Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#402 Mar 15 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
So far you haven't been able to restate my point in your own words.


Yes I have. Several times, in fact. You just haven't been able to understand it. ;)



Seriously, Kachi? Your point isn't special or unique. It's very common, and is held by a lot of people. I've probably run into it (and argued against it) dozens of times on this forum. I have heard not one thing from you that deviates from the same position argued with the same arguments uttered by dozens of other people in the past. You are not a snowflake you know.


Ooh, the ol' reversal! "No, -I- understand it. It's YOU that doesn't understand!" Keep fightin' champ. Denial hasn't failed you after all these years, and it's sure not about to fail you now.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#403 Mar 15 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I'm showing you how silly your own argument is. Just insisting that the other guy's counter arguments are wrong because "you don't understand!" is too easy. Anyone can do it for any argument. It's a weak counter at best. What's telling is your inability (or unwillingness) to actually address my counters. If they're so far off, why not take the time and explain *why* they are?


I can only conclude that you've realized the gaping holes in your own position are impossible to hide, so you've gone with the only course of action available to you. It's a cheap out IMO. And pretty darn cowardly as well.

You don't really think the whole "balance outcomes when they're unequal by race" is a new idea, do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#404 Mar 15 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
pretty darn cowardly as well


Pretty darn cowardly is leaving your perceived contradiction in the air with no explanation and dumping an argument. I don't think you have much room to call someone a coward.
#405 Mar 15 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
pretty darn cowardly as well


Pretty darn cowardly is leaving your perceived contradiction in the air with no explanation and dumping an argument. I don't think you have much room to call someone a coward.


You're still here? Unlike Kachi, who keeps insisting that he's explained something well enough, but I just didn't understand, so he's not going to respond to my arguments, I *have* responded to your arguments many times. I have explained away what you perceive as a contradiction (I'm assuming you're referring to the whole "how come you don't care about little tokyo" bit?) with long and clear explanations. I'm pretty sure I've explained it to you using several different approaches so far.

Surely you see how that's different from someone who stated his position once, then when challenged on it, insisted that the other person didn't understand, but refuses to explain what is misunderstood, nor to restate his position, nor really provide any defense for his position at all except to repeat "You don't understand" over and over.

I'm the only one in this thread who seems capable of actually clearly explaining and defending his positions. You spend a lot of time writing words, but don't explain how those words amount to a position on the issue. Kachi takes a position, but then refuses to use any words to explain or defend that position. And both of you sit there and insist that I'm the one not understanding or explaining. It's pretty funny really. You guys are like opposite sides of the same coin. It would be amusing to see the two of you argue: One spews tons of verbiage but refuses to tie them into a position, while the other states a position and refuses to defend it. That would be hysterical!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#406 Mar 15 2011 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
pretty darn cowardly as well


Pretty darn cowardly is leaving your perceived contradiction in the air with no explanation and dumping an argument. I don't think you have much room to call someone a coward.


You're still here? Unlike Kachi, who keeps insisting that he's explained something well enough, but I just didn't understand, so he's not going to respond to my arguments, I *have* responded to your arguments many times. I have explained away what you perceive as a contradiction (I'm assuming you're referring to the whole "how come you don't care about little tokyo" bit?) with long and clear explanations. I'm pretty sure I've explained it to you using several different approaches so far.

Surely you see how that's different from someone who stated his position once, then when challenged on it, insisted that the other person didn't understand, but refuses to explain what is misunderstood, nor to restate his position, nor really provide any defense for his position at all except to repeat "You don't understand" over and over.

I'm the only one in this thread who seems capable of actually clearly explaining and defending his positions. You spend a lot of time writing words, but don't explain how those words amount to a position on the issue. Kachi takes a position, but then refuses to use any words to explain or defend that position. And both of you sit there and insist that I'm the one not understanding or explaining. It's pretty funny really. You guys are like opposite sides of the same coin. It would be amusing to see the two of you argue: One spews tons of verbiage but refuses to tie them into a position, while the other states a position and refuses to defend it. That would be hysterical!


The past few days I've been reading you say the same thing over and over, beating a dead horse that not only you've beat, but that others have beat. So, you can drop that act. You realized that you were wrong, so you went silent.

