and feature artists who are controversial to begin with, yet I haven't received any negative response like you have. Please mog mail me if you want to discuss alternatives for this situation. Your posts are so precious to the community here.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  13. BerkeleyBob
    BerkeleyBob says Whatever you personally gain by your decision, your presence and knowledge will be sorely missed. One of the vices of the net is anonymity and the temptation to ramp up the rhetoric. The quality and nature of one's posts gradually reveal character and personality. For me, I would be happy to stand you a pint, and I don't even drink. BerkeleyBob
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  14. Cody B
    Cody B says Say it ain't so Baudolino! Don't let zarpex ,of all people,push you out. He's known as the captain of the HMS Rock, dripping in irony. Yeah, and he likes to fight. He hates country,hip hop, and I guess reggae and he's not gonna change. He's just trying to get your goat and push your buttons. We all know that Jamaican musical heritage flows from a deep,deep well. He's just mad that Rock is long since dead while other genres, that don't meet his zarpexian standards, thrive and grow. I'd say take a break, cool off and come back in hot. Please,please,please..Rewind Selector.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  15. Mindful
    Mindful says Hear Hear Cody B
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  16. brand X
    brand X says You must stay Baudolino!!! We need more of this good stuff. Nothing spices up the ol' mogosphere like a hostile departure; it captures all of the grace and dignity of victimhood and cozies it all up in a nice little sanctimony blanket. It truly is a beautiful thing that has been sorely lacking here at mog... Do I smell a new theme day brewing... Goodbye, Cruel MOG Mondays???
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  17. consumerx
    consumerx says Ahh, the pitfalls of written electronic communication. One person's "humorous" snark is another's personal insult or racism or something else entirely offensive. It's too bad the thread in question went the way it did. When Zarpex launched his full frontal on hip-hop, he and Cody B engaged in a very spirited exchange that drew many comments and was surprisingly respectful Baudolino, I've really enjoyed many of your posts. I can't imagine too many people on MOG or elsewhere, for that matter, that have your depth of knowledge and collection of a genre I love. I would most certainly miss your posts. Clearly, Zarpex is polemicist and enjoys lobbing hyperbolic bombs. The questions of why and whether he is a bigot are very murky. After the great rock-n-roll v. hip-hop thread, and from just scoping his page, I'd say he's got a lusty debate fetish and he doesn't mind stirring the turd to get one started. Given your obvious tastes, I'm sure some of his decidedly inflammatory remarks raised your hackles. However, if you're convinced that he is, in fact, a bigot, I would say all the more reason to stay. Don't let him push you away from something you have clearly enjoyed over many months and which has also brought great pleasure to lots of your fellow moggers. If you must go, I offer Anthony B's "Cover Your Tracks"
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  18. zarpex
    zarpex says Let him go, people. Dude couldn't handle disagreement, couldn't abide by a truce, couldn't take a punch. And he sure as hell picked the wrong guy to try to impress with his word-a-day-calendar vocabulary. This is the first time in my life I've come away from a fight with someone without its increasing my respect for them. And it's really not a good feeling. But having slain Baudolino in fair combat, I come into rightful possession of all that is his, goods and chattel. I will leave his MOG intact for those of you who would otherwise miss it. Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  19. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says I did read the exchange, as invited to by zarpex. I assume I'm also invited to evaluate it, and even post my findings. My take is that zarpex was pugnacious from the first, kicking sand in the face of someone who simply admires something zarpex does not: "Know where reggae came from?" he sneeringly asks the man he later describes as "sneering". He goes on to relate the ??"unusually definite"?? origins of Reggae, which he (who tweaks Baudolino for having based his argument on a "paltry three books") gleaned from just one book, ??The Lucifer Principle??. You can't get anymore definite than a single source, all right. He found the needle in the haystack. I'm curious, though, if the author of ??The Lucifer Principle?? mentions the "unusually definite" name of the "unusually definite" resort hotel in which Reggae was first performed. That's be good to know. Otherwise I'd be tempted to regard the story as "unusually definite" bullshit. I realize this is irrelevant, and nitpicking. Zarpex clearly intended to express only that this music started as junk produced by the ignorant, and then worsened. This dubious anecdote seemed like a rock of the right size and heft to hurl. Regardless of the fact that zarpex made a few sporting attempts to retire from the fray he'd intentionally whipped up, he ends so desperate to get his licks in that he consigns a whole lot of people who happen to like records other than the ones he likes to the subhuman category. A joke? A rich jest? A "Zarpex is King of All He Surveys" quip-too-far? I'm not laughing. I'm done with encouraging this bully.
    Permalink posted 06/06/2008
  20. Marigold
    Marigold says Petey. I was going to attempt to write a similar grouping of thoughts and critiques on what went down on that thread. Thanks for saving me the time...I owe you. For your efforts, I award thee a nice juicy and funky dub from King Tubby Meets Jacob Miller in a Tenement Yard. The track is called Ghetto on Fyah Dub. Enjoy.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  21. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says Thank you for the song, Marigold. If only my damned internet connection, MOG, or the two working in cahoots allowed me to stream MOG mp3 content more than once or twice in a blue moon. I'm getting nothing at the moment but a black button, its spokes endlessly twirling, twirling. I'll try checking it out later.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  22. Marigold
