Discussion:
Broken windows are not more important than broken necks.
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2015-04-29 13:37:26 UTC
Permalink
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/

Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.

http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/

https://instagram.com/p/2B2Mf6ne_4/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/greys-anatomy-star-in-heartfelt-twitter-essay-perfectly-shuts-down-baltimore-critics-tweets/


And finally:

https://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

"No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace." -- unknown

Read it all, or don't. But if you don't, then shut the FUCK up about that which you have no knowledge, because your ignorance is showing.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
2015-04-29 14:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
https://instagram.com/p/2B2Mf6ne_4/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/greys-anatomy-star-in-heartfelt-twitter-essay-perfectly-shuts-down-baltimore-critics-tweets/
https://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
"No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace." -- unknown
Read it all, or don't. But if you don't, then shut the FUCK up about that which you have no knowledge, because your ignorance is showing.
So you think looting and destroying businesses in your own neighborhood are legitimate forms of protest?

Doug
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-04-29 17:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
https://instagram.com/p/2B2Mf6ne_4/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/greys-anatomy-star-in-heartfelt-twitter-essay-perfectly-shuts-down-baltimore-critics-tweets/
https://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
"No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace." -- unknown
Read it all, or don't. But if you don't, then shut the FUCK up about that which you have no knowledge, because your ignorance is showing.
So you think looting and destroying businesses in your own neighborhood are legitimate forms of protest?
Not only that, it is a majority-black police department with
a black mayor and black police commissioner.

Perhaps young black men should live their lives with a goal of fewer
police transactions.
--
Give me a young man in whom there is something of the old,
and an old man with something of the young. -- Cicero
michael anderson
2015-04-29 17:34:18 UTC
Permalink
what's going on in Baltimore now is a problem completely confined to the black community. My guess is that they aren't looking for white conservatives to 'find solutions' for them. And so most won't. now if this spills over and starts affecting middle class neighborhoods and/or mixed race neighborhoods, then expect the hammer to be dropped.....but I don't see any indication of that happening so the African American community deserves to be able to figure this out themselves.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-04-29 21:22:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:22:02 -0500, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Perhaps young black men should live their lives with a goal of fewer
police transactions.
Now that right there is an "ouch".

Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-04-29 18:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
The adulterer made a memorable speech. But if blacks truly respected
him they would not resort to violence.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
The use of the term African-American applied solely to blacks is
ignorance if the purpose is to impress anyone.

But your position, and that of other blacks who think noise is the
same as intelligence, is misdirected. I don't know of anyone who
condones brutality when unjustified. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.

I am for superior talent winning - it upsets those with little or no
talent. And I never considered myself so weak that I required a gang
to help me achieve my goals
Post by a***@gmail.com
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
That should be a warning to liberals.

Hugh
Eric Ramon
2015-04-30 04:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
The adulterer made a memorable speech. But if blacks truly respected
him they would not resort to violence.
kind of freaky that you refer to Martin Luther King Jr like that. Do you always call David Vitter "the diaper wearer"?
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-04-30 12:36:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
The adulterer made a memorable speech. But if blacks truly respected
him they would not resort to violence.
kind of freaky that you refer to Martin Luther King Jr like that. Do you always call David Vitter "the diaper wearer"?
I don't know who Vitter is. King worshippers don't like honesty. Like
all men, he had a chink in his armor. But it was not speech-making.

Hugh
Eric Ramon
2015-04-29 19:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-29 20:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Eric Ramon
2015-04-30 00:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
sure do. That's why I hate dailyKos
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-30 10:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
sure do. That's why I hate dailyKos
That was exceptionally well played, good sir
a***@gmail.com
2015-04-30 03:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-30 10:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
a***@gmail.com
2015-04-30 13:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-30 14:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
Ken Olson
2015-04-30 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
I like your A B C.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-30 17:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Olson
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
I like your A B C.
pervert
Ken Olson
2015-04-30 17:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Ken Olson
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
I like your A B C.
pervert
Only on days that end in a "y". ;)
a***@gmail.com
2015-04-30 20:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
See below.
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
You already have. It's not new to me.
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
When, in a thread with only five responses, and four of them are borderline if not flat-out racist, you ignore them to willingly and with gusto snap at bait with more than a bit of truth to it? Yes.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-04-30 20:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
See below.
Did you expect me to answer your post and were disappointed that I didn't?
Post by a***@gmail.com
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
You already have. It's not new to me.
see below
Post by a***@gmail.com
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
When, in a thread with only five responses, and four of them are borderline if not flat-out racist, you ignore them to willingly and with gusto snap at bait with more than a bit of truth to it? Yes.
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them. I notice no one else answered Doug or Con - including yourself - and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things - just as I considered the various links you posted. I chose to answer Eric b/c I like his angles on things and make it a point to answer him and Josh and X - and you - quite frequently - b/c I think you all have earned it.