That is a common practice here on this forum. For an exception of a few, that's how I know that "I'm right". If a person say's that they are done, it usually means that they are tired of arguing. On the other hand, if they completely ignore a certain part of an argument, but continue to argue another piece, it usually means that they realized that they are wrong and have nothing else to say.

1. I gave you a very clear position that tied everything that you referred to as "irrelevant" together. Obviously, you weren't able to grasp my position, so I tried to walk you through it, argument by argument, but you stopped replying after the first resolution.

2. What I asked you was nothing that you already said. I asked you to compare two comments that you made. It was the first time that I asked you and you never addressed it.

Once again, you said the following: "Technically, my statement about labels was about 3 layers down in a larger argument, but whatever. My point (again!!!) is that there's a difference between labeling something that is actually different in some relevant way (like different food, clothing, music, etc), and labeling purely to make a distinction between people based on skin color. "

Earlier you said "If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them? "

I asked you to explain your contradiction or choose which one is right. You've had plenty of time by now to come up with something.

I have responses to the rest of your questions in the past pages, but instead of having one huge post of you ignoring half of it, I would rather attack each subject, one by one. If you would actually follow the dots, you'll see the connection.

#407 Mar 16 2011 at 2:29 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
You are not a snowflake you know.


gbaji wrote:
I'm the only one in this thread who seems capable of actually clearly explaining and defending his positions.



Clearly, you are quite the snowflake, though.Smiley: rolleyes


Dude, what happened to you? In the past your arguments - while coming from a selfish and repugnant position - were at least coherent.


Now you're flailing around like a crowd of blind lesbians in a tuna packing plant.


Get help.




P.S. I could link about 3 dozen more examples from just this thread alone, but I could't be ***** to do all that work. Really, gbaji, you have a major ***** loose lately.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#408 Mar 16 2011 at 4:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Quote:
Doubting your own intelligence may be a valuable exercise in humility from time to time
It has been in the past. But at this point, I'm pretty confident in knowing what level my intelligence is at. I have a very good grasp where my limits lie.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#409 Mar 16 2011 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Quote:
re: the article snippet-- it was perfectly coherent to me. Perhaps not the best technical writing by strict standards, but it effectively conveys the concept it intends to.


Let me know when you figure out why my rephrasing fulfills the goal you set in your post and why your original does not.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#410 Mar 16 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Sigh...

Almalieque wrote:
2. What I asked you was nothing that you already said. I asked you to compare two comments that you made. It was the first time that I asked you and you never addressed it.

Once again, you said the following: "Technically, my statement about labels was about 3 layers down in a larger argument, but whatever. My point (again!!!) is that there's a difference between labeling something that is actually different in some relevant way (like different food, clothing, music, etc), and labeling purely to make a distinction between people based on skin color. "

Earlier you said "If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them? "

I asked you to explain your contradiction or choose which one is right. You've had plenty of time by now to come up with something.


I've explained this, in great length, very clearly, several times already. Here's just one recent example:

Quote:
Yup. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. But the music isn't "black". And clothes aren't "black". We might apply labels to those things purely for convenience, but if I prefer rap or soul or whatever other music someone might call "black", the label isn't why I'm buying that album. I'm buying it because the musical style appeals to me and that musical style is different than others which perhaps don't appeal to me as much. In the same way, if I choose to eat at a Chinese restaurant, it's not because it's labeled "Chinese", but because of the cuisine that is served. If it were labeled something else, I'd still presumably like or dislike the food just the same. The label doesn't really matter.


When the label is just a convenient method of identifying something that has other relevant aspects which we're actually using to make a decision, then there's no problem with the label. But when the label exists purely to create a difference in order to separate one thing from others, then it's problematic.

I made the same point about 4 pages ago with regard to eating at a Mexican restaurant. I don't eat there because I want to financially help out Mexicans, but because I want to eat a particular style of food. Same thing for why I might eat at a Chinese restaurant, or buy a particular type of music, or wear a particular style of clothes. In each case, there is some factor of the thing I'm choosing which is inherently the cause of the choice. I'm not doing it because of the label.



I'm not sure how much more completely and clearly I can respond to this question you keep asking. There is no contradiction. One is a choice based on the thing being labeled, the other is a choice based on the label applied to the thing. The former is perfectly legitimate, the latter is problematic, especially when the label is racial in nature. Do you understand this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#411 Mar 16 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:45pm by ShadorVIII
#412 Mar 16 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
gbaji wrote:

When the label is just a convenient method of identifying something that has other relevant aspects which we're actually using to make a decision, then there's no problem with the label.


