Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Stoked has about 50 post of essentially saying nothing in this thread.

 

[Hantlers]

There's a solid percentage of dudes around here who are top-shelf douchewads.

It's cute how often you talk about yourself on here.

 

[Hantlers]

that whole "music" discussion was hideous/hilarious. I like how it brought Hantlers into the scrum. I'd make a decent wager that he either was or still is a big Creed fan.

Naw, I don't like Creed, can't really say I ever have.

Pretty much the only stuff I don't like is heavy metal where they do the guttural screaming and I can't understand a word they're saying.

The main stuff I like is actually country (red dirt) and hip-hop. Andre 3000, Kendrick, Gambino, all good stuff.

With that said, who cares what somebody likes? If we all had the same personal taste, how boring would that be? I could probably make fun of you for whatever it is that you like, but what's the point? I value your uniqueness. I don't particularly enjoy you, and disagree with you often, but I'm not going to mock you for liking something different…that's just like high school drama, and some of us have grown out of that.

 

[Hantlers]

Also, I think that Kicky trying to challenge LazyD on music was hilarious. Can't believe that actually happened.

 

[Hantlers]

Felt like this might be a good place to dump this quote.

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."
Thomas Sowell

 

[Hantlers]

This also seemed appropriate.

"The word 'racism' is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything - and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist.' "
Thomas Sowell

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Hantlers bringin' the heart and soul.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

It's cute how often you talk about yourself on here.

... ... ... [continuing on for some length] … ... ... that's just like high school drama, and some of us have grown out of that.

#SlappinTehKnee

 

[♪alt13]

The very idea that the culture is biased against white people in general, and that racism against whites is really a pressing social issue, is so ill-informed and beyond offensive that I can't take anyone seriously that makes this an issue of real concern.

Opinions that separates us based on race is always negative and perpetuates the status quo segregation that exists in this country. You don't think there are social repercussions from this? Black people should not get a pass to use racially discriminatory speech because they have faced it themselves. Giving black people a pass is in itself discriminatory. The standards for behavior in our society should be universal.

 

[franklin]

lol. you read way to much into it. Have you never heard that phrase before? All I was saying is that I don't directly engage Franklin. I at least try to engage anyone else. That's it.

Naw, I don't like Creed, can't really say I ever have.

Pretty much the only stuff I don't like is heavy metal where they do the guttural screaming and I can't understand a word they're saying.

The main stuff I like is actually country (red dirt) and hip-hop. Andre 3000, Kendrick, Gambino, all good stuff.

With that said, who cares what somebody likes? If we all had the same personal taste, how boring would that be? I could probably make fun of you for whatever it is that you like, but what's the point? I value your uniqueness. I don't particularly enjoy you, and disagree with you often, but I'm not going to mock you for liking something different…that's just like high school drama, and some of us have grown out of that.

Also, I think that Kicky trying to challenge LazyD on music was hilarious. Can't believe that actually happened.

Why do all you religious conservatives derail threads by talking about people instead of ideas? Gossipy bitches.

 

[One Brow]

That's a nice story and attempt to laugh it off. So now you are calling my relative a liar or someone with an imagination. figures, I actually expected this from you.
Not that it will matter to you but in his story he was with someone that was also white and in decent shape to get away. I left it out because it doesn't really affect the point, but since you seem to be calling bs on it... there.

Your saying your relative has no imagination?

Seriously, my skepticism is based on years of hearing stories like this, occasionally after seeing what has actually transpired. As I said, I've seen it a lot more of these overactive imaginations than I've seen black people randomly attacking white people out of the blue.

I don't care if you believe me or him, but your attempt to marginalize his experience is typical of you. This relative has lived in many multicultural places and is not "afraid of a black man" as you seem to be implying.

Yeah, he just ran away because some people turned their bikes around. No fear there.

Sounds similar to something I posted a little while back, that you called fluff with no real substance.

It's all just anecdotes, but since you asked for anecdotes, that's what I offered. I'm not pretending it's data.

I was just curious. Anything involving you, or just other people?

All of those involved me.

 

[One Brow]

It seems to me that the misunderstanding happening between the two factions in this thread come down the historical sense of the concept "racism." Those board members who have that stubborn strain of libertarianism and/or cynicism over the social work of correcting systematic abuse want to shrink that historical sense to zero. The other camp asks for the recognition of a racism that has been shaped by knowable forces, the correction of which takes time, effort, and (obviously) an insistence on a certain historical memory.