So.............................................

Either everyone else deserves your scorn - or your snarky post directed *personally* at me is in reality a compliment in that you hold me to higher standards.

Personally, I've interacted enough with you enough over the years to have assumed the latter when you posted -and if you'd like my take on your OP - feel free to ask - you know I'll give you a listen.

However, if not -if you wish to assume that I'm some racist cracker-ass honky b/c I didn't respond to people I normally don't respond to - well, that's your choice and your perogative.

Your call, Dre.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-01 15:55:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:38:56 -0700 (PDT), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia
My supply of Gold Stars is on back order. Surely you will understand
the delay in the award.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-02 14:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
You DO realize this works in all directions, yes?
Out of everything posted in this thread, *that's* the thing you take exception to??? Jesus.
Thank you for the compliment
It wasn't. Thanks for letting me know where you *really* stand.
A) Why wasn't it? Did you expect me to take exception to your post?
See below.
Did you expect me to answer your post and were disappointed that I didn't?
Not really, and not really, no.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
B) You can make assumptions if you wish about where I stand - but don't climb up my ass if I make assumptions about you.
You already have. It's not new to me.
see below
Post by a***@gmail.com
C) My not replying to every single post in every single thread is somehow tacit approval of a non-replied to post?
When, in a thread with only five responses, and four of them are borderline if not flat-out racist, you ignore them to willingly and with gusto snap at bait with more than a bit of truth to it? Yes.
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I notice no one else answered Doug or Con - including yourself
You're right; my entire life should revolve around THCR.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things -
The fuck they did. They just spewed more racist garbage that polite company has heard so much it doesn't even register as racist anymore.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
just as I considered the various links you posted. I chose to answer Eric b/c I like his angles on things and make it a point to answer him and Josh and X - and you - quite frequently - b/c I think you all have earned it.
By challenging him? (In fact, had you not responded to the thread at all I wouldn't even have been upset by it. Well, until the next time you or someone else weighed in on the "race card", Affirmative Action, or some other thing that some white folk feel--laughably--oppressed by.)
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So.............................................
Either everyone else deserves your scorn - or your snarky post directed *personally* at me is in reality a compliment in that you hold me to higher standards.
The latter.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Personally, I've interacted enough with you enough over the years to have assumed the latter when you posted -and if you'd like my take on your OP - feel free to ask - you know I'll give you a listen.
However, if not -if you wish to assume that I'm some racist cracker-ass honky b/c I didn't respond to people I normally don't respond to - well, that's your choice and your perogative.
Your call, Dre.
Not really. I'm in the decided minority in here.

I leave you with this thought from MLK, because it echoes how I'm seriously beginning to feel.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-03 00:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Did you expect me to answer your post and were disappointed that I didn't?
Not really, and not really, no.
Fair enough
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things -
The fuck they did. They just spewed more racist garbage that polite company has heard so much it doesn't even register as racist anymore.
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
just as I considered the various links you posted. I chose to answer Eric b/c I like his angles on things and make it a point to answer him and Josh and X - and you - quite frequently - b/c I think you all have earned it.
By challenging him? (In fact, had you not responded to the thread at all I wouldn't even have been upset by it. Well, until the next time you or someone else weighed in on the "race card", Affirmative Action, or some other thing that some white folk feel--laughably--oppressed by.)
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.

Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So.............................................
Either everyone else deserves your scorn - or your snarky post directed *personally* at me is in reality a compliment in that you hold me to higher standards.
The latter.
And back we are to "thank you for the compliment"
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Personally, I've interacted enough with you enough over the years to have assumed the latter when you posted -and if you'd like my take on your OP - feel free to ask - you know I'll give you a listen.
However, if not -if you wish to assume that I'm some racist cracker-ass honky b/c I didn't respond to people I normally don't respond to - well, that's your choice and your perogative.
Your call, Dre.
Not really. I'm in the decided minority in here.
You are the majority of yourself and you certainly have free will. I'm heartened by this response b/c it indicates to me you'd like to continue interacting - awesome.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I leave you with this thought from MLK, because it echoes how I'm seriously beginning to feel.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Honestly, this above is a very large part of why I didn't respond to your OP - wtf can I truly add? My mom was a hippie - thus the poverty - and we experienced a great deal of discrimination because of that - and yet, I've never been "black" and I recognize that - I will never experience what so many have and do - and what you speak of. In addition, growing up, Indians and Mexicans were the "scorned" minority in California - so my views of "racism" are colored and broadened by those experiences as well.

So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.

Fuck that. To give or receive.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Eric Ramon
2015-05-03 00:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things -
The fuck they did. They just spewed more racist garbage that polite company has heard so much it doesn't even register as racist anymore.
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
wellllllll....in my opinion they do. mia skirts around it but the intent is clear. Hugh....Hugh seems to think it's 1936. There are some here who are angry at black people and look for ways to be patronizing and critical. I think that's obvious.
michael anderson
2015-05-03 02:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Eric, I can only guess you must be projecting here because there has never been anything in my words(here or in real life) that borders on such a thing. I can't speak for Hugh, and as a person I certainly have my faults, but I've always tried to treat all races as equal and strongly believe in that principle.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-03 02:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things -
The fuck they did. They just spewed more racist garbage that polite company has heard so much it doesn't even register as racist anymore.
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
wellllllll....in my opinion they do. mia skirts around it but the intent is clear. Hugh....Hugh seems to think it's 1936. There are some here who are angry at black people and look for ways to be patronizing and critical. I think that's obvious.
I meant Doug and Con's first posts in this thread - sorry if that wasn't particularly clear.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-03 13:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 May 2015 17:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
Post by Eric Ramon
wellllllll....in my opinion they do. mia skirts around it but the intent is clear.
If you didn't write it all you have is an opinion.
Post by Eric Ramon
Hugh....Hugh seems to think it's 1936.
I know what year it is. We were once a great country with more happy
people. Every day now is "let's get ready to rumble".
Post by Eric Ramon
There are some here who are angry at black people and look for ways to be patronizing and critical. I think that's obvious.
And some are honest when they point out the problems in a manner that
less than honest people think are patronizing.

Critical? I agree. If there were no faults divorce and criticism would
be unnecessary.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-03 14:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Did you expect me to answer your post and were disappointed that I didn't?
Not really, and not really, no.
Fair enough
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Case in point. Faceless SJWs aren't a threat to my well-being. Or that of my young cousins and nieces and nephews.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- and they both raised points worth considering in the larger context of things -
The fuck they did. They just spewed more racist garbage that polite company has heard so much it doesn't even register as racist anymore.
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
If you ever stopped to think about it, you'd laugh at that sentence.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
just as I considered the various links you posted. I chose to answer Eric b/c I like his angles on things and make it a point to answer him and Josh and X - and you - quite frequently - b/c I think you all have earned it.
By challenging him? (In fact, had you not responded to the thread at all I wouldn't even have been upset by it. Well, until the next time you or someone else weighed in on the "race card", Affirmative Action, or some other thing that some white folk feel--laughably--oppressed by.)
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.
No. You tried to turn it into a "Both sides are the same" situation.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Were you a minority? Were you a *visible* minority? Were you viewed with suspicion whereever you went, no matter how you were dressed or behaved, just because of the color of your skin? Were you inundated with negative stereotypes about people who looked like you? Were your parents or grandparents forced to step off the sidewalk and keep their eyes averted--not by force, by *custom*--when white people passed? "Poor" is an easily hidden situation. "Visible minority" is not.

