He is akin to the rock thrower who hides behind a wall with merely his eyeball peering out. He lurks, waiting for an opportunity to throw his rock at his target. Then he disappears back behind the large object that protects him. In the world of debate the "large object" which provides him with cover is the pool of fellow ideological travellers who fail to call him out for his antics.
As his adversary logically lays out a defense per the rational argument that is presented for all who have intellectually honesty to read.....the Brevity Bigot uses short passages of words which serve the same purposes in support of his arguments. The word count to effective argument ratio is a function of the third party observer and his scale that is weighted down with lead, NOT the intrinsic argument contained within. Ultimately it is a waste of time to debate the "Brevity Bigot".
If you all could see the personal debates that I get ensnared in via e-mail or in person - and amongst the different groups of people (friends, frat brothers, co-workers) - you'd swear that it was me, the common denominator who is prone for debate. Instead I am a disruptive force in the world where a "fish don't know he wet".
Respectfully Agree To Disagree
"Respectfully Agree To Disagree".
This says that "I am tired of debating you. I don't agree with you. There is nothing that you can say to change my mind".
For most people this is a reasonable point at which to disconnect from a debate. You have respected that the other person has his own view of the world and you have your own.
The problem is that, far too often, the debate is not made to be confined to a certain subject and/or outcome. Thus by allowing either party to remain retrenched while not being bound to an outcome by which their position can be measured against - "Respectfully Agree To Disagree" merely is a tool to allow those who are entrenched to remain so and to escape any accountability.
Lets strip away the art of debate. There is no doubt that some people are far more expert in their elocution, their writing skills and, more commonly their ability to work the crowd (and their latent biases) and thus apparently win an argument. The bottom line of this point is that prior to entering into a debate both combatants and the audience need to submit themselves to a certain end. Failing that they may as well play music in the background of the debate and the winner is chosen by who can 'get the party started' even over the most serious subjects that confront us.
When I read some of the e-mail exchanges between a closed group of friends - let's say my frat brothers (a large group which doesn't know my individual sensibilities) the prevailing assumption is indeed that all Black people are monolithic in our thinking. This despite the public denials that this is the case. Many of you are the worst violators of this notion. In fact the base of your power and control over our community is ENFORCED AGREEMENT. The penalty of which is "public racial shaming".
Far too often the "just between us chickens" message in which the person gets too lazy in hiding their real agenda (ie: "Lets pray for Obama and hope that HIS enemies fail") a simple question of clarification on the point might cause some issues with those who don't like to be questioned.
- Please define WHO are "Obama's Enemies"?
- Is Cornel West - a (new found) critic of Obama from the LEFT his enemy?
- Could you define the key characteristics of an "Obama Enemy"?
- Is an enemy of Obama inherently an "Enemy of the Black Community's Interests"?
- Do all of Obama's Interests in the "American Political Domain" exactly match the Permanent Interests of the Black Community in the "Community Cultural Consciousness and Competence Domain"?
- If a Black person, upon seeing all that is going on in our community but REMAINS SILENT because he is "getting in where he fits in".....if HE in fact an enemy of our Permanent Interests?
Can we all agree that this is a "Sold Out" condition? The only reason why these individuals are not called "Sellouts" is because those who typically rant as such are standing right beside the person - performing his own "Sellout" behavior.
I refuse to "Respectfully Agree To Disagree". It only defends the establishment order, never allowing a framework by which transparent inspection of this order to be erected. In my view an argument should "end" once both sides agree to bind themselves to such a framework and then continuing discussions and debate can be had.
In as much as some people are not interested in putting our community on a PATHWAY toward a state of effective management of our community resources - they are resistant to institutions that enforce transparency because they don't want to suffer the loss their own power.