Michael Fisher provided the comments below the break. I’m republishing his comments as a blog post in order to allow others to share their opinions on Fisher’s proposal.
I wouldn’t mind hosting the debate if Michael Fisher and Craig Nulan agree they need or want to have a weekend blog debate. However, I believe the rules, format, and structure of the debate would probably need to be different from the Cobb v. Fisher debate in order for the debate to be more productive and to make it easier for a panel of judges to declare one of the debaters more persuasive or convincing than the other. There were some constructive feedback and critical comments on format and structure provided in the Post Debate: Cobb v Fisher thread and the Audience Thread: Cobb v Fisher thread. We would be wise to review and discuss that feedback and criticism, in an effort to find ways to improve the weekend blog debate platform, before planning a Fisher v Nulan Debate.
I wouldn’t be able to help put something like this together, however, until after December 18, 2007.
Time for another bout.
I assume everyone here is familiar with the recent fall out between Craig Nulan and I. I’ve not been able to pin Craig down to what I would consider a rational argument that would have gone beyond some pretty heavy Nulansian epithets. I surmise that the issues involved may have been confusing to some. So, this is what I propose. As soon as E.C. has the time, I’d like him to comb his hair straight up and stage another bout. This time between Nulan and myself. The debate should be a win-lose debate in which one of the two parties is declared the winner and the other the loser. (we got to set up an impartial jury for that). The resolution to be debated would be as follows:
“Resolved: That white supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish and that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.”
The premises to be developed by E.C.
Nulan would be required to furnish definitions for the following terms as part of the Resolution:
(1) White
(2) Supremacy
(3) White Supremacy
(4) Syndrome
(5) Pathology
(6) Dopamine
(7) Dopamine Hegemony
(8) dopamineric
(9) Hegemony
(10) Culture
(11) Dominance
(12) Psychology
(13) Ethnic
(14) Group
(15) Species
(16) Race
(17) Racism
I will argue against the resolution and Nulan for the resolution.
If Nulan is declared the winner I will apologize to Nulan for having made the following statement:
“I, Craig Nulan, just as Michael David Cobb Bowen, do not want to miss out on the opportunity to kiss some white ass”.
If I am declared the winner, I’m just declared the winner.
45 Comments
I don’t want no MF’ing cheeseburgers…,
Cue Bill Duke’s detective…
“Y’know you just f*cked up now, don’t you?”
LMBAO @ Craig.
And thar she goes…
Craig Nulan… “In less than 10 days you’ve managed to convert me from your ally and confident into your implacable nemesis. So stop pretending weakness and take the Goethic stance and let’s have ourselves a little good old, knock down, drag out Nietzschean fun?”
Haste in den Wind geschissen, Alter…
Michael;
Had my unedited cerebellar reaction to your preposterous offer here on this thread been deemed out of bounds - E.C. would’ve called me on it and exercised his editorial prerogative. You should really think about that because this brother is about as fair and sober a judge as you’re ever likely to encounter.
See, this really isn’t all that complicated. You did the same thing to Cobb, but much worse. If I had it to do over again, I would call you on the abuse you heaped on Cobb instead of letting it devolve the way it did. For not doing the right thing with respect to your behavior then, I owe Cobb an apology. What you did went beyond the pale. You tried to injure him personally and professionally on the Assault. Had it been me, I would’ve had you shut down for content policy violations the very same day. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
When you decided that I had broached your standard of fundamentalist ideological compliance - I was summarily reduced to being a “white ass-kisser”. Simple deja vu. Your fundamental character flaw had gotten the better of you once again, but this time - instead of my long time rhetorical and political sparring partner Cobb, I was now to be the target of your ritual habitual. That was two mistakes for the price of one.
1. By repeating yourself you confirmed your modus operandi and in the process disclosed something rather nasty about your psychological makeup.
2. You simply picked the wrong one to attempt it with - cause in this medium - I’m about as close a thing to Elegba as you’re ever likely to encounter.
So this is where it’s at today. You’re off on some deeply addicted knuckle-dragging type racialist shit that has no place in the company of clear-headed Black men with a shared purpose and reasonably well established trust subsystem. There may be a lot that we don’t agree on, but fundamentally we’re working toward the same ends and want to see one another succeed.
You, on the other hand, are so far gone into the sickness of your GSWS convictions, that you not only have no qualms about personally injuring other Black men with whom you disagree, but even given the benefit of time and hindsight - you’re incapable of discerning exactly where you stepped over the line. I don’t need to debate you - you’ve already demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever - that you’re lost.