What about the fact that I initially grew up as *working class* and experienced all these things? When my parents separated and we became officially poor, that just made it *worse*.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So.............................................
Either everyone else deserves your scorn - or your snarky post directed *personally* at me is in reality a compliment in that you hold me to higher standards.
The latter.
And back we are to "thank you for the compliment"
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Personally, I've interacted enough with you enough over the years to have assumed the latter when you posted -and if you'd like my take on your OP - feel free to ask - you know I'll give you a listen.
However, if not -if you wish to assume that I'm some racist cracker-ass honky b/c I didn't respond to people I normally don't respond to - well, that's your choice and your perogative.
Your call, Dre.
Not really. I'm in the decided minority in here.
You are the majority of yourself and you certainly have free will.
I'm in a minority of people who think blaming the victim is ridiculous, to say nothing of being in a minority of people who actually know what it's like to *be* a minority in this country.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm heartened by this response b/c it indicates to me you'd like to continue interacting - awesome.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I leave you with this thought from MLK, because it echoes how I'm seriously beginning to feel.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Honestly, this above is a very large part of why I didn't respond to your OP - wtf can I truly add? My mom was a hippie - thus the poverty - and we experienced a great deal of discrimination because of that - and yet, I've never been "black" and I recognize that - I will never experience what so many have and do - and what you speak of. In addition, growing up, Indians and Mexicans were the "scorned" minority in California - so my views of "racism" are colored and broadened by those experiences as well.
But you don't face that discrimination *now*. And growing up around Indians and Mexicans should have made it *easier* for you to detect the racism surrounding the treatment of black people, since it wasn't your default environment.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
Yeah, fuck that too. That's still racism repackaged as concern trolling. You still haven't acknowledge the root causes; you're just blaming the victim in a different manner.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-04 00:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Case in point. Faceless SJWs aren't a threat to my well-being. Or that of my young cousins and nieces and nephews.
=
Goal posts moved to a different zip code - somehow we've moved past you wondering why I didn't do something I normally don't do to something else
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
If you ever stopped to think about it, you'd laugh at that sentence.
Wow - was that supposed to be as insulting as I'm reading it?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.
No. You tried to turn it into a "Both sides are the same" situation.
Both sides are far more similar than they care to admit.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Were you a minority? Were you a *visible* minority? Were you viewed with suspicion whereever you went, no matter how you were dressed or behaved, just because of the color of your skin? Were you inundated with negative stereotypes about people who looked like you? Were your parents or grandparents forced to step off the sidewalk and keep their eyes averted--not by force, by *custom*--when white people passed? "Poor" is an easily hidden situation. "Visible minority" is not.
Ever been followed around a house by someone holding a can of Lysol? And yeah - we were followed around stores - among many, many other experiences. And yes, skin color makes it easier to be accepted later on - but don't pretend I have no experience with being slighted. I'm not claiming to match yours - just as your not claiming to match mine. Poverty is poverty - and that's what I was talkin' 'bout
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Not really. I'm in the decided minority in here.
You are the majority of yourself and you certainly have free will.
I'm in a minority of people who think blaming the victim is ridiculous, to say nothing of being in a minority of people who actually know what it's like to *be* a minority in this country.
My comment was directed at your personal self - rather than some image I might have of you as a black man - I'm not that condescending.

FWIW, I agree with your desire to not blame the victim - otoh, I'm also not a fan of choosing to live as a perpetual victim.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Honestly, this above is a very large part of why I didn't respond to your OP - wtf can I truly add? My mom was a hippie - thus the poverty - and we experienced a great deal of discrimination because of that - and yet, I've never been "black" and I recognize that - I will never experience what so many have and do - and what you speak of. In addition, growing up, Indians and Mexicans were the "scorned" minority in California - so my views of "racism" are colored and broadened by those experiences as well.
But you don't face that discrimination *now*. And growing up around Indians and Mexicans should have made it *easier* for you to detect the racism surrounding the treatment of black people, since it wasn't your default environment.
Yes - and this is also why, whenever we have these talks, I include and broaden the base of discrimination to include other groups - apparently to your dismay - but I may be misreading you.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
Yeah, fuck that too. That's still racism repackaged as concern trolling. You still haven't acknowledge the root causes; you're just blaming the victim in a different manner.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.

White man's burden, right?

Only if I allow it to be.

I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously. And if I'm continually accused by being a racist regardless of what I do.....what's the point?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-04 11:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously.
And if I'm continually accused by being a racist regardless of what I
do.....what's the point?
Yup. That's the state of things.

The great part of hope and change is all the racial healing....
--
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks
to the Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensky
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-05-04 11:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.
White man's burden, right?
Only if I allow it to be.
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously. And if I'm continually accused by being a racist regardless of what I do.....what's the point?
Reminds me of Reparations, Inc.--The last thing they want to do is fix a dollar amount to their demands, because once resolved, their power, such as it is, would disappear.

They'd rather perpetuate their 'grievances' than cede power, meanwhile you can guess who is really affected, and whose back is being tromped on.