    Marigold says I hate when that happens. Good luck on getting it to play.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  23. Baudolino
    Baudolino says Thanks to all of you who have been so kind and supportive - I really appreciate it. However, I shall not return to posting. I have read zarpex's comments above, and note that (1) he thinks that he came out on top in our disagreement, (2) considers that my posts were sneering and hostile, and (3) that I can't "handle dissenting opinions". This dispute is not about dissenting opinions - after all, if I can stand up and take a verbal kicking in the Court of Appeal I'm hardly going to be intimidated by a stranger on the interweb. The facts here are that zarpex came out with a version of the genesis of reggae that was at odds with every source I have ever read, or have ever been told by a musician playing in the sixties, based on ONE book (I have no idea where the "read three books" comes from), written by someone whose involvement with Jamaica was at best peripheral. I have some difficulty, given the final sentences of his post, accepting that his intentions were as benign as he now maintains. The post implied that reggae was in effect rubbish played by ill-educated amateurs. That is largely a matter of personal taste, so I left that to one side. In response, I posted names, dates and details, none of which were rebutted. When zarpex corrected the name of "his" author, I replied, referring to him as a polymath, but politely querying his expertise in the precise field, his response referred to the "natural human abhorrence" for reggae music. Read that again. NATURAL HUMAN ABHORRENCE. Okay....reggae is played in North and Soth America, Africa and Europe. Probably 99% of its singers and musicians are black. It is "natural" for "humans" to "abhor" music played and enjoyed by black people on four continents. It's not exactly the most astonishing leap in logic to read that post as implying that those who play music that humans will naturally abhor, are subhuman. Reaction from zarpex? "OH NOES! I've been called a racist". No retraction. No rebuttal. I could take on his argument point by point and destroy it (since he seems unable to accept his previous errors of fact), but when it comes to a battle of wits, I refuse to fight an unarmed man
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  24. zarpex
    zarpex says It's a shame you feel that way, Petey and Marigold. As I said previously in this thread, I took it from the title of the post I was commenting on that Baudolino was unsure of the origins of reggae. I see nothing pugnacious whatsoever in asking "Know where reggae came from?" I'd read Bloom's account, and it seemed like a funny, plausible story to me. No doubt some of the information one comes across in books is inaccurate or misleading; I can't go around fact-checking everything I read. I accept it if it seems self-consistent and believable, and on those occasions when it proves unreliable, I can do nothing more than cite my source. I don't even see having been misinformed as something one should have to apologize for, but I did anyway, in view of Baudolino's near-apoplectic reaction. In any case, a notion seemed to have formed that I was talking about the origins of the word "reggae," and that the music could not have existed prior to a name for it, which is absurd. I made my comment in good faith, thinking it would be amusing and informative. It might still have been right, too. Now reggae - that I ??did?? disparage candidly. I try not to couch my opinions; I assume - out of respect for the intelligence of the people I share them with - that their subjectivity is taken for granted. I explain the reasons for my likes and dislikes, and if people mistakenly attribute my views about a given work of art or a genre to racism, nationalism, or bigotry of whatever sort, I try to correct their misimpression. If that seems snobbish, well, I'd rather some people think I was a snob than know myself to be a hypocrite. I was a little ticked off, and I apologize for the quite vicious tone of some of my remarks. I felt very unfairly portrayed, and I resented not being allowed the opportunity to respond to Baudolino. Not one of my better days. As I said, I don't have ??The Lucifer Principle?? ready to hand, but when I get back home (which might not be for a few months), I'll see if it gives the name of the Jamaican resort in question, Petey.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  25. Baudolino
    Baudolino says NOW I'm confused as to whether there's an olive branch offered there or not. Are you really suggesting that my "Possibly the first .." post was seeking enlightenment? After everything else I had posted? You were honestly trying to be helpful? Okaaaaaay....I'm a bit sceptical but I cannot rule it out. Point is, your explanation is utterly at odds with not just "three books", but numerous sources. If you don't like the music....*Shrugs*....your loss, pal. No skin off my nose. I suspect, however, that if I had told you that all rock and heavy metal derived from the fact that, back in 1962, Cream and Led Zeppelin hadn't been good enough to learn how to play Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson and Howlin' Wolf tunes properly, you might have pointed out certtain errors in that analysis, no?
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  26. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says Damn it. I was enjoying "Goody Two Shoes" for the 43rd time, now this happens. It is admittedly difficult to read a facial expression - such as a ??sneer?? - in a string of words. Zarpex pulled it off himself, though, so he must know it is possible. To elaborate on my perspective: "Know where reggae came from?" was not a question, but a rhetorical statement made in prelude to handing down the devastating (and "funny"; let's not forget "funny") truth about the beyond-humble origins of reggae. I read "Know where reggae came from?" as the first in a series of statements made by a know-it-all looking to piss someone off. Sounded both pugnacious and sneering to me, especially given its overall and patently pugnacious and sneering context.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  27. Baudolino