I made the mistake of believing that you operate in good faith, but you’ve gone to great lengths to prove me wrong. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…,
Ok. I see. So Ed approves of my being called a motherfucking-for-small-change-begging-Ni**er (twice)-crack-head-who-wants-to-suck-dick-and-should-be-killed-in broad-daylight.
Which, of course is an appropriate retort to: ““I, Craig Nulan, just as Michael David Cobb Bowen, do not want to miss out on the opportunity to kiss some white ass”.”
Tsk, tsk. Shame on you Ed.
Now. As you apparently have just entered this dimension from an alternate universe where history must’ve run askew, let me remind you that you, since at the very least November 8, 2007 have launched your peculiar ad hominem attacks against my person in the most offensive manner. You called me every which way, not only a racist and inhumane, but also outright stupid.
All of which would not be insults if you had, as repeatedly requested, provided me with the how and the why that under girded your assertions. Not only that, on November 17, on DV’s blog, I had asked you, when you once again made your allegations without even attempting to pursue a logical argument, to just agree to disagree and drop the matter. To which you said “no” and insisted on escalating your assertions about my lack of intelligence and the fallacy of my position not only on the Assault, at DV’s, but also at Cobb’s without even once going beyond your peculiar Nulansian epithets and showing the how and why.
Until I called you out for your political position. That position, objectively being (and apparently subjectively as well), crouched, in true Negro apologist fashion, lips puckered and ready, behind the posterior of white racist folks.
As to Cobb, that’s between me and him, and I apologized for my inappropriate use of “Ni**er”, but not for the sell-out part. Which apology he graciously accepted after he demonstrated the kind of man he is and got in the ring with me.
Beyond that, it would never have occurred to me to ridicule anyone because of their being overweight or otherwise as you’ve done to Mills: “plump, estrogen saturated little poodle you are”.
Now, let’s get to the real matter at hand which, once we dispense with the “oh, I done been insulted and I’m sulking” diversion, is your political stance. That political stance, better say, knee-fall, which I assert is a sell-out position and among the most dangerous ones to boot: An apologist for white racism against black folk and for white genocide of black folks which apologist who dresses himself in the garb of a “pro-black partisan”.
It is an assertion that is easily proven by demonstrating the (ill)logic of your, again as I assert, ridiculous argument of a “dopamine hegemony” and “cognitive error” of white racists past, present, and future.
As my Cherokee great-great-grandfather would say: You speaketh with forked tongue pale-face-lover.
Oh, Craig, baby. Since we’ve talking about “cognitive errors” of them poor ‘ole white racists, did Thomas Jefferson need glasses?
“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it… if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is to be born to live and labor for another… Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
But yet:
“the mortality among our negroes is still more serious as involving more as well as interested considerations. they are well fed, and well clothed, & I have had no reason to believe that any overseer, since Griffin’s time, has over worked them. accordingly the death’s among the grown ones seems ascribable to natural causes. but the loss of 5. little ones in 4 years induces me to fear that the overseers do not permit the women to devote as much time as is necessary to the care of their children: that they view their labor as the 1 object and the raising their child but as secondary.
I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every 2. years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.
in this, as in all other cases, providence has made our interests & our duties coincide perfectly. women too are destroyed by exposure to wet at certain periodical indispositions to which nature has subjected them. with respect therefore to our women & their children I must pray you to inculcate upon the overseers that it is not their labor, but their increase which is the first consideration with us.”
and
“I would spare 20. negroes in all from those plantations, men women and children in the usual proportions: and I should think this really more advantageous to Francis than (to me). I know no error more consuming to an estate than that of stocking farms with men almost exclusively.
I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.“
Michael:
When I don’t delete a comment, that does not entail that I approve of it. It only entails that I did not believe that it violated the terms I describe in my Blog Ethos page.
Even so, I did not approve of cnulan’s Comment #1. Nor did I dissapprove of it. In fact, I did not watch the clip until a few moments ago (I had forgotten my YouTube password for a spell). I don’t know exactly what cnulan wanted to communicate by using the clip; however, there are a wide variety of things he might have wanted to communicate. I do not assume that he wanted to communicate that the non-crackhead characters in the clips were uttering sentences to you on his behalf.
Moreover, I did not delete cnulan’s Comment #1 because the reader is given the option to follow the link and view the clip or not. The reader is then allowed to watch the clip and interpret cnulan’s meaning however he or she pleases. Had cnulan actually insulted you in a way that I don’t approve of in this thread, by writing a comment that would have used racist or quasi-racist words such as “Nigger” or “Sambo,” then I would have deleted his comment forthwith.