(Personally, I think that 22T USD AKA the "War On Poverty" is good enough.)
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-04 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.
White man's burden, right?
Only if I allow it to be.
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously. And if I'm continually accused by being a racist regardless of what I do.....what's the point?
Reminds me of Reparations, Inc.--The last thing they want to do is fix a dollar amount to their demands, because once resolved, their power, such as it is, would disappear.
What *power*? We can't even get *RACISM* to disappear!
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
They'd rather perpetuate their 'grievances' than cede power, meanwhile you can guess who is really affected, and whose back is being tromped on.
Yes, those poor, oppressed white men, who have to be shamed into giving back *some* of that undeserved power they acquired over the centuries. Don't pity the people they stepped on all these years, pity *them* instead!
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
(Personally, I think that 22T USD AKA the "War On Poverty" is good enough.)
It was a good first step--before it got gutted.

If you're even remotely serious about this subject, you need to read this article. (It probably won't change your mind, but then again, hell might actually freeze over.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-04 13:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Case in point. Faceless SJWs aren't a threat to my well-being. Or that of my young cousins and nieces and nephews.
=
Goal posts moved to a different zip code - somehow we've moved past you wondering why I didn't do something I normally don't do to something else
Not really. It's part of my larger point.

You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
In your opinion - in mine, they raised point worth considering.
If you ever stopped to think about it, you'd laugh at that sentence.
Wow - was that supposed to be as insulting as I'm reading it?
Not nearly as insulting as the strong implication that anything raised by either of those posters in this thread was worthy of considering.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.
No. You tried to turn it into a "Both sides are the same" situation.
Both sides are far more similar than they care to admit.
You are not in a position to make that argument. You're far too invested in that equivocation, because it keeps you feeling safe about your current inaction.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Were you a minority? Were you a *visible* minority? Were you viewed with suspicion whereever you went, no matter how you were dressed or behaved, just because of the color of your skin? Were you inundated with negative stereotypes about people who looked like you? Were your parents or grandparents forced to step off the sidewalk and keep their eyes averted--not by force, by *custom*--when white people passed? "Poor" is an easily hidden situation. "Visible minority" is not.
Ever been followed around a house by someone holding a can of Lysol?
I can beat that. I've been banned from visiting a house because someone found out I was black.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yeah - we were followed around stores - among many, many other experiences.
Then you have a small inkling of what it's like.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yes, skin color makes it easier to be accepted later on - but don't pretend I have no experience with being slighted.
I didn't. I said you were able to ESCAPE being slighted.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm not claiming to match yours - just as your not claiming to match mine.
Actually, you are. You keep trying to diminish what I'm saying by retorting "Well I had it bad too!" I'm sure you did, but touting your own travails when someone else complains means you AREN'T LISTENING. You're making it about YOU.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Poverty is poverty - and that's what I was talkin' 'bout
There's poverty, and then there's racism. There can be plenty of overlap, but poverty + racism is rarely going to be the same experience as plain ol' poverty.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Not really. I'm in the decided minority in here.
You are the majority of yourself and you certainly have free will.
I'm in a minority of people who think blaming the victim is ridiculous, to say nothing of being in a minority of people who actually know what it's like to *be* a minority in this country.
My comment was directed at your personal self - rather than some image I might have of you as a black man - I'm not that condescending.
That's great. Irrelevant, but great.