Exactly. And despite what you seem to believe, that is exactly what racial labels are. Many studies have been done to show that there are real physiologic, psychologic, mental, and emotional differences between the races and there are even cultural differences between ethnicities within races.


I'll pass up the obvious Godwin response to that.

Um... None of which justify a decision to keep business transactions within a given racial group, or to vote for a politician based on which racial group she/he belongs to, or to give application preference to members of a racial group.

When you do that, we call it "racial discrimination".

Quote:
Just for one point: If race is "only skin color" then explain to me why anthropoligists can identity the race of a skeleton by examining the bones?


Yup. There are physiological differences. Which I addressed earlier when I said it was completely acceptable for a doctor to treat a patient differently based on race, if the physiological racial traits are relevant to the treatment choice. But those physiological factors in no way legitimize treating those groups differently when it comes to choices of hiring, purchasing, and voting.

Quote:
People prefer to be with/help out their own kind, gbaji. That's not wrong, its natural.


It's also racial discrimination and is something we should *not* be doing. Assuming that "their own kind" means "people of the same racial group" that is. The point I started out with at the beginning of this thread was that this is absolutely "natural", but that we should fight against this sort of thinking if we want to create a racially integrated society. I further suggested that since acceptance of this sort of "help your own kind" mentality among current minority groups would not magically disappear if/when the social scales balance. They will instead think that the balance was achieved by using those principles and thus demand they be applied even more.


That will lead to an unending cycle of race based discrimination and oppression. I thought we wanted to avoid this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#413 Mar 16 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:46pm by ShadorVIII
#414 Mar 16 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I started out with at the beginning of this thread was that this is absolutely "natural", but that we should fight against this sort of thinking if we want to create a racially integrated society.


Not everyone wants that. Not everyone thinks that is the best kind of society.


I take it you post on Stormfront?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#415 Mar 16 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:46pm by ShadorVIII
#416 Mar 16 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sigh..

Gbaji wrote:

I've explained this, in great length, very clearly, several times already. Here's just one recent example:


That example compares "black music" to "Chinese food". This is not what I'm addressing. How is it ok to say "Hispanic Music" or "Jewish Music" or "Arabic music" but not "Black Music"? This is what I'm getting at. You said there is no such thing as "black music", but then turn around and said it's ok to label relevant things such as music, but not stores.

So, let me break it down for you one more time. If it's ok to racially label music, then what's wrong with "black music"?

Gbaji wrote:
When the label is just a convenient method of identifying something that has other relevant aspects which we're actually using to make a decision, then there's no problem with the label. But when the label exists purely to create a difference in order to separate one thing from others, then it's problematic.




This goes back to me asking about your attendance of black churches. I've been to both white and black churches and the music is typically day and night and they can be the same exact songs. I remember not even recognizing a particular song because it was sang so differently. Compare Christmas carols, etc. Rather you want to believe it, the way black people and white people sing songs are not always the same. Because of that, it is completely legitimate to say "black" or "white" music in reference to the USA.

Gbaji wrote:
I made the same point about 4 pages ago with regard to eating at a Mexican restaurant. I don't eat there because I want to financially help out Mexicans, but because I want to eat a particular style of food. Same thing for why I might eat at a Chinese restaurant, or buy a particular type of music, or wear a particular style of clothes. In each case, there is some factor of the thing I'm choosing which is inherently the cause of the choice. I'm not doing it because of the label.


Except that was never my argument, hence why 4 pages later, we're still on the same subject. I was asking you why those labels themselves not offend you? I can understand "Mexican" referring to Mexico, but what's wrong with "Joe's Tacos"?.

I asked you about "Japanese sushi and steak". Would you not know the type of food being served with simply "Tanaka's Sushi and Steak"? I also stated that most fast food "Chinese restaurants" don't actually serve Chinese food, so that label has no meaning. Even if it were, what's wrong with "Joe's Fried Rice"?

"Little Tokyo" and "China Town" are completely unnecessary. Why not label it like every other city, by a name?

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how much more completely and clearly I can respond to this question you keep asking. There is no contradiction. One is a choice based on the thing being labeled, the other is a choice based on the label applied to the thing. The former is perfectly legitimate, the latter is problematic, especially when the label is racial in nature. Do you understand this?