E.C.
“Even so, I did not approve of cnulan’s Comment #1. Nor did I dissapprove of it.”
You being a neutral party to this dispute, I didn’t think you did either, E.C.
aaawwwww shit!
Ok. Since Craig has chosen not to show up, let’s deal with another one of his concepts: “Race”.
According to Nulan “Race” is what?
Here’s a nice de facto definition. It’s genetically based, too.
Now, mark that: This genetics separates people who get addicted and people who don’t
So here we got two groups of biologically determined groups of people upon which supposed “existence” Nulan then constructs a whole social system of domination which he terms the “Dopamine Hegemony”.
Of course, besides the fact that Nulan presents no empirical evidence whatsoever that either supposed category of dopamine groups exist, or if they should indeed exist, are in any way convincingly correlated with a dominant (ruling) genetically determined dopamineric group/race and non-dominant (subservient) genetically determined dopamineric group/race, Nulan does not even define what “low” and what “high” levels of Dopmine are and at what point the supposed “low” folks are separated from the supposed “high” folks.
But wait, what else does Nulan have to say about “race”?
In one of the most illogical posts I have seen on the internet yet, Nulan under the heading “What Is Race” says (or quotes) the following:
This sentence is so illogical and confusing that it is almost laughable were it not so tragic.
On the one hand Nulan posits two de facto but, both objectively and empirically, non-defined “races” of which one is engaged in a hegemony over the other, (which then, I guess, would logically constitute some kind of System of Racism/Dopamine Hegemony) , and on the other hand he says that “using race as a marker is [problematic]“ because “any one self-identified group is never homogeneous [genetically]“.
So what is it then?
Are there two groups that are “genetically homogeneous” “dopamineric”-wise, or not?
Answer:
Of course there are since we’ve got “[...] genetics [which] separates people who get addicted and people who don’t“.
Answer:
Of course there are not since “using race as a marker is [problematic]“ because “any one self-identified group is never homogeneous [genetically].”
And it is I who practices “deductivism gone wild”?
You know Michael Fisher, if I thought you weren’t my friend, I just don’t think I could bear it….,
I suspect that if I dragged this out a little longer, you would simply burst without any further impetus from me. However, being that the lovely jasai at DV’s prompted me to turn over a compassionate leaf this morning, I’ll generously volunteer to put you out of your misery at a date certain.
If the broad outlines are Dopamine Hegemony vs. GSWS, and if anyone is willing to host and moderate this execution, I’m your huckleberry.
cnulan and M. Fisher:
1. I am willing to host and help moderate the debate. I would be available to help moderate during December 28-30, 2007, or January 4-6, 2008.
2. I recommend that one to two additional moderators be recruited. They should have very strong grasps of argumentation theory/informal logic and should be able to be impartial enough to focus on the form of your argumentation rather than the persuasiveness of your arguments.
3. If you would like folks to judge the debate, then I recommend that you recruit 3 to 7 well-read folks to judge which side’s argument will have been convincing or most persuasive. I also suggest that none of the judges should also be moderators.
4. Before the debate, a resolution that would enable both of you to argue productively with the goal of resolving your controversy should be crafted; key definitions should be developed and agreed upon; and a set of debate rules should be developed and agreed upon.
5. I also recommend that a standard format for comments be developed and agreed upon that would help moderators, judges, and debaters organize and refer to your comments and the arguments they would contain.
I’d be available to help with #4 and #5 after December 18, 2007.
BTW: If any of you received a weird error message, after attempting to submit a comment, telling you that you have been blacklisted or something like that, please have no fear. You have not been blacklisted. One of my WordPress plugins was to blame for that technical problem. I just fixed the problem.
@Craig…
Well, we’ve already got our, that is your Resolution:
“Resolved: That white supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish and that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.”
And since the following are your very terms, you ought to be able to define them:
(1) White
(2) Supremacy
(3) White Supremacy
(4) Syndrome
(5) Pathology
(6) Dopamine
(7) Dopamine Hegemony
(8) dopamineric
(9) Hegemony
(10) Culture
(11) Dominance
(12) Psychology
(13) Ethnic
(14) Group
(15) Species
(16) Race
(17) Racism
Tally ho!
Thanks, E.C. I have to check the dates you have available. I may have to be out of town on one of these dates. I’ll let you know asap.
No MF.
A cogent resolution pitting dopamine hegemony vs. GSWS will be asserted between now and the time of your public humiliation and THAT will be the subject of this debate.
