The Conversation We're NOT Having

[Boss]

Well, no.... I'm actually not new to the board and it appears I've been here longer than you. I admit that I've not read through the entirety of all the threads but I am not seeing the threads about the topics raised in my OP. I see the conversations about whether Darren Wilson is a racist or whether he should have been indicted. I see conversations about what "other options" he may have taken. I see conversations about Michael Brown's civil rights. I see plenty of conversations about the evidence heard by the Grand Jury. But nope... not seeing the conversations about the alarming number of single-parent black youth, responsibility of black fathers, black-on-black crime, gangs and gangsters, the ever-failing liberal education system and lack of opportunity for minorities.

And I hate to break this to ya, but this board isn't a national conversation. We represent a very thin slice of the general public who have internet access and congregate at this site to bloviate about politics and such. So even IF the conversation has happened here, it's not what the OP is talking about. But you're not really here to have a conversation anyway, are you? This is your platform for denigrating others so you can feel good about yourself. I suspect the last thing in the world you would be interested in is an actual intelligent and objective conversation. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that at any time.

I don't know what threads you are reading but in most threads the topic eventually dissolves into the very points your OP is making. I realize this is not a national conversation. Were did you get the idea I thought it was? The issue I have with your points and you wanting to have a conversation is that you are not talking about the flip side. You are discussing issues in the Black community but ignoring the issues in the white community that have a direct effect on said issues in the Black community. You also are ignoring the issue the white community has regardless of Black people. You have drug issues. You have violence issues. You have depression and suicide issues. When you try to start a conversation with an air of superiority you cut all lines of communication.When you automatically assume that your desire to start a conversation is reciprocated then you insult. My stance is that unless you come to the table with the humble intention of listening to learn instead of talking to reprimand, then you like many others are only going to cause more problems between the races at worst or maintain the status quo at best..

We've already established I am reading the threads on this board. I've also not avoided discussing any relative problems in the white community which lead to problems in the black community and you are free to explain what whites are doing to cause blacks to spawn one generation after another of fatherless children, promote gangs and gangsters through cultural glorification, or develop a seething disrespect for law enforcement. It would be interesting to hear your take on what the white community is doing to cause these things in the black community.

Simply stating there are drug, suicide, depression and violence issues is not telling us much. It's not an "air of superiority" to presume these things are not the fault of the white community, you need to explain how they are if that's what you believe. I personally believe these are problems which transcend racial boundaries and are ultimately the responsibility of the individual.

I also don't feel I am obligated to come to the table with a humble intention of listening and not talking, as that is not a conversation or how conversations work. I'm not here to fix the problems between races. I am pointing out how we're not having the conversation we should be having in light of Ferguson. And I am not talking about the conversation on this board but rather the nation as a whole.

Your last paragraph renders your thread as a series of tired, over expressed statements. Basically you are just making the same statements others have made millions of times in other threads. If you believe that having a conversation is not a exercise in listening then no matter how much you talk you are a piss poor communicator. Now that you have explained this I see your intentions are merely to hear yourself talk. Thats one of the reasons we arent having conversations on this site or nationally.

Having a conversation is not an exercise in listening, it is an exercise in communicating which involves both listening and speaking. It involves all parties doing both because we aren't having a conversation if all we are doing is listening. If I am humbly listening and you are speaking, then I am hearing a lecture. I have no problem hearing lectures on topics that interest me, but that is not a conversation and should never be confused as one.

Also... I am not interested in your critique of my OP. If you don't like it you don't have to read it, but I didn't write it for your approval.

Too many experts in the subject of conversations disagree with you. The biggest requirement for conversations is the skill of listening. Anyone that has ever risen above the level of common day laborer knows this.

Challenge 1 Deep Listening -- Empathy in Action

"Listen first and acknowledge what you hear, even if you don’t agree with it, before expressing your experience or point of view . In order to get more of your conversation partner’s attention in tense situations, pay attention first: listen and give a brief restatement of what you have heard (especially feelings) before you express your own needs or position. "

I never said you were interested or searching for approval. I didnt care if you were interested or not. i was going to make a critique of your OP since you posted it. If you felt my statement required your interest you may want to rethink why you assume anyone cares what you are interested in.

