Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#127 Feb 24 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you don't get this, then I can't help you.

Let's be honest, the odds of you helping him even if he did are very, very, slim and it has little to do with him.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#128 Feb 24 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

I'm not going to waste any more time with this until you answer my questions that you keep avoiding. Maybe you thought they were rhetorical, if so, they weren't.

I quoted directly from dictionary.com what the word "racism" means and yet you still claim it has other meanings. Until you answer my questions that I've presented to you, I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding to you, because you're just going to ignore me in order to support yourself.
#129 Feb 24 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to waste any more time with this until you answer my questions that you keep avoiding. Maybe you thought they were rhetorical, if so, they weren't.


It's not about them being rhetorical. It's about them being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether I have personally attended a "black church" (whatever that means), doesn't affect my statement about wright and the lack of strong condemnation of his statements one bit.

I'm not going to feed into your strawman. I did not say that all black churches were like Wrights, nor did I even say a majority of them were. The only purpose for your question is to try to prove that I'm unqualified to claim something which I didn't claim in the first place. So no. I'm not going to play that game at all.


Quote:
I quoted directly from dictionary.com what the word "racism" means and yet you still claim it has other meanings.


Because it does. I'll give you a hint though, the official dictionary definitions tend to make a distinction between "racism" and "racial discrimination", which most of us don't when we converse about the subject. The point you also keep missing is that racism is not *always* just about a belief in racial superiority. Most definitions of racism say that's "often" or "usually" involved. But the methods of racism (more correctly called racial discrimination) can and do occur quite often without any association with an agenda based on superiority at all.

This is relevant because you are arguing that unless someone is acting on a belief in the superiority of their own race, that it's not "racism", and thus there's nothing wrong with it. I disagree. Regardless of what label we apply to the action, I believe that treating members of your own racial group better than you treat members of other racial groups, purely because of that difference, is a bad thing. I believe that it is racist. And no amount of semantic games will change that belief.

Quote:
Until you answer my questions that I've presented to you, I'm not going to waste any more effort in responding to you, because you're just going to ignore me in order to support yourself.



Um.... Ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#130 Feb 24 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....

There's no point in engaging in a debate if you're not going to respond to questions. You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer. Just answer the question and the irrelevance will naturally come about if it is indeed irrelevant.

#131 Feb 24 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

[...]You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer.

Hi! You must be new here...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Feb 24 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:

There's no point in engaging in a debate if you're not going to respond to questions.


There's also no real debate if one side just tosses out random and unrelated questions in order to avoid the core issue being discussed.

Quote:
You can't just label everything as "irrelevant" that you don't want to answer.


Correct. But in this case, the question is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Quote:
Just answer the question and the irrelevance will naturally come about if it is indeed irrelevant.


Ok. I'll play: No. I do not regularly attend black churches, nor have I ever attended a church that you are likely to label as such. Happy? Now, I assume you're going to insist that this means that I'm not qualified to say that Wright and his church is typical of black churches? And then what? I didn't say they were.

See? Irrelevant.


Do you regularly fly on the space shuttle? No? Then you're not qualified to claim that space shuttle pilots are more likely to be racist than the rest of society! OMG! I just totally destroyed an argument you didn't make. Yay me!

Edited, Feb 24th 2011 4:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Feb 24 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....


#134 Feb 24 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
But that's the point. Over time, a sufficiently high percentage of white males saw the wrongness of racism/sexism and worked to eliminate the very things that were benefiting them. My concern, and I feel it's a legitimate one, is that those who currently view themselves as minorities may not have sufficiently high percentages of members who see the wrongness of those same things when they benefit them, and thus will perpetuate racism and sexism within our society.


What, you're afraid that black people would make white people their slaves if only they could, or something? Your concern isn't legitimate, because black people have nowhere near the kind of power to enact any meaningful change in favor of their race to that end (not even with a black president!). And if ever they did approach a significant portion of the population, then they would be in a position to consider as a sociocultural group the ramifications of that position. As it stands, they're a disenfranchised minority and entertaining how they would treat white people if they had more power has even less significance for you than it does for them. They're a little more worried about climbing out of poverty for now.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs seems fitting.

Quote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.