Explain to me how it's ok to racially label music, but not as "black music". That's the contradictory.

If you were not claiming that it's ok to racially label music, then what exactly did you mean by it was ok to label things like music and clothes, given that we were talking about racial labels.

This has nothing to do with restaurants or anything else we've talked about previously. I'm specifically talking about the two statements of yours that I quoted. That was not addressed 4 pages ago, because your comment wasn't till the previous page.
#417 Mar 16 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I started out with at the beginning of this thread was that this is absolutely "natural", but that we should fight against this sort of thinking if we want to create a racially integrated society.


Not everyone wants that. Not everyone thinks that is the best kind of society.


I take it you post on Stormfront?


As a matter of fact, yes. (Which does not mean I agree with everything that everyone there posts. I do find a number of the posters there to be quite.... extreme. Still there are also a number of intelligent, well-reasoned people there.)

Edited, Mar 16th 2011 7:25pm by ShadorVIII


My analysis tools have once again achieved a flawless victory.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#418 Mar 16 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I started out with at the beginning of this thread was that this is absolutely "natural", but that we should fight against this sort of thinking if we want to create a racially integrated society.


Not everyone wants that. Not everyone thinks that is the best kind of society.


At least you're honest that your objective is to *not* have a racially integrated society. That's refreshing I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#419 Mar 16 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I have no idea what sort of dumbfuckery is going on in this thread but I am pleased that I've successfully ignored it for nine pages now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#420 Mar 16 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I started out with at the beginning of this thread was that this is absolutely "natural", but that we should fight against this sort of thinking if we want to create a racially integrated society.


Not everyone wants that. Not everyone thinks that is the best kind of society.


At least you're honest that your objective is to *not* have a racially integrated society. That's refreshing I suppose.


I pointed that out already in "Little Tokyo's" and "China Towns". You just seem not to care unless it's in regards to black and white people.
#421 Mar 16 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is it ok to say "Hispanic Music" or "Jewish Music" or "Arabic music" but not "Black Music"?


It's not about what you say, but why you say it. I thought I was clear about this. If your reason for buying "black music" is because it's performed by black people and you want to help them out financially, then you are pursuing a racial motivation. If you call a form of music "black", but you buy it because you like it, then there is no problem.

Quote:
This is what I'm getting at. You said there is no such thing as "black music", but then turn around and said it's ok to label relevant things such as music, but not stores.


I'm trying to avoid making a comment about your intelligence here. I really really am.

Quote:
So, let me break it down for you one more time. If it's ok to racially label music, then what's wrong with "black music"?


Nothing at all. Where it becomes "wrong" is when you buy it because you intend to benefit black people at the exclusion of other groups *because* they are black. Get it? Sheesh!

Quote:
This goes back to me asking about your attendance of black churches. I've been to both white and black churches and the music is typically day and night and they can be the same exact songs. I remember not even recognizing a particular song because it was sang so differently. Compare Christmas carols, etc. Rather you want to believe it, the way black people and white people sing songs are not always the same. Because of that, it is completely legitimate to say "black" or "white" music in reference to the USA.


But that doesn't actually have anything to do with the skin color of the people though, does it? A white chorus, in a white neighborhood, lead by a white minister, can chose to sing the same songs the same way as any "black church". If they like the style, they can. You're confusing cultural themes with race. A white kid who grows up attending said church would not specifically know that this was "black gospel music" unless someone (like you) deliberately told them "that's black music".

I've seen significant variation in singing just among Catholic churches in Southern California. Yet, I'd never assume there was a racial reason for that. Nearly every church I've ever attended has masses in Spanish (duh!), yet I've never thought of any of them as "Mexican Churches".

The issue with a specific church which I brought up had nothing to do with singing either btw. I get that there are things which are commonly associated along racial lines that don't have anything to do with race and are perfectly ok to label just for convenience. But that's *not* where there's a problem. I never said there's a problem with creating a label to help someone know what kind of music they may expect to experience at a church.

Quote:
Except that was never my argument, hence why 4 pages later, we're still on the same subject. I was asking you why those labels themselves not offend you?


sigh... Because I know that the label refers to the type of food, not to the person cooking it, or the person profiting if I buy it.

I've explained this at least a dozen times now.

Quote:
I can understand "Mexican" referring to Mexico, but what's wrong with "Joe's Tacos"?.