    Baudolino says I remain baffled by zarpex's allegations that my reply was "sneering"; I had rather thought that I was simply offering some contrary evidence, backed up by names and dates, to his rather unorthodox piece of history. Btw, from the information in his post about Howard Bloom, I can hazard a guess as to his source, and would observe that (if I am correct) his informant has recently not been regarded as a truthful witness in a court of law
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  28. zarpex
    zarpex says Ah; Baudolino! I actually ??did?? think you'd probably be back. There seem to have been some misunderstandings on both our parts, I think. As I said, I'd only encountered that one post of yours, under "Our Daily Picks," and knew nothing of your previous writings on the subject. So yes; I was trying to be helpful. "Natural human abhorrence" was a decidedly provocative overgeneralization, but I trend provocative. It was based on an observation made by an anthropologist whose name I can't recall that the downbeats in 4/4 time music (or "common time," as it is often called, in recognition of its remarkable prevalence, culturally and historically) slmost always register in the lower body, with the hips, and the upbeats in the upper part, with a handclap or a movement of the head. Reggae reverses this. I was trying to push buttons, yes, but I also expected that it would be taken as such. That was presumptuous on my part. I'd like to go on, but I have to run out the door; there are people waiting for me. Peace, mon.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  29. zarpex
    zarpex says Oh; and that "sir," stuff. Come on. Sneering. Admit it. I admitted mine.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  30. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says Let's all leave the latest - and all future - zarpex-bait™ lying on the floor, shall we?
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  31. ivylander
    ivylander says Tortured self-justification makes me break out in hives. Sometimes just saying, "I said something stupid and I apologize" is a relief to everyone, not least of whom the person who said it....
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  32. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says Loved the song, Marigold. Thanks again.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  33. brand X
    brand X says Am I really alone here in thinking that zarpex doesn't have all that much to apologize for? Why is it that when the "Nazi card" was allegedly played, a user was wisked away to a green meadow where he could roam free with all of the other fedgies, yet when Baudolino levies a charge of racism on the strength of a "leap in logic" he is lauded as a gentleman and a credit to his community? Yes, we all know zarpex is a pretentious ass, but that doesn't make him a racist. An epithet is a pretty lazy retort, anyway, the kind fit to come from the lips of the Grand Wizard of the KKK, and the decision to post it outside of the original thread seems fairly calculated.
    Permalink posted 06/07/2008
  34. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says brand X, We are indeed in agreement on one point: zarpex is, as you say, a pretentious ass. On two of Baudolino's posts, he was something a bit worse. Note that I have yet to utter the word "racist" in this matter. (If I wanted to hang a label on him, though, I might go with "Zarpex Supremacist".) If I say that humans (not "lots and lots and lots of incredibly discerning people" but "humans" - the human race) naturally abhor FILL IN THE BLANK, it is nigh inescapable that I am also saying that those who do not abhor FILL IN THE BLANK are perverts or something other than human. If there's a leap of logic involved, one does not need to be Evel Knievel to make it. And, all things considered, I think we can rule out that zarpex means that reggae fans are ??super??-human. Some Moggers, including myself, did not take kindly to this allegedly satirical notion of zarpex's, nor for that matter the usual, slippery, faux/genuine/faux/genuine megalomania that allowed it and the "am-I-kidding-am-I-not" passive-aggressive wrapping paper in which it characteristically arrived, which returns all blame for getting bent out of shape over it back to the humorless, gutless receiver. ... Now, at the eleventh hour, the smell of torches and tar singeing his nostrils, zarpex conveniently pulls out of his rectum what he really, really meant ??all along?? by the ugly phrase "the natural human abhorrence for reggae music." He kindly reveals that he was only referring to some fairly innocuous observation by some anthropologist whose name zarpex does not at the moment recall. Dr. Some Anthropologist says that members of a large percentage (though not necessarily most) of human societies have come to move around comfortably and joyously to a 4/4 beat. From what zarpex tells us, it does not seem that the Doc therefore concludes that those who do not move in 4/4 are uncomfortable and glum and ??abhorring?? the music the DJ is playing; they just dance differently. (Okay, so his remark was ??loosely?? based on something he once heard.) ("Inspired by true events.") Talk about your leaps in logic: in zarpex's mild-mannered "overgeneralization," that large 4/4-time percentage becomes "humanity," and the rest are relegated to some other, miserable category. To finally pin this rap on Dr. Some Anthropologist, to so contrivedly trace this stupid remark back to him, is more than a little pathetic.
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  35. brand X
