So in just a matter of a few hours, after a difference in opinion I was not only "negged" several times, but blocked from responding to a thread where I presently continue to be insulted hassle free.
Here's the response that some posters do not agree with.
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/scho...tely-target-black-girls.276134/#post-11357182
Then I received an inbox from @concise who claims that the very first reply to that thread was of "poor quality".
After replying with a very logical reason, because I actually have researched the topic thoroughly over the course of three years independent of the free lance writer's story for Huffington, I've gotten no response.
The Coli is a great place, and from my understanding it started as an attempt to facilitate SOHH's community after a few members decided SOHH's staff performance was less than satisfactory.
Ironically, @concise is doing the same thing. And I honestly believe that as viewers read the many threads here on the Coli they will make their decision to either sign up and contribute or not return at all based on their ability to speak freely.
I posted a video of "Sharkeisha" a 16 year old that assaulted a 17 year old student Shamichael Manuel last year in Texas.The victim says she tried to talk to "Sharkeisha" in school before the incident too place. Her mother said that Skarkeisha wasn't arrested, and the school couldn't do anything because the incident did not occur on school grounds. My point of the video was the girls attended Cypress Creek High School, which has a 100% completion rate for black students, and is a top rated school in Texas. The school is predominantly white and Hispanic but has a large black community. The video shows how black girls can easily be affected in a negative way because of "colorblind" practices that doesn't acknowledge the economically disadvantaged black youth face uncommon problems when integrated with white students.
I don't come on the Coli to post college dissertations, however my account is an extension of who I am, and while a small margin of posters may not agree with me, it isn't fair to assume I'm a "troll", a "cac", or problematic. This is the internet, and large masses of people of connected INSTANTLY that wouldn't otherwise be. Now who is to say that if these same posters were to hold this conversation in real life, they wouldn't be laughed at ostracized and forced to restructure their frame of thinking by the general consensus?
I believe that if staff members or volunteers intervene in a thread that they should be knowledgeable on the subject before they make a decision. And making a decision based on their sometimes inept comprehension of a subject should have the right to be challenged. No poster should have to put limitations on their own critical thinking skills because staff members aren't equipped to professionally to communication conflicts.
The Coli accepts business from advertisers, and to my knowledge, sometimes a director of communication may interact with forum users to get a feel of the "brand". So if a staff member who isn't educated or lacks common sense abruptly penalizes a user that he doesn't agree with, yet allow multiple users to call him or her derogatory names, especially on social issues reflects poorly on The Coli as a community.
The strong presence of militancy on the Coli is very tolerable as long as the users they attack are allowed to defend themselves. But if staff members don't have a keen interpersonal communication skills where they can remain neutral or fair, it is no longer a "community", it's army or a centric group. How is the Coli any different from st0rmfr0nt then? And st0rmfr0nt actually allows its members to debate freely, which is good because it fosters critical thinking and larger opportunities for cohesion. Sadly they use it for hate. And if the Coli does the same thing, it will surely be its downfall.
Here's the response that some posters do not agree with.
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/scho...tely-target-black-girls.276134/#post-11357182
Then I received an inbox from @concise who claims that the very first reply to that thread was of "poor quality".
After replying with a very logical reason, because I actually have researched the topic thoroughly over the course of three years independent of the free lance writer's story for Huffington, I've gotten no response.
The Coli is a great place, and from my understanding it started as an attempt to facilitate SOHH's community after a few members decided SOHH's staff performance was less than satisfactory.
Ironically, @concise is doing the same thing. And I honestly believe that as viewers read the many threads here on the Coli they will make their decision to either sign up and contribute or not return at all based on their ability to speak freely.
I posted a video of "Sharkeisha" a 16 year old that assaulted a 17 year old student Shamichael Manuel last year in Texas.The victim says she tried to talk to "Sharkeisha" in school before the incident too place. Her mother said that Skarkeisha wasn't arrested, and the school couldn't do anything because the incident did not occur on school grounds. My point of the video was the girls attended Cypress Creek High School, which has a 100% completion rate for black students, and is a top rated school in Texas. The school is predominantly white and Hispanic but has a large black community. The video shows how black girls can easily be affected in a negative way because of "colorblind" practices that doesn't acknowledge the economically disadvantaged black youth face uncommon problems when integrated with white students.
I don't come on the Coli to post college dissertations, however my account is an extension of who I am, and while a small margin of posters may not agree with me, it isn't fair to assume I'm a "troll", a "cac", or problematic. This is the internet, and large masses of people of connected INSTANTLY that wouldn't otherwise be. Now who is to say that if these same posters were to hold this conversation in real life, they wouldn't be laughed at ostracized and forced to restructure their frame of thinking by the general consensus?
I believe that if staff members or volunteers intervene in a thread that they should be knowledgeable on the subject before they make a decision. And making a decision based on their sometimes inept comprehension of a subject should have the right to be challenged. No poster should have to put limitations on their own critical thinking skills because staff members aren't equipped to professionally to communication conflicts.
The Coli accepts business from advertisers, and to my knowledge, sometimes a director of communication may interact with forum users to get a feel of the "brand". So if a staff member who isn't educated or lacks common sense abruptly penalizes a user that he doesn't agree with, yet allow multiple users to call him or her derogatory names, especially on social issues reflects poorly on The Coli as a community.
The strong presence of militancy on the Coli is very tolerable as long as the users they attack are allowed to defend themselves. But if staff members don't have a keen interpersonal communication skills where they can remain neutral or fair, it is no longer a "community", it's army or a centric group. How is the Coli any different from st0rmfr0nt then? And st0rmfr0nt actually allows its members to debate freely, which is good because it fosters critical thinking and larger opportunities for cohesion. Sadly they use it for hate. And if the Coli does the same thing, it will surely be its downfall.
__________________________________________________________
@Brooklynzson @cook, you're welcome to inbox me, and though I joke around a lot, almost 16 hours of my professional day is spent online analyzing. So I have a lot of insights about the Coli and I'm willing to volunteer my support of you guys need it.