Not a **** thing. As I have repeatedly told you.

Quote:
I asked you about "Japanese sushi and steak". Would you not know the type of food being served with simply "Tanaka's Sushi and Steak"? I also stated that most fast food "Chinese restaurants" don't actually serve Chinese food, so that label has no meaning. Even if it were, what's wrong with "Joe's Fried Rice"?


Nothing. Just as there's nothing wrong with referring to a type of food as "Chinese". As I have repeatedly told you.

Quote:
Explain to me how it's ok to racially label music, but not as "black music". That's the contradictory.


I never said this. WTF?

What I said was that it's wrong to create or use a label for the sole purpose of benefiting one group over another. If your reason for labeling something "black music" is to identify a subset of musical styles so that others may know what you're talking about, there's nothing wrong with it at all. If your reason for calling something "black music" or "black films", or "black clothes", or "black stores", is so that black people will know that by buying those products or from that store, their money will benefit a person of their own race, then there *is* a problem with the creation and/or use of the label.

You specifically made a statement about choosing to buy from a "black store" so as to help out black people. What was the purpose of assigning the label of "black store" in that case? Was it to identify some set of products contained within? Or was it to identify the race of the person who owned it?

I'm 99.9999999% positive your reason for that label was to identify the person who owned it. This is apparent since you were specifically speaking about "helping out" minorities. So that's not about a style of music, or a magazine line, or set of hair products. It's about helping out a person financially because of his skin color.

That's the form of labeling that is wrong.

Quote:
If you were not claiming that it's ok to racially label music, then what exactly did you mean by it was ok to label things like music and clothes, given that we were talking about racial labels.


I'll say it again, because maybe if I repeat it enough times, you'll get it: It's not about what the label is. It's about why you labeled it that way, and how the label is used. If your reason for either creating the label or for using the label is to identify something which will benefit a given racial group in some way, then the motivation is racist in nature.


In the same way that saying that you only buy things with a union label on them, makes you pro-union. You aren't buying that product because of the quality, or the style, or the color. You're buying it because by doing so you support a union. But when you do the same thing with "black clothes", or "black music", or "black stores", what you are doing instead of just being dumb, is also racially discriminatory.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#422 Mar 16 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's not about what you say, but why you say it. I thought I was clear about this. If your reason for buying "black music" is because it's performed by black people and you want to help them out financially, then you are pursuing a racial motivation. If you call a form of music "black", but you buy it because you like it, then there is no problem.


Ok, although what you said is nonsense, I can agree to accept this. It's "nonsense" because no one classifies music as "black" because you want to financially help anyone out. It's called black music because that's what it is, black music.

Eminem was voted the number 1 rapper of the past decade. He's a white artist who does black music. I'm astonished that you thought otherwise.

Gbaji wrote:


I'm trying to avoid making a comment about your intelligence here. I really really am.


Read above... Your argument on labeling was reduced to "why?" That's absurd. It's either black music or it isn't. For the sake of this argument, I'll move onto the next argument as the contradiction in reference to your specific music quote seems to be "resolved"

I'm doing the same thing. I'm really trying to hold back the insults until you fire the first one, but it's becoming more and more difficult.

Gbaji wrote:
Nothing at all. Where it becomes "wrong" is when you buy it because you intend to benefit black people at the exclusion of other groups *because* they are black. Get it? Sheesh!


No need to respond to this as we already "resolved" the issue, just pointing out your inaccuracy. You are combining two totally different topics. Buying something in order to support a race has absolutely nothing to do with the actual label itself. Rather you are racially motivated to buy something or not, things will still have racial labels. My statement had nothing to do with racial motivations of support, but simply labels. Labels will exist regardless on your intent of purchase. My question was simply on the existence of the label, not why, how or when, just the existence of the label.


People don't change labels in order to support certain groups, because that's impractical and unrealistic. Black people aren't going to all of the sudden start listening to more country music and play in the NHL just because people started calling it "black".

Gbaji wrote:
But that doesn't actually have anything to do with the skin color of the people though, does it? A white chorus, in a white neighborhood, lead by a white minister, can chose to sing the same songs the same way as any "black church". If they like the style, they can. You're confusing cultural themes with race. A white kid who grows up attending said church would not specifically know that this was "black gospel music" unless someone (like you) deliberately told them "that's black music".