Cnulan…
“No MF”
“No” nothing. I challenged you to defend your own words.
You can’t even defend your very own words?
I made my point.
I’m done.
Good thing I saved a copy of the page before you gave the “incredible hulk” his warm sponge bath…,
“Good thing I saved a copy of the page before you gave the “incredible hulk” his warm sponge bath…,”
I guess I am somewhat predictable. :)
Shiningly upright E.C., it’s a very good thing.
btw, nulan’s ’self-selection’ definition of race makes perfect sense to me. i exemplify with blood type. blood type *is* genetic. race is social.
Racism is not about biology, but about a memetic system maintained by power. It is not about color and can afflict anyone of any color, community, culture, or country, who craves power above the need to respect the humanity of others. Race fundamentalists are people badly infected with race memes expressing their symptomatic addiction to racial self-talk (thus the crackhead metaphor) with no desire or plan to solve the prevailing evil.
Having bought into W. E. B. DuBois’ famous line: “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line”, race fundamentalists fail to realize that DuBois himself rejected this position later in life. In the 50th anniversary edition of The Souls of Black Folk (1961), DuBois tempered his view with the realization that the real problem was not the “color-line” but the “class-line.”“Today I see more clearly than yesterday that back of the problem of race and color, lies a greater problem which both obscures and implements it: and that is the fact that so many civilized persons are willing to live in comfort even if the price of this is poverty, ignorance and disease of the majority of their fellowmen.” Thus, it is not the color of people, but the memeplex within people that creates class divisions. That is the real problem. DuBois recognized this, but few outside MLK have since.
Racism cannot be solved by merely focusing on race, for that is just the surface memetic problem, the social construction of a culture-specific value system. It is when we come to the innards of that memeplex that we intersect biology and the more difficult and intractable problem of dopaminergic hedonism - the fact that so many civilized persons are willing to live in comfort even if the price of this is poverty, ignorance and disease of the majority of their fellowmen - said “civilized” belief, behavior, and governance of the same - having become organized around dopaminergy - that is going to be a terrifically hard nut to crack.
However, like any other problem, it CAN BE solved through a deliberate process of assessment, architecture, and implementation. The extra challenge for a conscious Black partisan is to maintain human essentialist equilibrium and the struggle for objectivity - while embedded in a racially charged environment - which consciousness and cultural competency demand.
“Having bought into W. E. B. DuBois’ famous line: “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line”, race fundamentalists fail to realize that DuBois himself rejected this position later in life. In the 50th anniversary edition of The Souls of Black Folk (1961), DuBois tempered his view with the realization that the real problem was not the “color-line” but the ‘class-line.’”
This is the first time that you’ve made any argument that has the potential of making any sense.
And this is why DuBois joined the Communist Party USA, at the end of his life.
Now, Sir. How are your “classes” objectively determined? And, given your particular class analysis of society, what, then is “racism”?
One more gunfight to go and then I think I’ll hang up my spurs for a minute and chill. Unlike Bro. Fisher with whom there was at least some legitimate ground for debate - David Mills has gotten himself completely and inexcusably on the wrong side of science, history, and politics.
48 hours after selling some big woof tickets, I don’t believe UCBM has been able to cobble together racial pseudo-scientific self-justification quite yet. (or do you think it was Ashley Montague that convinced him to BTFU E.C.?)
“Good thing I saved a copy of the page before you gave the ‘incredible hulk’ his warm sponge bath…,”
I did not say that the comments I asked E.C. to delete were incorrect, I said that they were unnecessarily silly. I had just woken up (twice) and was shaken by a laughter attack after reading your comment.
I love you like a play cousin Fisher…, but give it a rest. Maybe we can even get back on decent terms after you sort out who your real friends and enemies are and act accordingly.
“Unlike Bro. Fisher with whom there was at least some legitimate ground for debate…”
There still is legitimate ground for debate: Namely your own nonsense which is highly debatable:
“That white supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish and that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.”
Anytime you are finally willing to defend your own words and concepts, I’m game.
Your diverting the issue over to what will, at the end of the day, turn out to be a classical Marxist analysis of society (which is a demonstrable fallacy as well), ain’t gonna change the fact that you came up with the crack-head hegemony.
Nope, it appears that “asshole syndrome” is just flatly incurable…,
“[or] do you think it was Ashley Montague that convinced him to BTFU E.C.?”
I suspect that if UCBM would read the Montagu essay or the anthology I recommended to him and his readers that his positions on race, IQ, and race and IQ, would be influenced as were mine. Indeed, I believe he would be persuaded to retreat from some of the positions on race, IQ, and race and IQ, that he has shared with us.