    brand X says The leap in logic comes in the form of assuming that people who create and listen to reggae music are from one racial group and all members of that racial group either create or listen to reggae, which is the only way, so far as I can tell, of coming to the fallacious conclusion that Zarpex thinks reggae appeals to subhumans, therefore Zarpex thinks that black people are subhuman. No, one needn't be Evel Knievel to make that leap, hell they don't even need to be Robbie Knievel, pardon me, Kaptain Robbie Knievel, but like these two esteemed daredevils, they would probably require a motorcycle of some sort. As a little post script: You mention zarpex's tendency towards passive-aggression, no doubt one of his behaviors that rubs both you and I the wrong way. This post here, the one we are having this little heart to heart on, this post is nearly the dictionary definition of passive-aggressive (the original post, not the comment thread).
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  36. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says I think you phrase the fallacy well. Whether or not race is a red herring here is a moot point. Again, I never charged zarpex with racism. Why grasp at straws when someone's hurled a whole broom at you? The post above did not strike me as a passive-aggressive move. Passive-aggression, in my admittedly limited understanding, involves doing something harmful while simultaneously creating doubt that you're doing it, or while simultaneously creating doubt that it should mean anything in particular to anyone but a paranoid or a weakling. I'm open to further argument and clarification, though, if you feel it worth your time.
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  37. Baudolino
    Baudolino says FOR THE LAST TIME. I did not say, in terms, "zarpex is a racist". What I did say, and continue to say, is that to describe abhorrence of music that is, in fact, created over 99% of the time by black people, as naturally human, carries with it a "nasty racist undertone". He has, I see, had the good grace to clarify what he meant, and I shall therefore accept that his intent was not racist. However, I rather think that he has fallen into a bear-trap of his own design. Having started from the premise that reggae was created by mistake, as it were, in failing through ignorance to know what Motown sounded like (the evidence to rebut that notion remaions voluminous), it appears that, through his anthropologist, he has determined that the musicians in fact created a whole new type of music, which appears to have endured for over four decades and spread to all cornersof the earth. That's kind of difficult to reconcile with his original hypothesis, no? Also, I do not consider the use of the word "sir" to be sneering; I rather thought it showed good manners. "Numbskull", on the other hand....
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  38. brand X
    brand X says Baudolino, No, you never did call zarpex a racist, you merely stated that his "bigotry... indicates a nasty racist undertone;" definitely not, in terms, "zarpex is a racist," but it doesn't exactly take the most astonishing leap in logic to read that as implying that zarpex is a racist. The racism issue was your hook for this post, without it you are made wholly uncomfortable merely by another poster's ill-informed tendentious dislike of a genre that you like. That really doesn't bring in the pats on the back and the taps on the chin, slugger, quite like a climate of racial bigotry, does it? The fact is that I only know who you are because somebody else posted about how sad they were over your departure, and you likely know nothing more of me than that I came in here and mocked your plea for attention. So, with all sincerity, based on the strength of our relationship I wouldn't give a fuck what I have to say on the matter if I were you, and I'm sure you probably don't. Petey, Petey, I will elaborate if necessary, but I think Baudolino just demonstrated exactly how your definition of passive aggressive applies to the post (I didn't say he was a racist, just that he says things that demonstrate a feeling of racial superiority). Race is a red herring, but it is certainly not moot. Whether calculated or not, racism was the crux of this post and it was intended to stir up a frenzy of either sympathy or disgust among the masses while maintaining the ability to claim the high road ("All I did was leave").
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  39. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says Speaking of passive-aggression and ambiguity (Wikipedia verifies a reliance on ambiguity as an earmark of the behavior): it's possible - and plausible - but by no means provable - that zarpex ??intended?? the phrase "the natural human abhorrence for reggae music" to carry a whiff of racial animosity to those who wished to smell it, while leaving ample (and I do mean ??ample??; should we start with black people who hate reggae and go from there?) wiggle room for dismissal of any racist reading. Don't buy it? The man has just admitted to enjoying a good button push. Besides, I maintain that the remark ??unambiguously?? adds up to something every bit as rotten as "blacks are subhuman." Who's to say (but zarpex - - - possibly) whether or not it was also meant to ??ambiguously add up?? to something rotten?
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  40. brand X
    brand X says Well, Petey, I appreciate you taking the time to offer an explanation to what appears to be the opinion of the vast majority of those on this thread, even if it has failed to change my own. I'm sure that our many future agreements will be occasionally interrupted by the odd disagreement, but I respect your opinion, and even more so your ability to retain both your level head and sense of humor when it is challenged. See ya around...
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  41. Baudolino
    Baudolino says Brand X: With respect, I find your conclusions utterly incomprehensible. The issue for me is not whether zarpex "is" a racist, but whether he posted a comment, the implications of which could be seen as racist. In that regard, I stand by my initial reaction, although his clarification is noted. It just shows the difficuilties that arise when anyone seeks to dismiss an entire musical genre (which is, in the vast majority of cases, one with which the dismisser is not very familiar). I chose to leave as I felt that this site was being used as a platform in which racist coments were regarded as acceptable, and that made me uncomfortable. To say that I "intended to stir up a frenzy of either sympathy or disgust" does you a disservice. You have no idea what "intentions", IF ANY, I had. Perhaps I was merely being courteous enouigh to advise those who trusted me why I was leaving? If I had wanted to "stir up a frenzy", it would have been a simple matter to turn my post into one proposing "zarpex should be banned". Instead, I did not identify him. If other posters choose to "out" him, that was their choice. I do not, therefore, see anything either "passive" or "aggressive" in my post.