Of course you don't get it. YOU'RE WHITE. When you're white and you live in a systemically white culture, whiteness is something you take for granted. Black people have their own culture, but they live in that same systemically white culture, unless they develop a cultural pocket. What you don't understand is that for many black people, this is similar to being a foreigner in a foreign country. There are customs, behaviors, products, etc... that they aren't familiar with even in their own country, because they don't come from a white culture. Other people look down on them if they are boisterous, which is just a part of the culture-- in other countries, we are looked down on for the same thing.

Quote:
The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as ****) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.


Wow. Just wow...


It was obvious that he was making the point that some products and services are exclusive to black consumers and that there's nothing racist about it. It's not about racism. Most stores stock skin-tone bandaids, but whose skintone? Are the bandaid manufacturers racist? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that black people wouldn't like bandaids that are THEIR skin tone.

Quote:
Huh? So every white person is my family? I've never looked at it that way. Ever. My family are the people I'm related to, either by blood or marriage. My friends are the people I've grown attached to in various ways over my life. Neither of those have much to do with skin color.


It's one thing to not understand it on a personal level, but it's telling that you don't even understand the cultural differences well enough to already know this. People seek out people like them. For example, if you're a black student at a predominantly white school, you're probably going to hang out with the other black students who are more culturally similar to you. That's just human nature. And most white people, if the shoe were on the other foot, would do the same. But since we're white people surrounded by other white people, and particularly with whiteness being relatively heterogeneous, we don't feel that sense of racial unity.

Within the black community, and in most minority communities, there is a heightened sense of unity, and yes, almost a familial sense. And to dismiss this as wrong is the height of ignorance. It's not ideal, but it's not wrong.

And ultimately it won't change until there's no longer a perception of racism. Which is something that will NEVER go away as long as people like you ignorantly call to revoke "favoritist" policies, and people like varus maliciously stereotype an entire group of people.

Quote:
I'm not sure what your point is here. I go to a BBQ place in my old neighborhood that's owned and run by a black family. Why? Because the food is great. I used to work at a fast food place owned by an Iranian family. I still occasionally swing by there to grab their kabobs (yum!). Why? Because it's good food. I don't think it's unusual for a white person to work at a Chinese Food restaurant anymore than I think it's strange for a chinese kid to work at a McDonalds. And frankly, the fact that you seem to identify people so strongly by their race and/or ethnicity is bizarre.


You only think that because, again, you're a white man in a white man's world. Pretty much everything is "for you." If you don't want something, no big deal-- your culture is so ubiquitous here that Mexican food, Chinese, sushi-- these are all virtually mainstream American dining. It's your prerogative to sample anything you like. When you go into a store, you're like the Visa in your wallet-- accepted anywhere.

Being black isn't always like that.

Quote:
If something is wrong when those in power do it, shouldn't it also be wrong when those not in power do it?

My original argument was that the only way to obtain a truly equal society is to not try to game the system to benefit or harm anyone based on race. And yes, I fully admit that this will make it take longer for historical minorities to "catch up", but not as long as you might think. It's not like the majority or even a tiny minority of white people are benefited because of some long family wealth that they earned in the past and which gives them an unfair advantage today. Most people, absent any racial gaming will perform similarly if they make similar choices and will experience similar results regardless of their race.


First of all, no-- just because something is wrong when those in power do it, doesn't necessarily mean it will be wrong when those not in power do it. That's not how ethics work. Morality, even if you subscribe to a pretty rigid set of morals, is contextual, and different contexts permit different guidelines.

Secondly, do you even understand systemic racism? Do you understand that for a group of people to pull themselves out of a historically defined economic oppression falls somewhere between incredibly difficult and impossible?

You and I have advantages just by sheer virtue of being white. We are more likely to have educated, higher SES parents and grandparents who were better able to provide for us and were better equipped to socially adjust us to a culture that is their own. We are less prone to be victim to racism. More goods and services are targeted directly to our cultural desires.

Quote:

My whole point is that in the cause of ending racism, it is enough to eliminate the laws and practices within society which artificially prevent racial groups from succeeding. But it is *not* required, nor is it even a good idea, to artificially help a racial group to succeed. Because by doing so, you are just committing more racism and perpetuating the problem.