What you are now trying to do is distort my comments and move your own goalposts. I never claimed that listening isn't part of having a conversation or that the skill is not important. Conversations require more than listening, and I don't care if you believe experts disagree, that's just a fact of life. There is also no prerequisite for me to start a conversation by listening, that is your opinion and I disagree. You can follow your own advice if that's what you believe, but I assure you, it's impossible for two people to have a conversation while both are only listening and neither is speaking. You see, someone has to speak in order for any conversation to begin.

Now that we've dispatched this myopic minutiae regarding the anatomy of conversation, you are free to speak on the points laid out in the OP and I will listen. However, if all you came here and commented for was to critique the OP, I am not interested in your evaluation. Oh, and I also don't care if you don't care that I am not interested, just to clear the record there.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't know what threads you are reading but in most threads the topic eventually dissolves into the very points your OP is making. I realize this is not a national conversation. Were did you get the idea I thought it was? The issue I have with your points and you wanting to have a conversation is that you are not talking about the flip side. You are discussing issues in the Black community but ignoring the issues in the white community that have a direct effect on said issues in the Black community. You also are ignoring the issue the white community has regardless of Black people. You have drug issues. You have violence issues. You have depression and suicide issues. When you try to start a conversation with an air of superiority you cut all lines of communication.When you automatically assume that your desire to start a conversation is reciprocated then you insult. My stance is that unless you come to the table with the humble intention of listening to learn instead of talking to reprimand, then you like many others are only going to cause more problems between the races at worst or maintain the status quo at best..

We've already established I am reading the threads on this board. I've also not avoided discussing any relative problems in the white community which lead to problems in the black community and you are free to explain what whites are doing to cause blacks to spawn one generation after another of fatherless children, promote gangs and gangsters through cultural glorification, or develop a seething disrespect for law enforcement. It would be interesting to hear your take on what the white community is doing to cause these things in the black community.

Simply stating there are drug, suicide, depression and violence issues is not telling us much. It's not an "air of superiority" to presume these things are not the fault of the white community, you need to explain how they are if that's what you believe. I personally believe these are problems which transcend racial boundaries and are ultimately the responsibility of the individual.

I also don't feel I am obligated to come to the table with a humble intention of listening and not talking, as that is not a conversation or how conversations work. I'm not here to fix the problems between races. I am pointing out how we're not having the conversation we should be having in light of Ferguson. And I am not talking about the conversation on this board but rather the nation as a whole.

Your last paragraph renders your thread as a series of tired, over expressed statements. Basically you are just making the same statements others have made millions of times in other threads. If you believe that having a conversation is not a exercise in listening then no matter how much you talk you are a piss poor communicator. Now that you have explained this I see your intentions are merely to hear yourself talk. Thats one of the reasons we arent having conversations on this site or nationally.

Having a conversation is not an exercise in listening, it is an exercise in communicating which involves both listening and speaking. It involves all parties doing both because we aren't having a conversation if all we are doing is listening. If I am humbly listening and you are speaking, then I am hearing a lecture. I have no problem hearing lectures on topics that interest me, but that is not a conversation and should never be confused as one.

Also... I am not interested in your critique of my OP. If you don't like it you don't have to read it, but I didn't write it for your approval.

Too many experts in the subject of conversations disagree with you. The biggest requirement for conversations is the skill of listening. Anyone that has ever risen above the level of common day laborer knows this.

Challenge 1 Deep Listening -- Empathy in Action

"Listen first and acknowledge what you hear, even if you don’t agree with it, before expressing your experience or point of view . In order to get more of your conversation partner’s attention in tense situations, pay attention first: listen and give a brief restatement of what you have heard (especially feelings) before you express your own needs or position. "

I never said you were interested or searching for approval. I didnt care if you were interested or not. i was going to make a critique of your OP since you posted it. If you felt my statement required your interest you may want to rethink why you assume anyone cares what you are interested in.

What you are now trying to do is distort my comments and move your own goalposts. I never claimed that listening isn't part of having a conversation or that the skill is not important. Conversations require more than listening, and I don't care if you believe experts disagree, that's just a fact of life. There is also no prerequisite for me to start a conversation by listening, that is your opinion and I disagree. You can follow your own advice if that's what you believe, but I assure you, it's impossible for two people to have a conversation while both are only listening and neither is speaking. You see, someone has to speak in order for any conversation to begin.