    Permalink posted 06/08/2008
  42. brand X
    brand X says I am sure you do find my conclusions utterly incomprehensible, just as I find those of yourself and others on this thread hard to reconcile with my own observations. I chalk it up to being largely a matter of Petey and yourself having a vastly different level of experience with zarpex than I have. I am not positive, but I think it is the case that zarpex and I have never interacted whatsoever, other than having read his posts and comments and determining him to be a twit, and he perhaps doing the same of me. I meant for the line you quoted to read something along the lines of: "The use of such language betrays a desire to elicit either sympathy or disgust, whether Baudolino consciously intended it as such or not." I qualified the sentence with the bit about being "calculated or not," meaning for that to refer to your intentions being unknown; I never meant to imply that one could ever be truly certain of another's intentions, merely that one would know that the topic of racism would elicit an emotional response in the reader, therefore it could reasonably be assumed that the purpose of its inclusion would be to do so. In all honesty, Baudolino, I despise the term "passive-aggressive," as it is used so glibly these days that its definition is very broad and imprecise (I honestly have heard people described as passive-aggressive because they sometimes behave in a passive manner and other times in an aggressive manner). I borrowed the term from Petey because I wanted to convey to him that I found this post to be equally as inflammatory as the typical zarpex spiel. That being the case I have no desire to attempt to justify the use of the term and hereby withdraw the accusation. In any case, Baudolino, to me this post read highly inflammatory, and that was what I took umbrage to. I wasn't, as it may have seemed, defending zarpex, but rather expressing my objections to this post itself. You claim that the post wasn't intended in such a manner and I believe you. I'm more than happy to leave things as they stand here on the subject, as I feel we have both made our cases adequately, but if you wish to discuss it any further I am more than happy to do that as well.
    Permalink posted 06/09/2008
  43. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says brand X says: "I never meant to imply that one could ever be truly certain of another's intentions, merely that one would know that the topic of racism would elicit an emotional response in the reader, therefore it could reasonably be assumed that the purpose of its inclusion would be to do so." Are you saying that because people get emotional around the topic of racism that it is automatically a form of emotional manipulation to address it? Try as I may, that's what I get out of the above statement. I must be missing something. I don't know about anyone else, but bits and pieces of this ongoing argument are starting to sound like a debate over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I suppose some profound issues have been brushed up against along the way, but right now I need less arguing, more whiskey, coffee, or sleep. It's been an abominably hot and muggy day here. Good night friends.
    Permalink posted 06/09/2008
  44. Baudolino
    Baudolino says Brand X - with you completely on "passive aggressive" - a phrase that's nothing more these days than fashionable psychobabble with no real meaning - virtuallyunheard of five years ago it'e everywhere now. Whether I was being inflammatory, or merely upset at a remark I took to be offensive, I'm not keen to drag this thread out any longer, as all we will do is start going round in circles. Right now, I'm in the middle of a complex rape trial - when that's over I'll see how I feel. Right now isn't the time for MOG.
    Permalink posted 06/09/2008
  45. Petey Lapides
    Petey Lapides says I'm rested and ready to spout off again. I admit I'm a bit embarrassed, as I did not realize that in invoking "passive-aggression" I was mouthing a hoaky, hoary cliché. I did not get the same memo you guys got, apparently ([passive-aggressive] kidding). It may be debased in popular use, but it does have an actual and fairly precise meaning, as far as psychological concepts go, anyway. You'll find it listed and outlined in the ??International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems??, the ??Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders??, not to mention every issue of ??Cosmopolitan?? and ??GQ?? published after 2002. The behavior is by no means rare - everyone engages in it from time to time, but only when a pattern of such behavior comes to define and limit a person's life is it considered a problem worth addressing. Given the behavior's ubiquitousness, to see the phrase popping up in conversation at a high frequency is not surprising, and not every usage of it is as clueless as brand X's amusing illustration, though probably a large percentage are. That seems fair enough. I suppose it does ??seem?? less pretentious, though, to make do with such terms as "sneaky," "dishonest," "full of shit," or "oh boy that guy, huh?" Almost everyone has an equally good handle on those terms. As is usual with me, if I can think of a more precise term for something, I'll go with it, risking even looking like a showoff to some, an idiot to others. Sometimes I only ??think?? I'm being more precise, of course, but I put my pants on one leg at a time, too.
    Permalink posted 06/09/2008
  46. brand X
    brand X says Best of luck with your trial, Baudolino. For what it is worth, after having this interaction with you I now feel that the mogosphere would indeed be worse for your absence, should you chose to leave. Petey, I will answer your question via mogmail.
    Permalink posted 06/09/2008
  47. I am
    I am says