Racism is oppressive discrimination. Helping people based on race isn't racism when those people are already disadvantaged. And if there ever is a time when the footing is more equal, I doubt there will be too much resistance to the idea of doing away with that kind of policy; however, to think that it does more harm than good is unsubstantiated at best, more likely absurd, and at worst, perpetuates the perception that racism is still alive and well.
____________________________
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.
#135 Feb 24 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
btw, I read and replied to this thread because I'm bored at a relative's house. Don't expect another, because I hope I'm not this lacking for amusement again.
____________________________
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.
#136 Feb 24 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....




Sigh. None of which address the issue that I raised and which you responded to. See how that works? I gave you one. Now by all means attempt to explain to me how me not attending black churches somehow invalidates my claim that the statements made by people like Rev Wright are often ignored, overlooked, or even defended among the broader community of black people in this country.

Do you see how that claim is directly relevant to my broader argument that it's a bad idea to put in place laws which benefit minority groups since those benefits based on race may not be set aside when/if the scales of power shift the other direction and they are no longer lacking power in other areas?


My original argument was that we should work instead to remove any/all legal institutions which affect the fortunes of our citizens differently based on their skin color. I provided a pretty clear cut rationale for this, to which you've responded with what I can only describe as the internet equivalent of puking on someone's shoes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Feb 24 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

There was more than just one question that you ignored....




Sigh. None of which address the issue that I raised and which you responded to. See how that works? I gave you one. Now by all means attempt to explain to me how me not attending black churches somehow invalidates my claim that the statements made by people like Rev Wright are often ignored, overlooked, or even defended among the broader community of black people in this country.

Do you see how that claim is directly relevant to my broader argument that it's a bad idea to put in place laws which benefit minority groups since those benefits based on race may not be set aside when/if the scales of power shift the other direction and they are no longer lacking power in other areas?


My original argument was that we should work instead to remove any/all legal institutions which affect the fortunes of our citizens differently based on their skin color. I provided a pretty clear cut rationale for this, to which you've responded with what I can only describe as the internet equivalent of puking on someone's shoes.


I asked you several questions that you ignored.. If you think that all of those questions in that one post are irrelevant, then answer them and show how they are irrelevant.

You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience. So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.

If you don't see the relevance of knowing if you're information is from personal experience or something you saw on TV, then.. I really don't know... Actual experience holds more value than random stuff you pull off the Internet.

So, if you address the rest of my questions, then I'll address the remainder of your comments.

Kachi wrote:
btw, I read and replied to this thread because I'm bored at a relative's house. Don't expect another, because I hope I'm not this lacking for amusement again.


It's a sad day when we agree (for the most part), but I would like to point out that I don't believe white people can't or don't understand, only that Gbaji doesn't understand because he obviously haven't been a similar situation because of the things that he mentioned.
#138 Feb 24 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It's a sad day when we agree (for the most part), but I would like to point out that I don't believe white people can't or don't understand, only that Gbaji doesn't understand because he obviously haven't been a similar situation because of the things that he mentioned.


For what it's worth, at least you're not as awful as I thought.

gbaji is prone to reactance, so arguing with him really doesn't achieve anything unless you get off on that sort of thing. But by all means, have at it.
____________________________
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.
#139 Feb 24 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Kachi wrote:
What, you're afraid that black people would make white people their slaves if only they could, or something?


As a hypothetical, sure. Let's examine that.

Quote:
Your concern isn't legitimate, because black people have nowhere near the kind of power to enact any meaningful change in favor of their race to that end (not even with a black president!).


Irrelevant. The hypothetical assumes that they do. Hence, the "if they could", part.

Quote:
And if ever they did approach a significant portion of the population, then they would be in a position to consider as a sociocultural group the ramifications of that position.


Absolutely. My question is: Do they exhibit the same level of broad sociological support for the principles of racial equality (even if it means a negative result for your own race), which white people exhibited for centuries prior to even ending slavery, much less passing the civil rights act?

Imagine a long scale of history. We didn't just one day end slavery. It was a process, right? The constitution was written about a century earlier, and included language which should have prohibited slavery, but the institution continued anyway. And the racial equality movement, broadly agreed with in principle, still suffered resistance for nearly another century even after slavery was ended. Now imagine a time line of those changes in terms of how the whole of white society in America viewed race. My question is: Where on that timeline would you place the whole of black society in America today?