Now that we've dispatched this myopic minutiae regarding the anatomy of conversation, you are free to speak on the points laid out in the OP and I will listen. However, if all you came here and commented for was to critique the OP, I am not interested in your evaluation. Oh, and I also don't care if you don't care that I am not interested, just to clear the record there.

Where did you get the notion that anyone told you not to speak? I simply said to humbly listen instead of speaking to reprimand. You are the one that wanted to play with words and pretend you didnt understand what I was saying. BTW you have my permission to not care. I was not concerned with your views on the status of my caring.

 

[Boss]

Where did you get the notion that anyone told you not to speak? I simply said to humbly listen instead of speaking to reprimand. You are the one that wanted to play with words and pretend you didnt understand what I was saying. BTW you have my permission to not care. I was not concerned with your views on the status of my caring.

I got the notion from what you originally stated:

My stance is that unless you come to the table with the humble intention of listening to learn instead of talking to reprimand, then you like many others are only going to cause more problems..

I responded with the following:

I don't feel I am obligated to come to the table with a humble intention of listening and not talking, as that is not a conversation or how conversations work.

Then you popped back off with:

If you believe that having a conversation is not a exercise in listening then no matter how much you talk you are a piss poor communicator.

And I replied:

Having a conversation is not an exercise in listening, it is an exercise in communicating which involves both listening and speaking.

To which you retorted:

Too many experts in the subject of conversations disagree with you. The biggest requirement for conversations is the skill of listening.

And I responded:

I never claimed that listening isn't part of having a conversation or that the skill is not important. Conversations require more than listening, and I don't care if you believe experts disagree, that's just a fact of life.

==================================================

Now... Number one, I did not reprimand anyone in the OP or elsewhere. So you began with a false allegation and went down hill from there. You then insisted that listening "instead of" talking was having a conversation and when I corrected your error, insisted that experts disagree with me. So we've now taken up several posts and wasted about a page of dialogue over nonsense. This probably explains the unusually high number of posts you have compared to me. People have to go through this kind of simple-minded bullshit with you in order to have any sort of conversation at all. Here we are, all these posts and all this time wasted on something that is a simple misstatement by you that could have been acknowledged early on, but you simply don't have the ability to admit when you are wrong. Seems like you would have taken your own advice and humbly listened instead of reprimanding me, but you didn't.

 

[Asclepias]

Where did you get the notion that anyone told you not to speak? I simply said to humbly listen instead of speaking to reprimand. You are the one that wanted to play with words and pretend you didnt understand what I was saying. BTW you have my permission to not care. I was not concerned with your views on the status of my caring.

I got the notion from what you originally stated:

My stance is that unless you come to the table with the humble intention of listening to learn instead of talking to reprimand, then you like many others are only going to cause more problems..

I responded with the following:

I don't feel I am obligated to come to the table with a humble intention of listening and not talking, as that is not a conversation or how conversations work.

Then you popped back off with:

If you believe that having a conversation is not a exercise in listening then no matter how much you talk you are a piss poor communicator.

And I replied:

Having a conversation is not an exercise in listening, it is an exercise in communicating which involves both listening and speaking.

To which you retorted:

Too many experts in the subject of conversations disagree with you. The biggest requirement for conversations is the skill of listening.

And I responded:

I never claimed that listening isn't part of having a conversation or that the skill is not important. Conversations require more than listening, and I don't care if you believe experts disagree, that's just a fact of life.

==================================================

Now... Number one, I did not reprimand anyone in the OP or elsewhere. So you began with a false allegation and went down hill from there. You then insisted that listening "instead of" talking was having a conversation and when I corrected your error, insisted that experts disagree with me. So we've now taken up several posts and wasted about a page of dialogue over nonsense. This probably explains the unusually high number of posts you have compared to me. People have to go through this kind of simple-minded bullshit with you in order to have any sort of conversation at all. Here we are, all these posts and all this time wasted on something that is a simple misstatement by you that could have been acknowledged early on, but you simply don't have the ability to admit when you are wrong. Seems like you would have taken your own advice and humbly listened instead of reprimanding me, but you didn't.

You got the wrong notion from what I originally said . "to reprimand" is the qualifier you seemed to have skipped over. No one ever said you couldnt talk. You just assumed without clarification much like I assumed you wanted to have a conversation. No one ever claimed you reprimanded anyone either. Your puerile grasp of the written English language seems to be at fault here. Well that and you inability to articulate your purpose for posting this OP.