Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

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

I'm not smart enough to know. If you think so though, it must be true.
I'm sure deep down we are all mouthwash drinkers and don't even know it.
What's the best brand/type in your experience? If I'm going to do something I want to do it right.

From where do I recognize your tactic of trying to turn a position of weakness into a position of strength? Oh, right! It's from Christianity.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

From where do I recognize your tactic of trying to turn a position of weakness into a position of strength? Oh, right! It's from Christianity.

suspicious much?

 

[Willie]

From where do I recognize your tactic of trying to turn a position of weakness into a position of strength? Oh, right! It's from Christianity.

That's hitting a bit below the belt, I'd say. But you and Triangle Man seem to have some interesting subtext, so forgive me if I didn't understand an inside joke.

Besides, because Neitzsche said it, the notion that Christains are meek has been overplayed and widely misundersood. For both of these reasons, you'd probably be better served finding your own sense of things. That's what Zarathustra would have you do anyway.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

On what basis do you believe that these effects disappear above a certain income level?

People who are poor have issues combating prejudice. Demographics show those that identify as black are on a whole lower income than national average. Are some prejudices based on skin color or expected income level? Thus, when income level of an individual is known, and places him/her outside the common notion of "poor," then what level of discrimination is seen. I always see this as a socioeconomic issue.

 

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

suspicious much?

Remember that PM you sent me? Your resolution didn't last a single day, as far as I can tell. The first chance you had to play your schtick, you jumped for it. But, whatever, come at me as often as you need to.

 

[Stoked]

That's hitting a bit below the belt, I'd say. But you and Triangle Man seem to have some interesting subtext, so forgive me if I didn't understand an inside joke.

Besides, because Neitzsche said it, the notion that Christains are meek has been overplayed and widely misundersood. For both of these reasons, you'd probably be better served finding your own sense of things. That's what Zarathustra would have you do anyway.

I find you very intriguing. Keep posting.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Remember that PM you sent me? Your resolution didn't last a single day, as far as I can tell. The first chance you had to play your schtick, you jumped for it. But, whatever, come at me as often as you need to.

Oh, so by you responding to my post to someone else with "suspicious much" was you trying to have a serious conversation with me?

By all means if you want to have a serious convo I'll drop the schtick, but when you bring out your schtick I'm pretty sure it's legit for me to do the same to you.

Again with the one way streets. You live in NYC, San Fran, or Chicago or something? For some reason the bigger/more advanced the city, the more one way streets there are.

 

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

Oh, so by you responding to my post to someone else with "suspicious much" was you trying to have a serious conversation with me?

By all means if you want to have a serious convo I'll drop the schtick, but when you bring out your schtick I'm pretty sure it's legit for me to do the same to you.

Again with the one way streets. You live in NYC, San Fran, or Chicago or something? For some reason the bigger/more advanced the city, the more one way streets there are.

Dude, the record is pretty easy to access... because teh internet saves things... scroll back through the pages of this thread and you'll see one of us get unnecessarily (and unintentionally) provoked (hint: you) and you'll see the other one trying to engage the board in conversation.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Dude, the record is pretty easy to access... because teh internet saves things... scroll back through the pages of this thread and you'll see one of us get unnecessarily (and unintentionally) provoked (hint: you) and you'll see the other one trying to engage the board in conversation.

Always the other person eh? I'd say it's fairly even, but whatever bro.

If you want the last word, that's cool too. I won't respond to your next snappy comeback or blame game post.

Make it a good one though, I like to smile, it brightens my day.

 

[Willie]

Apparently I haven't missed an inside joke.

 

[RobDMB]

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?

My reaction was, in part, due to the way that I was piled on over several pages of posts by several posters. I made a couple stale attempts at being witty and was the recipient of at least a few derogatory remarks. I did not realize what I was igniting.

If you think that Kicky was "peaceable" I invite you to re-read his first two posts directed toward me in this thread. He was dismissive right from the start. How can we have any sort of meaningful exchange that way? I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I simply want to understand and be understood. If you respect my right to have an opinion I will gladly return that respect. I am open to learning more than I know, and I never claimed to be an expert on racism.

My initial intent posting in this thread was simply to comment on something I found to be bizarre, not to parade around any "white privilege". You ask me why I'm trying to defend something, but I'm not quite sure what you think I'm defending? Do you suppose that I am trying to defend being racist? If so, that was absolutely not my intent. I'm willing to discuss if I don't get piled on again.

 

[Hantlers]

From where do I recognize your tactic of trying to turn a position of weakness into a position of strength? Oh, right! It's from Christianity.

For such a tolerant person, you're quite hateful.

 

[One Brow]

Question for you on 5. Do you think babies are born racist, or is it learned?

I think babies are born with a reliance on the various shortcuts that lead to racism, but the racist beliefs that buttress racism are mostly learned. There have been studies that even very young babies show a preference for light skin, though.

 

[Stoked]

I think babies are born with a reliance on the various shortcuts that lead to racism, but the racist beliefs that buttress racism are mostly learned. There have been studies that even very young babies show a preference for light skin, though.

I wonder if society (American at least) is leading towards a preference for skin tones in the middle. The palest and darkest amoung us get mocked for their skin tone quiet heavily.

 

[One Brow]

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).

The quick mistakes are exactly what they are going for. I'm sure it's imperfect, but it's one way of reaching behind the conscious into the initial, habitual reactions. Supposedly, you make more mistakes tying together things you think are dissimilar than things you think are similar.

By the way, I'm impressed with the integrity of posting your results.

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.

The quick mistakes are exactly what they are going for. I'm sure it's imperfect, but it's one way of reaching behind the conscious into the initial, habitual reactions. Supposedly, you make more mistakes tying together things you think are dissimilar than things you think are similar.

I agree that the test should be done in a variety of ways, and I would never say one test like this reveals all there is too know about you. It's merely one data point in a life of data points.

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.

I don't remember my exact graph, but it was tilted very slightly to African Americans last time I took the test. By contrast, I took similar tests years ago, and I seem to be very biased against Hispanics and Native Americans. It's something I'm trying to work on.

 

[One Brow]

For #3 I'd go with:

3- racism can be an expression of a cultural and social structure. It can also be is just a bunch of individual actions.

Actions can be racist, but racism requires social support.

 

[Stoked]

Actions can be racist, but racism requires social support.

I disagree. Racism does not "need" social support. Social support clearly makes racism more damaging and deep though.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Actions can be racist, but racism requires social support.

I disagree. Racism does not "need" social support. Social support clearly makes racism more damaging and deep though.

So basically Stoked did a restate of #3 of the differences in the definition/understanding of racism.

Stoked feels you can have racism on an individual level as well as on a cultural/social level. OB feels racism can only be on a social/cultural level and that on an individual level it is not racism, but racist actions.

Can we agree that this is one point of disagreement?

 

[One Brow]

(maybe the quick mistakes are what they are going for though)

Here's an explanation from a different test:

Your score was described as 'preference for David compared to Michael' if you were faster responding when David and positive stimuli were assigned to the same response key than when giving the same response to the Michael and positive stimuli. Conversely, your score was described as 'preference for Michael compared to David' if you were faster responding when Michael and positive stimuli were assigned to the same key than when giving the same response to the David and positive stimuli. Depending on the magnitude of your speed difference for the two combination tasks, your automatic (implicit) preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference.'

I don't know if that applied to the first test.

 

[One Brow]

Just because someone wrote an essay does not automatically make their views reflective of the attitudes of our society.

There's a difference between "someone wrote an essay" and seeing essays on a regular basis.

However, perhaps you mean essays are not a sufficient response. What would be sufficient response?