When considering your answer, examine statements made by black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson. And examine the reactions to those words. And examine the assumptions made by people like Alma within that context (not sure if that's a good representative sample of the "common person", but whatever). When the idea that it's natural and ok for ethnic groups to band together to benefit members of their own group, where does that put us?


I'll point out again that institutions like slavery and Jim Crow could only end as a result of the majority society maturing collectively on the issue of race. Had said society chosen, as Alma seems to think is perfectly acceptable, to act in the best interests of their own group first, it's hard to imagine why they'd ever have given up that power when they had it.


I think it's perfectly relevant to ask if, based on the current rhetoric and views on race being used among some minority groups (let's stick to black for now), those same people would suddenly change their positions if they were the ones in power instead. How conditional are their views of race based on the current state of power, and how much is just based on, as Alma said: Helping your own kind?


Quote:
It was obvious that he was making the point that some products and services are exclusive to black consumers and that there's nothing racist about it. It's not about racism. Most stores stock skin-tone bandaids, but whose skintone? Are the bandaid manufacturers racist? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that black people wouldn't like bandaids that are THEIR skin tone.


Yeah. And this was another one of those irrelevant questions that was asked. I never stated that tailoring products to specific consumers was wrong or racist. I said that blaming white people for *not* buying the products targeted to black consumers is silly. You wouldn't blame a white person for buying the white skin tone bandaid anymore than I'd blame a black person for wanting to buy a black one. It's irrelevant to the question I posed. No one was arguing that it's racism to target products to black consumers.

What I did say is that it is racist for a black person to choose to shop only at a "black store", for the sole purpose of helping out the black owner and the black workers there economically. It is racist for exactly the same reason why it would be racist for a white person to choose to only shop at stores owned by people of his own skin color.

If you recall, this was the argument Alma originally made. That it was ok to "help out your own people". It was not about buying products that appeal to you. That's why his follow up is irrelevant. The criteria he originally used, and to which I disagreed, had nothing to do with products, and everything to do with the race of the people who would benefit from the business.

Quote:
Within the black community, and in most minority communities, there is a heightened sense of unity, and yes, almost a familial sense. And to dismiss this as wrong is the height of ignorance. It's not ideal, but it's not wrong.


You know? I was going to write a longish bit about how black culture in the US was largely invented in the 60s as a deliberate means to distinguish and alienate them from whites and as a means of empowering the leaders of various political movements, but let's just ignore that since it's largely meaningless at this point, decades later. I'll just accept that and move on, I guess.

So the point I'm making still stands though. While the "banding together" may be a natural result of being a smaller culture within a larger one, the result is that the members of that group learn that it's ok (heck, required) for them to act in negative ways toward other racial groups, as a means of empowerment. My question is still relevant: Does that cultural trend disappear as they gain power within the larger culture? Or does that trend actually amplify as their power grows (they'll see this as their tactics working perhaps?), until they gain power and then continue to use the same racial methodology to secure it and ensure that they never again lose it.

I'd suggest that this is far more likely within an historical context. Of course, that's hard to say given that we've never seen a modern example of such a shift within a society largely based on the principles of liberalism. Um... But the flip side is that those who adopt that "minority culture" viewpoint aren't really acting upon those principles, are they?

Hence, why I posited the question. IMO it's a legitimate thing to ponder.

Quote:
And ultimately it won't change until there's no longer a perception of racism. Which is something that will NEVER go away as long as people like you ignorantly call to revoke "favoritist" policies, and people like varus maliciously stereotype an entire group of people.


How can you eliminate the perception of racism (which I assume you mean as a removal of the view of someone with a different skin color to be of a different "group" than yourself) as long as we have those "favorist" policies which treat us differently based on our skin color? How do you think that will happen? Can it ever happen?

IMO, those policies perpetuate that aspect of racism. It makes us constantly aware of the different groups of people within our society, all separated by race. We are reminded of this every time we fill out a government form which asks us to name the group we're a member of. How can we ever eliminate that perception if we're required to constantly self-identify ourselves by race by our government almost constantly?


Quote:
Being black isn't always like that.


Why not? And isn't that the problem? If the issue is racial perception, then isn't the solution to get rid of the perception? What if black people didn't think of themselves as "black"? What if they just thought of themselves as "people"? Can you even comprehend what a major advance that would be in terms of social evolution? Can you also see how this is the route to ending racism?