I always distrust a libertarianism that demands we speak of things on a dramatically reduced historical scale. It's a meak way of looking at people and processes -- and is bad for spiritual health.

I agree with you, but would also note that the discrimination is not just historical, but present-day.

 

[One Brow]

My footprint on this forum is small, and One Brow and SirKickyAss simply reinforce my usual stance of reading but not posting much. I believe that the kind of negative, hateful, and aggressive methods that you choose to defend your own stances on racism do plenty more harm than good to your purported cause.

Stoked, this is part of what I am talking about. You and I both know that sirkickyass posted in a reasonable, neutral, and peaceable fashion, while I posted in an angry, dismissive, and aggressive fashion, but to posters like RobDMB, there is no difference between us. We disagree with his position, therefore we are the ones that are negative and hateful. There is no point of offering honey to those who see every liquid as vinegar.

RobDMB, I don't understand why you would want to defend a position that angers so many, unless you think something important is at stake. Can you even articulate what that important thing is?

 

[Stoked]

Stoked, this is part of what I am talking about. You and I both know that sirkickyass posted in a reasonable, neutral, and peaceable fashion, while I posted in an angry, dismissive, and aggressive fashion, but to posters like RobDMB, there is no difference between us. We disagree with his position, therefore we are the ones that are negative and hateful. There is no point of offering honey to those who see every liquid as vinegar.

RobDMB, I don't understand why you would want to defend a position that angers so many, unless you think something important is at stake. Can you even articulate what that important thing is?

Perhaps but why let them ruin your mood? I just don't see the point in anger over this issue on an internet message board. You do and so you post that way. I disagree but am more than willing to acknowledge that you see it different. There is nothing wrong with that. Have at it my friend and be who you want to be.

 

[One Brow]

I think that's being done in spades in this thread, don't you?

I already made mention of the extreme emic view One Brow seems to be taking in this thread, dismissing any etic viewpoint.

I'm new to these terms, so let me make sure I'm interpreting you correctly. You're saying that, in this thread, I am focusing a little too much on the thought and feelings we have as people with the US (emic), and not enough on how racism is created and endures from a psychological viewpoint (etic). Is that what you mean?

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."
Thomas Sowell

Sowell offers libel instead of reality. The people being called racist are the ones who claim everyone is currently being judged by the same standards, not that they should be.

Could you expound more on what you think a person of today's personal responsibilities on the matter are aside from not being a racist and correcting racism where it truly exists?
Do you think there is more that should be laid upon the shoulders of people today for what happened in the past? ( just assume the people we are talking about are not racists today, otherwise they would have to correct and deal with what they heap upon their own shoulders.)

Perhaps this is part of the liberal blindness that [size/HUGE] fixed [/size] referred to, but I really don't care much about laying what happened in the past on anyone. The racism of the past is only relevant to the degree that it affects the racism of today.

If you want to see where racism "truly exists", try an experiment of your own. Take ten resumes, and post two copies of each to various job sites, identical except for their names. Assign a stereotypically white name to one, and a stereotypically black name to another. Make sure to identify their presumptive race on the EEOC forms. Count the number of responses these identical resumes receive from all the HR people all across the US. The only thing this exercise will cost you is time.

Take those results, multiple them by the differing treatment they get once they are employed, while in school, while driving, when applying for a loan, etc., and you will see where racism lives (that is, it is everywhere).

If you really want to see inside yourself, visit Project Implicit and take a few surveys. Don't answer so slowly that you invalidate the results, as another poster did.

Black people should not get a pass to use racially discriminatory speech because they have faced it themselves. Giving black people a pass is in itself discriminatory. The standards for behavior in our society should be universal.

When did black people start getting a pass for using racially discriminatory language? I regularly read that essays on that topic.

Perhaps but why let them ruin your mood? I just don't see the point in anger over this issue on an internet message board.

In many ways, the anger is what I see in daily life, and the message board allows an outlet. I appreciate the concern; I know it comes from your best intentions.

One Brow's version of liberalism has huge blind spots.

In another thread, I'd be interested in improving my vision.

We also cannot turn this into a "boy who called racist" story, because then who will believe us when for once it actually is true?

There are a couple of fundamental differences between what I believe racism is and what One Brow believes racism is.
1- racism can only be from the dominant race to a minority race vs racism can go both ways
2- racism can exist in a person without them knowing it vs racism has to be the intent in some way otherwise it is something else

Did I miss any differences One Brow, or is it just those two?