Errrrrr... it has all to do with the skin. There's a huge distinct difference between a black person's voice and a white person's voice. So, while it may be possible to imitate each other, talking and singing naturally will often result in two distinct sounds.

Gbajie wrote:
sigh... Because I know that the label refers to the type of food, not to the person cooking it, or the person profiting if I buy it.

I've explained this at least a dozen times now.
...

Not a **** thing. As I have repeatedly told you.
....

Nothing. Just as there's nothing wrong with referring to a type of food as "Chinese". As I have repeatedly told you.



That's my point. You claim that what bothers you is labels done only to segregate, yet you have no problem with these labels that do just that. I've given you alternatives, when heard, tells you exactly what type of food you're eating, yet, the unnecessary labels does not offend you. At the same time, it offends you when it's "black". Don't you see it's no different? Calling something "black" when there is no need to is no different than calling sushi "Japanese" or fried rice "Chinese".

Gbaji wrote:

What I said was that it's wrong to create or use a label for the sole purpose of benefiting one group over another. If your reason for labeling something "black music" is to identify a subset of musical styles so that others may know what you're talking about, there's nothing wrong with it at all. If your reason for calling something "black music" or "black films", or "black clothes", or "black stores", is so that black people will know that by buying those products or from that store, their money will benefit a person of their own race, then there *is* a problem with the creation and/or use of the label.


Well, this is already covered in this post, so I'm not going to waste too much time on this as I want to move on. The bottom line is that you're constantly confusing two completely different topics as one. This is why I keep asking you to answer my question and you give me answers with something totally unrelated. Your thinking process is totally off, but I can buy off on the result.

Gbaji wrote:
You specifically made a statement about choosing to buy from a "black store" so as to help out black people. What was the purpose of assigning the label of "black store" in that case? Was it to identify some set of products contained within? Or was it to identify the race of the person who owned it?


Read above. I actually find it ironic that you accuse me of "being all over the place", yet you're incapable of separating two topics.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm 99.9999999% positive your reason for that label was to identify the person who owned it. This is apparent since you were specifically speaking about "helping out" minorities. So that's not about a style of music, or a magazine line, or set of hair products. It's about helping out a person financially because of his skin color.

That's the form of labeling that is wrong.


And you'll be 99.9999999% wrong. There's a difference between a "black store" and a "black owned store". You are just so caught up in your own thinking that you refuse to accept the fact that you might just not know what you are talking about. Given that we're talking about an ethnicity that appears you know very little about, that should key you off that you might be wrong.

Gbaji wrote:
I'll say it again, because maybe if I repeat it enough times, you'll get it: It's not about what the label is. It's about why you labeled it that way, and how the label is used. If your reason for either creating the label or for using the label is to identify something which will benefit a given racial group in some way, then the motivation is racist in nature.


In the same way that saying that you only buy things with a union label on them, makes you pro-union. You aren't buying that product because of the quality, or the style, or the color. You're buying it because by doing so you support a union. But when you do the same thing with "black clothes", or "black music", or "black stores", what you are doing instead of just being dumb, is also racially discriminatory.


Ok, just to make sure that we are at a semi understanding to move on. You aren't contradicting yourself in reference to that specific question I asked you , you're just confused. You created this silly scenario that is not only irrelevant but doesn't happen. BUT, since you are no longer contradicting yourself, just making yourself look silly, we can move on with your approval.
#423 Mar 16 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ok, although what you said is nonsense, I can agree to accept this. It's "nonsense" because no one classifies music as "black" because you want to financially help anyone out. It's called black music because that's what it is, black music.


You were the one who made the correlation between someone buying goods at a "black store" to buying "black music". I'm the one who's been saying all along that those are two completely different things. Congratulations for finally seeing why I started out saying that your argument was "irrelevant". Remember?

Quote:
No need to respond to this as we already "resolved" the issue, just pointing out your inaccuracy. You are combining two totally different topics. Buying something in order to support a race has absolutely nothing to do with the actual label itself.


Yes. Congratulations. Do you see now why responding to my point about how it's wrong to buy something to support a race with "but what about buying black music" and "but what about eating Chinese food" is completely irrelevant and completely misses the point I was making?

Remember, you were the one who brought these things up, not me. If they are unrelated, then that's your fault, not mine. I tried to tell you repeatedly that what you were saying had nothing to do with what I was saying.