“Nope, it appears that “asshole syndrome” is just flatly incurable…,”
agreed
Craig Nulan:
(a) Racism is not about biology…
Agreed
(b) but about a memetic system maintained by power
Agreed
(c) It is not about color
Disagree, because: What is the content of this “memetic system”.
(d) and can afflict anyone of any color, community, culture, or country, who craves power above the need to respect the humanity of others.
Disagree; See comment to (c) above.
(e) Race fundamentalists are people badly infected with race memes
What is a “race fundamentalist”, particularly in view of (a) and (b) above?
(f) expressing their symptomatic addiction to racial self-talk
What is “racial” and “racial self-talk” in view of (a) and (b) above?
(g) (thus the crackhead metaphor) with no desire or plan to solve the prevailing evil.
Until you make clear what you mean by (e) and (f), (g) is not comprehensible.
David Mills has gotten himself completely and inexcusably on the wrong side of science, history, and politics.
Nulan, I’ll pop a Cialis if you pop a Ritalin. Deal?
As for your upcoming throwdown with Fisher… Wow! I can’t wait to read every word of that one! (yawns, scatches ass, reaches for the cable remote)
Excuse me, E.C. How do I code for italics over here?
incognegro
intelligible instructions for implementing italics are invariant irrespective of instance
left caret-tag-right caret insert incognegro’s insolent inanities left caret-slash-tag-right caret
oh yeah Mills, you’re runnin bout 48 hours late with those brokeback woof tickets you wuz peddlin over at the poodle parlor…,
What’s a caret?
UCBM:
The following html code works in comments threads:
<a href="">title</a> <b></b> <i></i> <blockquote></blockquote> <strike></strike> <hr>
Thanks, E.C. Got it.
jes dayyum….,
Craig… Yo, Craig… it’s time. Huckleberry-picking time.
My initial response is online.
And so is my initial response to his initial response.
the companion piece is now online as well.
for the record:
Exchange between Nulan and yours truly at subrealism…
———————
Michael Fisher:
“There still some questions over at maxambit awaiting your answers, by the way.”
————————
Craig Nulan:
“I see you’re still operating under the delusion that anyone else is interested in hitting hitting your deductive crack pipe. Isn’t that wmv of Goodbye Uncle Tom getting cold on your laptop?”
————————–
Michael Fisher:
Nulan… “I see you’re still operating under the delusion that anyone else is interested in hitting hitting your deductive crack pipe.”
Craig. The point of posting the questions are not to convince you. I doubt you could be convinced.
The point is to demonstrate to everyone else not only the fallacy of your arguments and but to demonstrate how objectively (and possibly subjectively) pro-white racist “blacks” among us operate most effectively in spreading confusion by masquerading as “black partisans”.
Fact is that, in the face of logical, structured arguments, persons like you or your ego-stroker DV can not allow themselves to go beyond ad hominem attacks, argument diversion, linking obscure articles with obscure terminology, and the usage of hieroglyphical verbiage.
Just the fact that you refuse to defend and define your own words and terminology in a structured supervised setting exposes the true thrust of your argumentation.
still not having any of them basehead cheeseburgers MF….,
For the record….
—————————-
Craig Nulan:
What I refuse to do is comply with your terms and your terminology. That you run around like an obsessed chicken with its head cut off, clumsily trying to compel me to do otherwise is emblematic of your debilitated mental state.
A dyadics’ absolute denial that anything they don’t already “know” is the case exactly matches the dopamine self-addicts’ fear of novelty. Your refusal to recognise problems, let alone address them, exactly matches the dopamine self-addicts’ disinterest in anything but their rituals. Dyadic contempt for empirical evidence exactly matches the self-addicts’ dopamine induced self-confidence.
Typical crackhead ish….,
.
cnulan | Homepage | 12.08.07 - 9:30 pm | #
————————-
Michael Fisher:
cnulan…
“What I refuse to do is comply with your terms and your terminology.”
Huh?
The following is my terminology?
“White supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish and that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.”
And the following terms were not used in the text cited here?
“(1) White
(2) Supremacy
(3) White Supremacy
(4) Syndrome
(5) Pathology
(6) Dopamine
(7) Dopamine Hegemony
( dopamineric
(9) Hegemony
(10) Culture
(11) Dominance
(12) Psychology
(13) Ethnic
(14) Group
(15) Species
(16) Race
(17) Racism
Craig. Seriously. Did something fall on your head?