So. Is the problem that the larger society constantly reminds everyone that it is made by whites and for whites? Or is the problem that the smaller societies within it are constantly told that they are black and living in a white world?

Quote:
First of all, no-- just because something is wrong when those in power do it, doesn't necessarily mean it will be wrong when those not in power do it. That's not how ethics work. Morality, even if you subscribe to a pretty rigid set of morals, is contextual, and different contexts permit different guidelines.


You're splitting hairs there. The vast majority of the time, what I said is absolutely correct. Morals, the "right and wrong" of social conduct, is (or should be) consistent across all the members of the society those morals apply to. It can be argued, in fact, that what you're describing is a case which only exists if we assume some kind of class based society in which different rules can be said to apply to different people.

We don't live in such a system. Well, or we're not supposed to. Of course, when we pass laws which treat people differently based on the color of their skin, we're kinda implementing that old and flawed methodology. Which is one of the reasons I think it's a bad idea.

But if we assume we're pursuing some kind of principled ideal, I'm going to stand by my statement that if something is wrong when done by someone in power, it's also wrong when done by someone not in power. And this certainly is doubly true when we're not talking about the individual people in power, but merely people who happen to be in the social majority.

Quote:
Secondly, do you even understand systemic racism? Do you understand that for a group of people to pull themselves out of a historically defined economic oppression falls somewhere between incredibly difficult and impossible?


I'd argue that it's incredibly difficult and/or impossible if those people continue to think of themselves as a separate group of people. If they instead simply become part of the larger group, then they have no problems at all. My point is that the systemic racism you're talking about is currently being perpetuated by the very "fight" to fight systemic racism. That's why it can't win. You're literally fighting yourself by doing that.

The way to beat racism in a society is to stop labeling people by race. I know this may seem like a radical concept to many people, but that's the only way it works. As long as people think of themselves as members of a race and not just members of a larger society, one such group will always be "in power", and the rest minorities. And if every minority always fights to be in power, or to balance out the power held by the majority, the cycle will never ever end.

Don't you see that?

Quote:
You and I have advantages just by sheer virtue of being white. We are more likely to have educated, higher SES parents and grandparents who were better able to provide for us and were better equipped to socially adjust us to a culture that is their own. We are less prone to be victim to racism. More goods and services are targeted directly to our cultural desires.


The economic advantages of being white should not have lasted more than a couple generations past the passage of the civil rights act. And the cultural stuff is honestly BS. The biggest thing holding black america back is that it insists on being treated as "black america" instead of just Americans. Think about it. There are other ethnic groups within the US who have started from vastly different cultural backgrounds than the cultural delta between black and white in the US. Yet they don't experience anywhere near the social problems that blacks do.

Why? And it's not racism directed towards blacks. It really isn't. This is somewhat off my original topic, but whatever.

Quote:
Racism is oppressive discrimination. Helping people based on race isn't racism when those people are already disadvantaged.


In my opinion, it is. You should help people who are disadvantaged regardless of their skin color. Not because of it.


Quote:
And if there ever is a time when the footing is more equal, I doubt there will be too much resistance to the idea of doing away with that kind of policy; however, to think that it does more harm than good is unsubstantiated at best, more likely absurd, and at worst, perpetuates the perception that racism is still alive and well.


I disagree. I think the policies themselves perpetuate racism. As I stated earlier, you can't end racism as long as you have those policies. And even if those who gain power change their views and stop thinking in terms of fighting for benefits for their race, you'll still have others who will now be the new minorities. And they'll do the same thing and the cycle will just continue forever.


Maybe I'm a dreamer, but to me this is not a solution. It's a great way to get people to support you politically, but it'll never actually solve the problem of "racism".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Feb 24 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience.


Sigh. What statement?


I didn't say anything about "black churches" in general. I just finished explaining this to you. I used Wright's church's 12 principles as an example of racism among the black community which does not generally get condemned or even noticed as much as it should. Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen this.


Quote:
So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.


My source of information was that those 12 princples were originally from the web site of the church in question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Feb 24 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You made a statement about black churches that completely contradicted my personal experience and any other admitted personal experience.


Sigh. What statement?