The fact remains that when the subject of race comes up, there are a bunch of mostly conservative white guys on here clucking their tongues and sitting in judgement, and yet most of you have never truly experienced any real racism, and you *certainly* have never dealt with the day-to-day grind of racism against you IN THE COUNTRY YOU WERE BORN TO.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I agree with your desire to not blame the victim -
Lip service.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
otoh, I'm also not a fan of choosing to live as a perpetual victim.
And that's why.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Honestly, this above is a very large part of why I didn't respond to your OP - wtf can I truly add? My mom was a hippie - thus the poverty - and we experienced a great deal of discrimination because of that - and yet, I've never been "black" and I recognize that - I will never experience what so many have and do - and what you speak of. In addition, growing up, Indians and Mexicans were the "scorned" minority in California - so my views of "racism" are colored and broadened by those experiences as well.
But you don't face that discrimination *now*. And growing up around Indians and Mexicans should have made it *easier* for you to detect the racism surrounding the treatment of black people, since it wasn't your default environment.
Yes - and this is also why, whenever we have these talks, I include and broaden the base of discrimination to include other groups - apparently to your dismay - but I may be misreading you.
If you're misreading me, it's only because your kitchen sink approach is not always appropriate--or because you tried to use the Model Minority approach to dismissing whatever point I'm trying to make.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
Yeah, fuck that too. That's still racism repackaged as concern trolling. You still haven't acknowledge the root causes; you're just blaming the victim in a different manner.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
What have you *done*? I know what I *haven't* seen you do--I *haven't* seen you acknowledge that racism is a real problem, that affects real people, and when real people feel they have no other recourse, they protest. They riot. They revolt.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations
So it's worse paternalism to acknowledge that minorities start with a disadvantage than it is to pretend such a disadvantage is minimal or doesn't exist? Really?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- the assumption of failure and lesser abilities,
Right, because acknowledging an uneven playing field and that minorities need help means that *all* failure is racism-related and that of *course* if they need help, the only answer is that their abilities must be lessened.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
And here, again, you make the same baseless assumptions. Damned if you do? The only thing you've *done* is regurgitate the same old racist tropes against minority assistance.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
White man's burden, right?
If you actually believe that, my respect for you will be dropping to zero.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Only if I allow it to be.
Jesus.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously.
No, you're not.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And if I'm continually accused by being a racist regardless of what I do.....what's the point?
Indeed. What's the point of facts and statistics showing an unlevel playing field if all you're going to do is cluck your tongue in commiseration, then promptly continue to blame the victim for circumstances that are obviously heavily impacted by that?

When I point out that a black man with a clean record has the same chances at landing a job as a white man with a felony conviction, is that the White Man's Burden? Is that the "soft bigotry of low expectations"? What about the fact that a black person has to complete some college coursework to statistically match a white high school dropout, is that just us black folk playing the victim?

The internet is *LITTERED* with such studies. Black children, particularly black boys, are consistently seen as older and more mature than they really are. Black people are more likely to be viewed with suspicion and distrust because of the black criminal stereotype--REGARDLESS of social standing, but you come at me with when you were a poor kid as if it's the same thing? And should we talk about the near-countless number of unarmed black men who've been brutalized, shot, and/or killed by police just this *year*? Most of whom, I'll add, weren't even doing anything particularly arrest-worthy?

I could go on and on and on and ON, but does any of it sink it? The unemployment rate of black America is regularly twice that of white America, I guess you're going to tell me--in spite of the study that shows black-sounding names are 50% *less* likely to get call-backs than white-sounding names--that laziness, poor attitudes about education, or a lack of willpower (all racist tropes dating back to slavery, I might add) are the problem?

What does it *take* for you to understand the amount of bullshit minorities go through EVERY. SINGLE. DAY? What has to be said or done before you and millions of other white Americans stop brushing aside our cries for help? How many more of us have to die or suffer indignities before you stop quoting MLK at us and actually make an effort to understand what we're actually going through?

If being accused of being a racist is the worst thing that happens to you in these conversations, you're miles ahead of me. I've been accused of victim mentality, had my achievements questioned as if I were handed them through Affirmative Action, had my own personal pain dismissed as irrelevant, and yes, I've been accused of being the "real racist". For getting upset at people who think blaming the victims of racism is a perfectly legitimate way to *end* said racism.