Quote:
Errrrrr... it has all to do with the skin. There's a huge distinct difference between a black person's voice and a white person's voice. So, while it may be possible to imitate each other, talking and singing naturally will often result in two distinct sounds.


This is also irrelevant, but for the record, when we speak of black gospel music (ie: music sung in "black churches"), we're not really talking about the sound of the people's voices, are we? It's a style of singing.

Quote:
That's my point. You claim that what bothers you is labels done only to segregate, yet you have no problem with these labels that do just that.


Except you just pointed out that one of the biggest rap musicians is white. That means that the label "black music" when applied to rap isn't about segregation, but is about a style of music (personally, I don't know anyone who calls that black music anyway, but you're the one who used the term, not me).

When you refer to the "black community", are you speaking of a community of people who might just happen to be black? Or are you speaking of black people as a whole, with an assumption that they share common needs and goals and should work together for common purpose and "help each other out", because they are all black. Does a white person living in a predominantly black neighborhood become part of this "black community", or not?

Do you see why those are different things?

Quote:
At the same time, it offends you when it's "black". Don't you see it's no different? Calling something "black" when there is no need to is no different than calling sushi "Japanese" or fried rice "Chinese".


It doesn't offend me so much as I see it as a harmful self-labeling. And lest you forget from a paragraph or two ago, this isn't just about labeling something "black". It's about labeling it that way specifically to differentiate the race of a person for the purpose of identifying and targeting that person for different socio-economic treatment. There's a difference between calling rap music "black music" or a do rag part of "black clothes" and choosing to buy those things because you like the music or the style of clothes and calling a store a "black store" because it's owned by a black person and buying stuff there because that person is black and you want to help him out financially.


I keep explaining this over and over and over. When does it sink in?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

What I said was that it's wrong to create or use a label for the sole purpose of benefiting one group over another. If your reason for labeling something "black music" is to identify a subset of musical styles so that others may know what you're talking about, there's nothing wrong with it at all. If your reason for calling something "black music" or "black films", or "black clothes", or "black stores", is so that black people will know that by buying those products or from that store, their money will benefit a person of their own race, then there *is* a problem with the creation and/or use of the label.


Well, this is already covered in this post, so I'm not going to waste too much time on this as I want to move on. The bottom line is that you're constantly confusing two completely different topics as one. This is why I keep asking you to answer my question and you give me answers with something totally unrelated. Your thinking process is totally off, but I can buy off on the result.



No. I'm arguing one point and one point only. You keep introducing other things that have nothing at all to do with that point and insisting that I respond to them. It's frankly hilarious that you recognize that we're arguing two completely different topics, but that you don't seem to realize that the second topic is the one you generated all on your own and which has nothing at all to do with the one I was talking about.

This is why I keep dismissing your questions as irrelevant.

Quote:
Read above. I actually find it ironic that you accuse me of "being all over the place", yet you're incapable of separating two topics.


Um... No. I'm trying to keep the topic on the one point. You keep trying to argue a second topic on which we don't disagree. The only thing I can figure out is that you're arguing that since it's possible for labels to exist which reference race but which are not used for racial discrimination, that all labels which reference race are completely fine. To support this, you keep tossing out non-discriminatory labels containing race and saying "but why don't you oppose this?".

That's irrelevant. No amount of showing labels which aren't discriminatory proves that no labels are. You need to look at the examples I have given and which I argue are discriminatory uses of racial labels and decide if you agree or disagree. But instead, you just keep going off on new tangents.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm 99.9999999% positive your reason for that label was to identify the person who owned it. This is apparent since you were specifically speaking about "helping out" minorities. So that's not about a style of music, or a magazine line, or set of hair products. It's about helping out a person financially because of his skin color.

That's the form of labeling that is wrong.


And you'll be 99.9999999% wrong. There's a difference between a "black store" and a "black owned store".


Holy cow! You used the term in the context of speaking about "helping out" members of your own race. You were very clearly speaking of a "black owned store". WTF?

Quote:
You are just so caught up in your own thinking that you refuse to accept the fact that you might just not know what you are talking about. Given that we're talking about an ethnicity that appears you know very little about, that should key you off that you might be wrong.