I didn't say anything about "black churches" in general. I just finished explaining this to you. I used Wright's church's 12 principles as an example of racism among the black community which does not generally get condemned or even noticed as much as it should. Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen this.


Almalieque the All knowing wrote:
So, I merely asked you the source of your information by asking you if you actually attend black churches.


My source of information was that those 12 princples were originally from the web site of the church in question.


Address the rest of my questions and I'll address your questions.
#142 Feb 25 2011 at 4:54 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Um... That would be a big fat no. I've already told you I view your questions as nothing more than a means for you to sidetrack the discussion into meaningless tangents. I'm not going to play that game with you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Feb 25 2011 at 5:14 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I'm not sure what to think of this Alma vs Gbaji argument, it's even less entertaining than the usual Joph vs Gbaji sparring matches.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#144 Feb 25 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... That would be a big fat no. I've already told you I view your questions as nothing more than a means for you to sidetrack the discussion into meaningless tangents. I'm not going to play that game with you.


Well, like I tell everyone else who pulls that same stunt, you're just using a cop out because you don't want to contradict your claim.

You responded to my "family is your race" comment with the interpretation as "your race is your family" which is an incredibly stupid interpretation. You made multiple comments of racial implications when NO ONE ever made comments or implications that white people are racists if they don't do x,y, or z. Yet, in all of these scenarios you responded.

You made comments about how society shouldn't use labels to describe things such as music, food, movies. I respond to you that we always use labels, that our history made it taboo to use certain labels. Furthermore I ask you if other certain labels equally offend you. That is 100% relevant to the topic. For you not to answer those questions is evident that you're not offended by those other labels, which means your original comments are wrong.

You're only responding to comments that you think you can counter.

But, if you don't want to man up and answer relevant questions and admit that you might have misspoken, then so be it.

I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.
#145 Feb 25 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm not sure what to think of this Alma vs Gbaji argument, it's even less entertaining than the usual Joph vs Gbaji sparring matches.


I look at it much like a marriage of two miserable asshOles. All you can do is just be thankful they're not out there making two other people miserable.
#146 Feb 25 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.
#147 Feb 25 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
#148 Feb 25 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
____________________________
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

#149 Feb 25 2011 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
Admitting to being wrong /= being open-minded.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#150 Feb 25 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
***
1,137 posts
gbaji wrote:

The concern is that this same social maturation process was not experienced by other groups, so when they are handed more power and rules that are tilted in their favor, are they going to be as willing to give that power and the advantage of tilted rules up?


The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.
____________________________
Manifest, Valefor
BST/PLD/COR/BRD/WAR/THF/SMN/BLM/WHM 99
RDM/SCH/DNC/NIN/WAR/SAM/RNG 49
PUP 30, BLU 16

Maniken, Valefor
WHM/DRG/BRD/MNK/RDM/WAR/BLM 99
SCH/NIN/SAM/BST 49
BLU 16

Linkshell: ChaoticUnion

Sozu Rogberry(pre Thf Knife patch): 0/49 ><
#151 Feb 25 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see the problem with your understanding, but I can't help you understand if you refuse to participate.



The real problem is that both of you are so utterly convinced that you are right (about everything, btw), that neither of you will ever be capable of seeing or understanding anyone else's point.


Have you seen Bard's signature? Unless he changed it, that's evidence that I always admit when I'm wrong...
Not evidence of always, but evidence of once anyway. Not surprisingly though, you missed the point of what DW was saying.
Admitting to being wrong /= being open-minded.


While this maybe true, a person that isn't open minded is less likely to admit to being wrong. In any case, I'm very open minded, because I always believe that there is a possibility that the other person is right and I'm wrong.

Manifest of Kujata wrote:
The answer is a huge "no". Fun fact: most of the white slaveowners in the south were Irish immigrants running from English rule. They ran from tyrany and, when they had the chance to reject the idea of keeping a boot on the neck of someone else, they embraced it.


That's utter BS. There is no correlation with power and hatred. A poor person with no social status can be just as hateful as a rich person with social status. A rich person with social status can be just as loving as a poor person with no social status.

If what you're saying is true, then every white male with social status in the U.S. secretly wants to re-establish slavery. The social power only allows people with hatred to act on their hatred on greater levels, it does not produce the hatred.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (60)