Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#427 Mar 17 2011 at 6:27 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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?


My God, how do you confuse yourself with your own arguments. I told you (which I can quote if you would like) that a black store caters to black people with black products. This is when you went on your label rant.

STOP HERE, Transition in argument

At this time, I responded to your label argument. In reference to labels and only labels to things such as "black music". This had nothing to do with black stores, but a response to YOUR label argument.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Read above.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


It's relevant because the sound is different. Even if you were to try to imitate the style, it will still sound different. Your criteria was based using labels that make actual distinctions and not distinctions solely to segregate. Well, if only black people naturally makes a particular sound in music, then that is an actual distinction.

Gbaji wrote:
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).


You don't know anyone who calls it black music because you probably don't know any black people, hence how you probably don't know what you're talking about.

This whole time, you have made up theories that you believe are going on and I've denied those theories from the start. Why you constantly continue to argue them is beyond me.

Gbaji wrote:
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?


I can quote my answers if you like, but I've already stated to you that both occur. You first have the local argument, which includes EVERY race in a predominantly black neighborhood and you have the national argument that includes statistics that heavily affect black Americans, i.e sickle cell.

Do you see the difference? You're combining two things into one argument.

Gbaji wrote:
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.



It will sink in when you stop attaching stuff that I'm not referring to. NO ONE IS CALLING A STORE BLACK TO SUPPORT SOMEONE FINANCIALLY. I've told you that a million times. My label question had nothing to do with black stores, I even told you that in the last post and you STILL are talking about black stores.

I explicitly told you that I'm talking about the existence of racial labels on things such as food and music. You don't think having the words "Japanese" besides sushi increases business? If not, then why is it there? It's doing the same exact thing that you're arguing against. It's creating an unnecessary segregation.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Read my first response in this post.


We "concluded" the argument about black communities and who that all consist of, that it's based on who is helping you and not necessarily on race.


You were the one who made an argument about labels.

I countered your argument on labels.

Instead of you talking about racial labels on music and food, you revert back to the other comments on black neighborhoods and stores, asking the same questions that I already answered and you already AGREED on.


Gbaji wrote:
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.


Dear Gbaji from Fantasy Land,

All racial labels are discriminatory.

sincerely,

Almalieque from the Real World.

Gbaji wrote:
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?


It doesn't matter who owns the store in your community, as long as you support it. I've said that numerous times and I can quote that. I used racial talk, because in reality, chances are that person will be the same race as you. People are not going to buy something from someone just because the owner is of another race. I pointed out that the Koreans dominate the black hair business.

You created a nonexistent argument and now you've gone too far to end it with no relevance.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


So basically, being ignorant as you are, you made an assumption about something you don't know about and was wrong. Instead of just saying "My bad, I thought you meant this..." you refuse to accept my argument as original and claimed that I "switched" it.

It all makes sense now..

Gabji wrote:
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.


Read above.

That wasn't a "second topic", it was the original topic. I made an assumption that you knew what you were talking about, then I had to spell it out to you. It's all the same argument. The second topic came along when you brought up how wrong racial labels are.

Do you understand now?
#428 Mar 17 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
What Joph said.

+1

GFY.

Etc.
#429 Mar 17 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Ok. Trimming out just this one part, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you'll see the light.

Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
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?


My God, how do you confuse yourself with your own arguments. I told you (which I can quote if you would like) that a black store caters to black people with black products. This is when you went on your label rant.


No, you didn't. The label argument was invented by you long after the fact. It was in response to my questioning of a statement (a couple statements actually) that you made about race and business. Let me refresh your memory by showing you just that thread of the conversation:


Alma wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Alma wrote:
Because once again, you're confused. If black people don't support black business, then no one else will.

What!? Are you kidding? When I go into a store or a restaurant I don't pay any attention at all to the skin color of the person who owns the business or the people who work in the business. I care about the product or service I'm receiving. That's it. Has it occurred to you that it's the very attitude you express that is the problem?

I'm talking about the big picture. Rather you want to accept it or not, it's on you. That's part of the problem. You, as a white male, go to your white clothing sale store, watch your white television shows, probably listen to music by white artists and probably go to hang out in places where your white friends hang out, which is probably owned by another white person.

That's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's life, but you fail to comprehend that the black entrepreneurs have a much less population to work with in order to be as successful.


You were clearly speaking about who owns and/or profits from a business, not just about style. The label bit came later.

Edited, Mar 17th 2011 3:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#430 Mar 17 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Trimming out just this on part, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you'll see the light.
Quite the optimist, aren't you?
____________________________
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

#431 Mar 17 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No, you didn't. The label argument was invented by you long after the fact. It was in response to my questioning of a statement (a couple statements actually) that you made about race and business. Let me refresh your memory by showing you just that thread of the conversation:


I did not mention anything about labels in that quote. The "label argument" started when you initiated the comment about how we shouldn't label things because it was wrong, not me. If you want me to re-quote AGAIN where you initiated talk about labels, I can. I never mentioned the word "label" before you said that was part of the problem.

Gbaji wrote:

You were clearly speaking about who owns and/or profits from a business, not just about style. The label bit came later.


Did you even read what I wrote? You're putting the emphasis on the wrong stuff.

Almalieque wrote:
I'm talking about the big picture. Rather you want to accept it or not, it's on you. That's part of the problem. You, as a white male, go to your white clothing sale store, watch your white television shows, probably listen to music by white artists and probably go to hang out in places where your white friends hang out, which is probably owned by another white person.


Remember the list of black products and services that I made that you ignored? Yeah, I did the same thing here, but with white people. The emphasis was on the fact that as a white person, you have white products and services which are PROBABLY owned by a white person. This means that white people are more likely to reap the benefits.

As for the black entrepreneurs, the point was that those same black products and services are not likely to be addressed by their white counter parts. So, in order for these products and services to exist, then black entrepreneurs have to create stores and businesses with these products.

The emphasis is, and has always been, on the products and services in reference to black business and not the race of the owner. I've said numerous times that the reality is just that the owner will be of the same race and so therefore simplicity reasons, I would just say "black", but could be any other race.

You just don't want to accept that. In any case, can you now accept that regardless of what you might have previously thought?
#432 Mar 17 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No, you didn't. The label argument was invented by you long after the fact. It was in response to my questioning of a statement (a couple statements actually) that you made about race and business. Let me refresh your memory by showing you just that thread of the conversation:


I did not mention anything about labels in that quote.


Yes. Because the discussion about labels came later. Which was exactly the point I was making. Hence, my statement that "the label argument was invented by you long after the fact".

The whole point of my last post was to show that you started out arguing that black people should support black owned businesses. I intentionally trimmed that down to just the string of statements and responses which show both that you said this, and that when I questioned you on it, you very clearly confirmed that you were talking about who owned and/or profited by the act.

I did this because in a recent post you said this:

Quote:
I told you (which I can quote if you would like) that a black store caters to black people with black products.


But that's not all that you said. You said that black people should buy those products at a black owned store in order to help the black owner of the store. You even went further and argued that white people should buy black products at the black owned store for the same reason. Your argument wasn't about buying black products because of their style, but because of the financial benefits they would generate for black entrepreneurs.


This is what I have disagreed with you about all along. You keep arguing everything except this one point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#433 Mar 17 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Lol. I was just going to ignore the rest of your post since the first bit was too insane all by itself, but wtf? Do you even pay attention to what you're saying?

Almalieque wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

You were clearly speaking about who owns and/or profits from a business, not just about style. The label bit came later.


Did you even read what I wrote? You're putting the emphasis on the wrong stuff.



Quote:
Remember the list of black products and services that I made that you ignored? Yeah, I did the same thing here, but with white people. The emphasis was on the fact that as a white person, you have white products and services which are PROBABLY owned by a white person. This means that white people are more likely to reap the benefits.


Financial benefits, right? I can't imagine why I keep thinking that your argument is about the skin color of the person who owns the store and thus profits from the purchase of those things. Lol!

Quote:
As for the black entrepreneurs, the point was that those same black products and services are not likely to be addressed by their white counter parts. So, in order for these products and services to exist, then black entrepreneurs have to create stores and businesses with these products.


Of course. But the purpose is to get more money to flow into black hands and less into white hands, right? Thus, you are arguing that people should make choices about how to help out based solely on the skin color of the person who benefits.

What's so funny is that you keep saying this, then I keep pointing it out, but then you turn around and insist that you don't agree with the idea of benefiting people financially based on their skin color. I can find a quote of you insisting that you *didn't* agree with that. Yet, here you are again, arguing for exactly what you keep saying you aren't supporting.

Do you just not think through what you're saying? It just seems like you've got a split brain thing going on here.

Quote:
The emphasis is, and has always been, on the products and services in reference to black business and not the race of the owner.


Sorry. You either have no clue what your hands are typing, or you have the most bizarre form of mental blinders on I've ever seen. You just wrote in this very same post that this is entirely about the skin color of the person who benefits from the business. Your emphasis has always been on the person who benefits. I don't know how much more obvious I can make this to you.


Quote:
You just don't want to accept that. In any case, can you now accept that regardless of what you might have previously thought?



How can I? You keep proving to me that it is about the race of the owner of a business. You say this over and over and over, and when I point it out you insist you didn't do it. It's gone beyond comical and is turning into nearly psychotic behavior.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#434 Mar 17 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

I don't even feel like responding to you right now, border line giving up. You've created an entire argument that isn't existent and continue to argue it. When I try to correct you by telling you my actual position, you ignore it by focusing on a fraction of a statement. "You said the word 'white' therefore you're talking about the race of the owner, forget about the other 95% of your text"

I go on vacation this weekend for a few weeks. I'll make a decision if I will respond before I leave.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 3:46am by Almalieque
#435 Mar 17 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

I don't even feel like responding to you right now, border line giving up. You've created an entire argument that isn't existent and continue to argue it. When I try to correct you by telling you my actual position, you ignore it by focusing on a fraction of a statement. "You said the word 'white' therefore you're talking about the race of the owner, forget about the other 95% of your text"

I go on vacation this weekend for a few weeks. I'll make a decision if I will respond before I leave.


Holy shit.... Smiley: jawdrop
#436 Mar 17 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

I don't even feel like responding to you right now, border line giving up. You've created an entire argument that isn't existent and continue to argue it. When I try to correct you by telling you my actual position, you ignore it by focusing on a fraction of a statement. "You said the word 'white' therefore you're talking about the race of the owner, forget about the other 95% of your text"

I go on vacation this weekend for a few weeks. I'll make a decision if I will respond before I leave.


Holy shit.... Smiley: jawdrop


Surprised myself also... I just need a breather because this is insane. At least other posters actually read my text. As soon as I think we're making progress, we revert back to 4 pages ago.

A few pages ago, he admitted that my racial wording was "misleading" which made it seem that I was referring to something I wasn't. So, at that point, I thought that part was resolved, only for him to bring it back up now and integrate it with a completely other argument that he created, that for some reason he's claiming that I created(which I spent an entire post quoting his previous statements showing how it was his argument).
#437 Mar 17 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You've created an entire argument that isn't existent and continue to argue it. When I try to correct you by telling you my actual position, you ignore it by focusing on a fraction of a statement.


No. You made a statement in support of making purchases based on which racial group will benefit. I pointed out that I thought this was a form of racism and counterproductive to the objective of fighting racism in society. Bizarrely, instead of either retracting your statement, or defending it, you insisted that your statement didn't really mean what I thought it did.

Which is a potentially reasonable argument to make, as long as the person making it doesn't keep restating the same thing that he's insisting he's not saying over, and over, and over again. You're basically kicking your own argument in the balls repeatedly. I'm seriously not sure whether to laugh or cry.


Quote:
"You said the word 'white' therefore you're talking about the race of the owner, forget about the other 95% of your text"


Except that what you actually said was: "The emphasis was on the fact that as a white person, you have white products and services which are PROBABLY owned by a white person. This means that white people are more likely to reap the benefits".

Who's ignoring the other 95%?

You were talking about the race of the owner. And their profits. And using this as an argument as to why black people should shop at black stores. Yet you keep insisting that your argument for why black people should shop at black stores has nothing to do with financially benefiting the black owners of those stores. Yeah. I'm not buying that. I didn't buy it the first time you made that claim, and all you've done is solidify that position.

Edited, Mar 17th 2011 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#438 Mar 18 2011 at 5:29 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
ok, I'm more calm now... I'll give this another try.

Gbaji wrote:
No. You made a statement in support of making purchases based on which racial group will benefit. I pointed out that I thought this was a form of racism and counterproductive to the objective of fighting racism in society. Bizarrely, instead of either retracting your statement, or defending it, you insisted that your statement didn't really mean what I thought it did.

Which is a potentially reasonable argument to make, as long as the person making it doesn't keep restating the same thing that he's insisting he's not saying over, and over, and over again. You're basically kicking your own argument in the balls repeatedly. I'm seriously not sure whether to laugh or cry.



This a million times. This is the nonsense that you keep spitting out. I made an entire post quoting myself where it wasn't necessarily based on race, but for simplicity reasons I was going to say black people because that's more than likely going to be the people in the stores in black neighborhoods. Seriously what part of that don't you understand?

This whole argument was based on the economical advancement of black Americans. I stated that a race is as strong as it's weakest link, which are poor black neighborhoods. My comment, which I verified numerous times, was that the advancement has to start from there. Black people have to support the people who support them, which just happen to be black. So, instead of pretending that there are white entrepreneurs opening shops in poor black neighborhoods, I'm talking real talk. If you can't handle it, then go suck on a pacifier.

If you still don't get it, then equate my argument as "Creating a little Tokyo or China Town" since you don't have a problem with that. Unless that is, you have a problem with little Tokyos and China Towns?

Gbaji wrote:

Except that what you actually said was: "The emphasis was on the fact that as a white person, you have white products and services which are PROBABLY owned by a white person. This means that white people are more likely to reap the benefits".

Who's ignoring the other 95%?


Almalieque in complete context wrote:
I'm talking about the big picture. Rather you want to accept it or not, it's on you. That's part of the problem. You, as a white male, go to your white clothing sale store, watch your white television shows, probably listen to music by white artists and probably go to hang out in places where your white friends hang out, which is probably owned by another white person.

That's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's life, but you fail to comprehend that the black entrepreneurs have a much less population to work with in order to be as successful.

Studies have shown that the average black movie opens up in a significant less amount of theaters than the average white movie. How many white people do you think saw "Colored Girls"? Is that racist? No, but right from the start, there is a significant difference on the number of viewers. The reality is, a black person is much more likely to see a movie with a full black cast than a white person and vice versa. Because of the difference in U.S. population, if only a few black people go see a black cast movie, then basically only a few people saw the movie.


If you truly want to get out of this cycle, then the onus is on white people to go see more black movies, buy black clothes, go to black barber shops, move into black neighborhoods and open up businesses in the community, etc. Guess what, that isn't happening, so now the onus is back on the minorities to support each other.


I actually promoted white business in black neighborhoods!

Your problem is that you can't follow arguments. The overall theme of this entire argument is the economical advancement of black people. The point in the quote above is that white people attend to white products and services, which puts money back into their community. There isn't anyone attending to black products and services other than primarily black people. So, if you want the products and services, you support the people who support you, which just so happens to be black, which economically helps them out no differently than what any other race does.

That doesn't translate as "Only buy from race x". I've told you that numerous times, but you just refuse to accept it. Until white people attend to black products and services, then black people need to support black entrepreneurs who are attending to black products and services. If a Pakistani opens up a bakery in the poor black neighborhood, then you buy from the Pakistani. It's really that simple.

If you still don't understand, think Little Tokyo. Do you think the stores in Little Tokyo are ran by non-Asians? Who do you think benefit the most profit there? Unless that is, you see a difference?

Gbaji wrote:
You were talking about the race of the owner. And their profits. And using this as an argument as to why black people should shop at black stores. Yet you keep insisting that your argument for why black people should shop at black stores has nothing to do with financially benefiting the black owners of those stores. Yeah. I'm not buying that. I didn't buy it the first time you made that claim, and all you've done is solidify that position.


Read above.

You literally have no argument. I don't disagree with your primary point, you just refuse to accept that I'm not arguing against it.
#439 Mar 18 2011 at 5:39 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
As for the other two posts, I think I answered all of your questions/concerns in there.

The only thing left is "who started the label argument", then we can move on.

In my self quote above, I talked about white shows, white clothes, etc.

You responded that you don't see stuff "white" or "black" (which you later contradicted), you just enjoy it.

I stated that I label those things "white" and "black" because that's reality.

YOU responded that was part of the problem, "Stop doing that". From there, I asked you how was that part of the problem and you proceeded to ignore that question for pages.
#440 Mar 18 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Sigh. Alma. The problem is that you keep saying that it's not about the race of the owner, but then you keep turning around and saying that it is. My argument isn't about labels. It's about my belief that it is wrong to make social/economic/political decisions based upon how those decisions will benefit or harm a specific racial group.

What's so bizarre about your argument in this thread, is that you seem utterly incapable of transiting from general to specific and vice versa. So I'll make a general statement like the one above, and you'll agree. But when we drill down to specific examples (when it's ok to spend money at a "black store") you very clearly state that it's ok to do this out of a desire to benefit a black person financially in order to counter white people benefiting financially from their business. But then when I say "Wait a minute! You said you didn't agree with making that kind of decision based on the race of the person who benefits", you insist that your didn't actually say anything which violated that general position.


Your argument is kinda like insisting that you didn't say you wanted 6 eggs, you wanted a half dozen, and being unable to see that those are the same amounts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#441 Mar 18 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Alma. The problem is that you keep saying that it's not about the race of the owner, but then you keep turning around and saying that it is.


No, the problem is that you just refuse to accept that my argument isn't what you created it out to be.

I quoted myself suggesting white people to open up businesses in the black communities. Now, why would I say that if my goal was for black people not to shop at white shops? That doesn't make sense, obviously you misinterpreted my reference to white owners. Instead of admitting to that, you cling on your fictional argument.

I spent an entire post quoting myself where I stated that it had nothing to do with a specific race, but I was referencing to black people because nine times out of ten, that will be the race in a black neighborhood. Then you go ape sh** when I say "black". WTF else is left to say?

As my previous example, that's like you claiming that society believes that men can't get breast cancer just because they focus on women.

Gbaji wrote:
My argument isn't about labels. It's about my belief that it is wrong to make social/economic/political decisions based upon how those decisions will benefit or harm a specific racial group.


As I said in my last post, then just equate my argument to Little Tokyos and China Towns then. Unless, that is you have a problem with them as well?
#442 Mar 18 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Just for fun:

Me: Although men can have breast cancer, I will focus primarily on women because they are mostly affected by it. Women should do self exams for breast cancer.....

Gbaji: What about MEN!!

Me: Men can get breast cancer also, but I'm focusing on women.

Gbaji: No you're not, you said "women should do self exams for breast cancer", you didn't say anything about men!

Me: I know, I'm saying that even though men can get breast cancer, the likelihood is much higher for women, so I'm just going to focus on women.

Gbaji: See, you keep talking this sexual talk as if men can't get breast cancer, but claiming that the both can get breast cancer. That's why it appears that you're only talking about women.

Me: Good, now that you understand that, Women should check for lumps on their breast.

Gbaji: What about the MEN!!!

Me: Didn't we just go over this?!?!? o.O
#443 Mar 18 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, the problem is that you just refuse to accept that my argument isn't what you created it out to be.


I don't think you know what your argument is. It's more like word flailing than anything coherent. I've already managed to spin you completely around in a circle twice so far. And while that's amusing and all, what's really amazing is that you don't seem to have even noticed.

Quote:
I quoted myself suggesting white people to open up businesses in the black communities.


No. You said that since white people don't open up businesses in the black community (whatever that is), black people should open up their own businesses in order to ensure that black spending goes into the hands of black business owners instead of white business owners. You did not say that white people *should* open up businesses in black communities. What you did argue was that white consumers should "help out" by choosing to buy black products from black owned businesses.

In that context, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that "help out" is meant to be an economic argument.

What's so funny about this is that your position on this is really very straightforward. You're arguing classic race based social/economic justice. You see that a disproportionate amount of the wealth is held in white hands, and seek to support social and legal changes to try to shift that wealth into non-white hands. I get it. What's bizarre is that you so clearly agree with this ideal, but when pressed on it in any way, you back off and insist that you don't.

I've heard of waffling, but this goes beyond anything I've seen.

Quote:
Now, why would I say that if my goal was for black people not to shop at white shops? That doesn't make sense, obviously you misinterpreted my reference to white owners. Instead of admitting to that, you cling on your fictional argument.


Except that you didn't argue for that. In fact, you made the specific argument that the problem was that in the absence of black owned businesses, the money would all flow into white businesses owned by white people. It was pretty clear that you don't want rich white people owning businesses in the hood. You want black people to own those businesses so they can keep the money inside the "black community" and eventually become rich themselves.


Quote:
I spent an entire post quoting myself where I stated that it had nothing to do with a specific race, but I was referencing to black people because nine times out of ten, that will be the race in a black neighborhood. Then you go ape sh** when I say "black". WTF else is left to say?


Except for the time you mentioned white people buying white product at white stores owned by white people, resulting in white people benefiting from those purchases. Remember when you did that? And then you said that because of this, black people should own their own businesses so that black people's money will go to black entrepreneurs (ie: black owned businesses). You finished that up with an argument that white people could help out by choosing to buy black products at those black owned stores instead of the white owned ones they might otherwise shop at.


Gee! I can't imagine why I might get the impression that it's all about the skin color of the person who owns the store and thus benefits from the business. Lol!

Quote:
As I said in my last post, then just equate my argument to Little Tokyos and China Towns then. Unless, that is you have a problem with them as well?


People don't shop at the stores in those areas because of the skin color of the person who will profit from that business though. That's why those things are utterly irrelevant to the argument you made earlier. I've explained this to you at least 8 times now.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 3:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#444 Mar 18 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Quote:
I don't think you know what your argument is
He does, at the time of each post, but not what it was the post before.
____________________________
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

#445 Mar 18 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I don't think you know what your argument is. It's more like word flailing than anything coherent. I've already managed to spin you completely around in a circle twice so far. And while that's amusing and all, what's really amazing is that you don't seem to have even noticed.


ALmalieque wrote:
This whole argument was based on the economical advancement of black Americans. I stated that a race is as strong as it's weakest link, which are poor black neighborhoods. My comment, which I verified numerous times, was that the advancement has to start from there. Black people have to support the people who support them, which just happen to be black. So, instead of pretending that there are white entrepreneurs opening shops in poor black neighborhoods,


Gbaji wrote:
No. You said that since white people don't open up businesses in the black community (whatever that is), black people should open up their own businesses in order to ensure that black spending goes into the hands of black business owners instead of white business owners. You did not say that white people *should* open up businesses in black communities. What you did argue was that white consumers should "help out" by choosing to buy black products from black owned businesses.


Almalieque wrote:
If you truly want to get out of this cycle, then the onus is on white people to go see more black movies, buy black clothes, go to black barber shops, move into black neighborhoods and open up businesses in the community, etc. Guess what, that isn't happening, so now the onus is back on the minorities to support each other.


Gbaji wrote:
What's so funny about this is that your position on this is really very straightforward. You're arguing classic race based social/economic justice. You see that a disproportionate amount of the wealth is held in white hands, and seek to support social and legal changes to try to shift that wealth into non-white hands. I get it. What's bizarre is that you so clearly agree with this ideal, but when pressed on it in any way, you back off and insist that you don't.

I've heard of waffling, but this goes beyond anything I've seen.


Almalieque wrote:
If you still don't understand, think Little Tokyo. Do you think the stores in Little Tokyo are ran by non-Asians? Who do you think benefit the most profit there? Unless that is, you see a difference?


Gbaji wrote:
Except that you didn't argue for that. In fact, you made the specific argument that the problem was that in the absence of black owned businesses, the money would all flow into white businesses owned by white people. It was pretty clear that you don't want rich white people owning businesses in the hood. You want black people to own those businesses so they can keep the money inside the "black community" and eventually become rich themselves.


Almalieque wrote:
If you truly want to get out of this cycle, then the onus is on white people to go see more black movies, buy black clothes, go to black barber shops, move into black neighborhoods and open up businesses in the community, etc. Guess what, that isn't happening, so now the onus is back on the minorities to support each other.


Gbaji wrote:
People don't shop at the stores in those areas because of the skin color of the person who will profit from that business though. That's why those things are utterly irrelevant to the argument you made earlier. I've explained this to you at least 8 times now.


ALmalieque wrote:
It will sink in when you stop attaching stuff that I'm not referring to. NO ONE IS CALLING A STORE BLACK TO SUPPORT SOMEONE FINANCIALLY


ALmalieque wrote:
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".




Edited, Mar 19th 2011 1:34am by Almalieque
#446 Mar 18 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
First off. Stop using orange tags. Some of us use a color scheme on which that color is nearly impossible to see.

Congratulations! You managed to find one sentence in your numerous changing statements where you actually said that white people "should" open up stores in black communities. I'd missed that in the massive wall of waffling statements you've made in this thread. Good for you, I suppose.

Um... But your argument was more about that since they they aren't opening up those stores that black people should open up black stores, and black people should buy stuff in those stores so as to keep the money within the black community. So you aren't so much advocating that white people should open up stores in black communities, but arguing that they don't, so black folks need to help themselves. In fact, that's what you started this whole thing out with.

And I loved this gem which you just quoted and presumably didn't notice:

Quote:
This whole argument was based on the economical advancement of black Americans.


Thanks for playing. I win. You lose. Are you still going to insist that your argument isn't about financial benefit based on skin color? Can you contradict yourself a bit more?

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 5:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#447 Mar 18 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
First off. Stop using orange tags. Some of us use a color scheme on which that color is nearly impossible to see.


No. I color quote things, because obviously just saying them and using bold isn't enough for people like you who don't read entire posts. Your response is evident of that. There is no color that will work on every color scheme and simply "bold" doesn't show up either...

Gbaji wrote:
Congratulations! You managed to find one sentence in your numerous changing statements where you actually said that white people "should" open up stores in black communities. I'd missed that in the massive wall of waffling statements you've made in this thread. Good for you, I suppose.


Well, if you were actually reading my posts, you might have caught it the first TWO times I said it and not just my THIRD time. Not only was that my THIRD time stating that, but you actually quoted me from the very same response from the post that I originally said it.


Gbaji wrote:
Um... But your argument was more about that since they they aren't opening up those stores that black people should open up black stores, and black people should buy stuff in those stores so as to keep the money within the black community. So you aren't so much advocating that white people should open up stores in black communities, but arguing that they don't, so black folks need to help themselves. In fact, that's what you started this whole thing out with.


Lol... Are you restating what I just said, but trying to spin it as if I'm wrong? You took my argument as "Don't buy from white people". I spent countless pages arguing against that notion saying that it wasn't about the race of the owner but the reality of the fact that chances are the owner isn't white. So, if you finally agree to that, which it seems as such, then just say so. Don't try to "spin" what I said to make it seem that I'm somehow wrong. "Keeping the money in the community" includes every race that may live in that community, which means your accusation is false.

Gbaji wrote:

Thanks for playing. I win. You lose. Are you still going to insist that your argument isn't about financial benefit based on skin color? Can you contradict yourself a bit more?


You know, if you actually read my entire posts instead of just responding to stuff that you think is relevant, we wouldn't be at 9 pages. The simple fact that you responded to that as if that were my first or second time stating that is evident that you're not reading my posts.

You're confusing the problem with the solution. The topic of our conversation was always on the economical advancement of black Americans. The actual argument was over the process and/or solution for that advancement to occur. Did you forget that your claim was that it was wrong to choose to do business with someone based on the sole fact of their ethnicity? Or was your argument against the advancement of black Americans?

So, how is stating the problem contradicting my solution?

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 4:03am by Almalieque

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 4:05am by Almalieque
#448 Mar 19 2011 at 1:58 AM Rating: Good
What i got from this thread is that Shador is actually a *** ex-christian turned newly avowed atheist who also happens to be racist.

Skipping over all of Gbaji's & Alma's posts: that is the gist of the thread, yes?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#449 Mar 19 2011 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
What i got from this thread is that Shador is actually a *** ex-christian turned newly avowed atheist who also happens to be racist.

Skipping over all of Gbaji's & Alma's posts: that is the gist of the thread, yes?


I think he also open carries, but that's the gist of it, yeah.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#450 Mar 19 2011 at 6:39 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
What i got from this thread is that Shador is actually a *** ex-christian turned newly avowed atheist who also happens to be racist.

Skipping over all of Gbaji's & Alma's posts: that is the gist of the thread, yes?


The last 6 pages were mainly me trying to convince Gbaji that we agree on something.

Well, don't worry, I think it is finally over. Just in time for my vacation too! I don't think he still believes that my argument doesn't necessarily focus on race, but he is running out of statements that he believes to state otherwise.
#451 Mar 19 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The last 6 pages were mainly me trying to convince Gbaji that we agree on something.

Well, don't worry, I think it is finally over. Just in time for my vacation too! I don't think he still believes that my argument doesn't necessarily focus on race, but he is running out of statements that he believes to state otherwise.

It's cute how you think that anyone actually cares about the way you and gbaji jerk each other off in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (49)