This isn't about knowing anything about an ethnicity, although it's telling that you think it is. It's about parsing language. You were not speaking about buying "black clothes" or "black music" when you said that. You were speaking about black people keeping their purchasing within black owned businesses in order to help make black people more prosperous. You argued this very point quite strongly. It was only when I disagreed and pointed out the racist aspects of that sort of behavior when you switched to arguing about black products like Jet magazine, and do rags, and whatnot.

You created that second topic. Not me. I've attempted to stay on the topic of whether it's ok for members of a racial group to choose to financially help out other members of their own group because they want to make that group more prosperous relative to others. That's the topic I'm talking about. I don't know why you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#424 Mar 16 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Let me summarize this whole argument:

TOPIC: A discussion of the rights of animal owners compared to the rights of others in their community who might be negatively impacted by their pets.

gbaji: I think that in the case of animals which directly impact others in the area, it's reasonable to have some laws regulating pet ownership. So dogs for example might bark at night, or jump their fences and bite someone.

Alma: But cats don't make too much noise, so why restrict them.

gbaji: I'm talking about dogs here. Or any animal that makes a lot of noise and could cause disruption to others i the area.

Alma: Ok. So you don't like animals. What about goldfish? They don't make any noise, so why can't we allow free ownership of goldfish?

gbaji: I'm not talking about goldfish either. Obviously, since they don't impact anyone else, they wouldn't need to be regulated in anyway.

Alma: But you're contradicting yourself! You said we needed regulation for animals, but now you say that we don't!

gbaji: Um... Because some animals will make noise or otherwise affect others, and some don't. They aren't all the same in this regard.

Alma: But you didn't answer my question about cats, or the one about goldfish. I demand that you explain why you want to regulate them.

gbaji: I don't.

Alma: But you said you did! Now you're saying the opposite. See. Still contradicting yourself!

gbaji: No I'm not. There are different criteria involved. Those animals which make noise or otherwise impact other people should probably be regulated and those which don't shouldn't.

Alma: Oh certainly, those animals which don't make noise shouldn't be regulated. I'm just saying that this isn't what you said earlier, and now you're saying that you agreed with me all the time.

gbaji: That's what I've been saying all along. I was trying to say that animals which *do* make noise should be regulated.

Alma: Well, now you're bringing up a completely separate argument and confusing them.

gbaji: I'm not confused at all. So you agree that animals which make noise like dogs should be regulated?

Alma: Of course not. It's unfair to regulate them, just like it's unfair to regulate cats and goldfish. You wouldn't regulate cats and goldfish would you?

gbaji: Uh... <headpalm>




Yeah. That's about how the arguments gone. Except not nearly as funny.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#425 Mar 17 2011 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
***
1,701 posts
Tom cats do indeed make noise.
____________________________
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.


This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
#426 Mar 17 2011 at 4:41 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm showing you how silly your own argument is. Just insisting that the other guy's counter arguments are wrong because "you don't understand!" is too easy. Anyone can do it for any argument. It's a weak counter at best. What's telling is your inability (or unwillingness) to actually address my counters. If they're so far off, why not take the time and explain *why* they are?


I can only conclude that you've realized the gaping holes in your own position are impossible to hide, so you've gone with the only course of action available to you. It's a cheap out IMO. And pretty darn cowardly as well.


Yeah, as I'm sure the entire forum will attest, I mean-- it's not as if arguing with you about a relatively subjective value system is an exercise in futility, right? Are you trying to assert that it wouldn't be a complete waste of my time to actually engage you in earnest back and forth? Fool me once, gbajo. Oh, but don't you dare fool me twice.

Quote:
You don't really think the whole "balance outcomes when they're unequal by race" is a new idea, do you?


So your argument is that the outcomes are uneven because black work is less valuable? That's fine, but mind explaining why that would be? And keep it short if you want it read.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Doubting your own intelligence may be a valuable exercise in humility from time to time
It has been in the past. But at this point, I'm pretty confident in knowing what level my intelligence is at. I have a very good grasp where my limits lie.


I wasn't talking about you, specifically, just so you know.

Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
re: the article snippet-- it was perfectly coherent to me. Perhaps not the best technical writing by strict standards, but it effectively conveys the concept it intends to.


Let me know when you figure out why my rephrasing fulfills the goal you set in your post and why your original does not.


Because apparently my goal was to make you appear presumptuous? Are you going to start rephrasing all of the even less coherent posts on the forum now? Or can you spare us the literary litigation?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)