3- racism is an expression of a cultural and social structure vs racism is just a bunch of individual actions (here in the US)
4- racism comes from the nature of human cognition vs racism is a set of beliefs that are counter to human nature
5- racism can only be acknowledged and adjusted for in a person vs racism can be absent from a person

As for "the boy who called racist", my recommendation is to trust the data.

 

[Willie]

I agree with you, but would also note that the discrimination is not just historical, but present-day.

Forgive me my good liberal friend, but I definitely did not mean to suggest that discrimination was merely historical. It lives.


In an effort to do well by Stoked, I've reviewed many of his posts in this thread and in others in order to determine the "rule" of his engagements, and the "exception" of his engagements with franklin. I'm new here, and perhaps stoked's subtleties are beyond me, but the only person he seems to approach exceptionally is PKM. These two men seem to have a warm bond, which is nice to see. Exceptional, one might say.

 

[Stoked]

Forgive me my good liberal friend, but I definitely did not mean to suggest that discrimination was merely historical. It lives.


In an effort to do well by Stoked, I've reviewed many of his posts in this thread and in others in order to determine the "rule" of his engagements, and the "exception" of his engagements with franklin. I'm new here, and perhaps stoked's subtleties are beyond me, but the only person he seems to approach exceptionally is PKM. These two men seem to have a warm bond, which is nice to see. Exceptional, one might say.

haha.

I try to be approachable to almost everyone. I have no real problems with anyone here. Good to see you posting and I look forward to reading your future posts.

 

[Willie]

haha.

I try to be approachable to almost everyone. I have no real problems with anyone here. Good to see you posting and I look forward to reading your future posts.

My sense is that the directness of my style and the spiritual core of my messages will have little effect on you. But, still, I'm glad to hear you'll keep an eye out for my posts.

 

[Stoked]

My sense is that the directness of my style and the spiritual core of my messages will have little effect on you. But, still, I'm glad to hear you'll keep an eye out for my posts.

Lol, why?

Also does one have to be affected to be friendly and approachable? Believe it or not but I am fairly open to posts with a spiritual nature.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Perhaps this is part of the liberal blindness that [size/HUGE] fixed [/size] referred to, but I really don't care much about laying what happened in the past on anyone. The racism of the past is only relevant to the degree that it affects the racism of today.

If you want to see where racism "truly exists", try an experiment of your own. Take ten resumes, and post two copies of each to various job sites, identical except for their names. Assign a stereotypically white name to one, and a stereotypically black name to another. Make sure to identify their presumptive race on the EEOC forms. Count the number of responses these identical resumes receive from all the HR people all across the US. The only thing this exercise will cost you is time.

Take those results, multiple them by the differing treatment they get once they are employed, while in school, while driving, when applying for a loan, etc., and you will see where racism lives (that is, it is everywhere).

If you really want to see inside yourself, visit Project Implicit and take a few surveys. Don't answer so slowly that you invalidate the results, as another poster did.

You have completed the African American - European American IAT.
Your Result
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.

Thank you for your participation. Just below is a breakdown of the scores generated by others. Most respondents find it easier to associate African American with Bad and European American with Good compared to the reverse.
Race score distribution

Many of the questions that you answered on the previous page have been addressed in research over the last 10 years. For example, the order that you performed the response pairing is influential, but procedural corrections largely eliminate that influence (see FAQ #1). Each visitor to the site completes the task in a randomized order. If you would like to learn more about the IAT, please visit the FAQs and background information section.

When I get time I'll take more of them.

Take this with a grain of salt, I think it was skewed one way, but I might have to do it again to be sure. My first impression right after was that they put African American pictures then a "bad" word back to back more often than with a "good" word, and they put European American pictures then a "good" word more often than with a "bad" word following. It was fast though, so that was just an impression. I also think I messed up a couple of times, and those errors are why I got the result I got. I'm pretty sure I'm closer to right in the middle. *(maybe the quick mistakes are what they are going for though)

It is interesting how the larger percentages from this "survey" end up favoring European Americans, but am unsure if it has something to how they tie the words and pictures together. If they are 50/50 in how they split it up, and if they do another one where they first associate bad with European American pictures it might skew the results that way as people first learn to associate "bad" words with European American pictures and will keep that association when they start to change things up.

Basically I find it interesting, but find it leading and am not sure to what extent. Would like to see a second one with the change I mentioned and would like an even split on both of good and bad associated with the different pictures.

Thanks for the tip, btw.

Oh, just noticed the picture graph didn't show up in the quote. It showed 27% 27% 16% for strong, moderate, and slight white preference, 17% little to no preference, and 6% 4% 2% for slight moderate and strong preference towards blacks.