    I would like to add zarpex is a good guy. He likes a good arguement as much as I do. To characterize him as a racist is a bit much and way off the mark. He is certainaly not an asshole, a bit high minded sure but not an ass.

    Baudolino, sorry to see you go for the wrong reasons.

    Permalink posted 06/12/2008
  48. Anna
    Anna says

    Baudolino, I won't get in too deep, but I'm sure there are people here, just like everywhere else - real life included- who will have a different opinion, might be harsh in verbalizing it etc. In my humble opinion, it is wrong to walk away whenever you meet such a person, especially when the place you encounter him/her is an on line community.

    It just so happens that in MOG, for every not well behaved person, there are 20 that are well behaved; I've never been a math person, but it is obvious that this is a favourable balance, no?

    It's true that you humans (don't ask...:P) tend to focus on a negative opinion, despite the 30 positive ones you might get, but that doesn't mean that this is the right way to go about it. How about the other, say, 50 people who enjoy reading your posts, and you do the same reading theirs? Why are they of a lesser importance than the one you had a problem with?

    Not trying to change our mind here or take a side, just pointing out some {in my opinion} general truths.

    Cheers, no matter what you decide to do :)

    Permalink posted 06/13/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

Top Artists

Our Daily Picks

RSS

Top Artists From A to Z

© 2006-2009 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved