Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

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.



Read above.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.




Dear Gbaji from Fantasy Land,

All racial labels are discriminatory.

sincerely,

Almalieque from the Real World.



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.



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..



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?

Ok. Trimming out just this one part, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, you'll see the light.



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:




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

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.



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



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?

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?






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!



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.



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.





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.

Holy shit....

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.




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

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.

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.



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?

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.



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.



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.




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!



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

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 1:34am by Almalieque

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...



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.




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.



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

I think he also open carries, but that's the gist of it, yeah.

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