So you'll have to forgive me if I have no tears to shed for your tender sensibilities.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-04 16:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Case in point. Faceless SJWs aren't a threat to my well-being. Or that of my young cousins and nieces and nephews.
=
Goal posts moved to a different zip code - somehow we've moved past you wondering why I didn't do something I normally don't do to something else
Not really. It's part of my larger point.
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Wow - was that supposed to be as insulting as I'm reading it?
Not nearly as insulting as the strong implication that anything raised by either of those posters in this thread was worthy of considering.
To you, apparently not - to me they were. Shrug
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.
No. You tried to turn it into a "Both sides are the same" situation.
Both sides are far more similar than they care to admit.
You are not in a position to make that argument. You're far too invested in that equivocation, because it keeps you feeling safe about your current inaction.
Um.....no. I'm absolutely in a position to make whatever argument I wish - and for whatever reason I wish. Eric's response was perfect - it was a great combination of humor and being spot-on.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Were you a minority? Were you a *visible* minority? Were you viewed with suspicion whereever you went, no matter how you were dressed or behaved, just because of the color of your skin? Were you inundated with negative stereotypes about people who looked like you? Were your parents or grandparents forced to step off the sidewalk and keep their eyes averted--not by force, by *custom*--when white people passed? "Poor" is an easily hidden situation. "Visible minority" is not.
Ever been followed around a house by someone holding a can of Lysol?
I can beat that. I've been banned from visiting a house because someone found out I was black.
I can match that with not being welcomed in friends' houses b/c I was a dirty hippie kid.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yeah - we were followed around stores - among many, many other experiences.
Then you have a small inkling of what it's like.
Yep - and I'm fully aware that it's not a universal experience - I've never pretended otherwise.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yes, skin color makes it easier to be accepted later on - but don't pretend I have no experience with being slighted.
I didn't. I said you were able to ESCAPE being slighted.
Yep - and that IS a difference for white ethnics like hippies or the Irish as opposed to minorities with differing colors of skin be it black, brown or yellow.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm not claiming to match yours - just as your not claiming to match mine.
Actually, you are. You keep trying to diminish what I'm saying by retorting "Well I had it bad too!" I'm sure you did, but touting your own travails when someone else complains means you AREN'T LISTENING. You're making it about YOU.
See directly below
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Poverty is poverty - and that's what I was talkin' 'bout
There's poverty, and then there's racism. There can be plenty of overlap, but poverty + racism is rarely going to be the same experience as plain ol' poverty.
Remember, this subthread came about b/c I specifically asked about *poverty* - you said I should shut my mouth about issues of race b/c I'm white, so I asked was it okay if I talked about poverty b/c I had been poor - I laid out what I did so you could understand that yeah, I do have some experience there.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
My comment was directed at your personal self - rather than some image I might have of you as a black man - I'm not that condescending.
That's great. Irrelevant, but great.
Bueno
Post by a***@gmail.com
The fact remains that when the subject of race comes up, there are a bunch of mostly conservative white guys on here clucking their tongues and sitting in judgement, and yet most of you have never truly experienced any real racism, and you *certainly* have never dealt with the day-to-day grind of racism against you IN THE COUNTRY YOU WERE BORN TO.
You're absolutely correct - and we're also part of discussion whether we like it or not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
Yeah, fuck that too. That's still racism repackaged as concern trolling. You still haven't acknowledge the root causes; you're just blaming the victim in a different manner.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
What have you *done*? I know what I *haven't* seen you do--I *haven't* seen you acknowledge that racism is a real problem, that affects real people, and when real people feel they have no other recourse, they protest. They riot. They revolt.
Either you don't read much of my stuff, I don't write clearly enough or what I do write isn't to your satisfaction - or some combination thereof.

If you're specifically talking about rioting tho - then it's likely you're not going to see me agree - not sure if you saw my post blasting the Mayday demonstrators in Seattle and Portland.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations
So it's worse paternalism to acknowledge that minorities start with a disadvantage than it is to pretend such a disadvantage is minimal or doesn't exist? Really?
You're assuming I don't recognize or acknowledge this - I do. Not sure why you think otherwise - so let me very, very clear - racism exists and it sucks and it creates barriers many cannot overcome.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- the assumption of failure and lesser abilities,
Right, because acknowledging an uneven playing field and that minorities need help means that *all* failure is racism-related and that of *course* if they need help, the only answer is that their abilities must be lessened.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
And here, again, you make the same baseless assumptions. Damned if you do? The only thing you've *done* is regurgitate the same old racist tropes against minority assistance.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
White man's burden, right?
If you actually believe that, my respect for you will be dropping to zero.
Head:bang:desk - I mocking myself here...was it that unclear? An "oh woe is me b/c this whole racism thing is sooooooooo hard for me as a poor widdle white man!1!!!1!"?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Only if I allow it to be.
Jesus.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously.
No, you're not.
Allllllllllllllllllrighty then. Guess there's no point in replying to the rest of your post. Think you might have been pleasantly surprised.

Have a nice day - I'm out. Take care.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-04 16:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Allllllllllllllllllrighty then. Guess there's no point in replying to
the rest of your post. Think you might have been pleasantly surprised.
Have a nice day - I'm out. Take care.
They're not interested in a conversation on race. They are interested
in you listening while they lecture you. (You might be allowed to
participate on a level of self-flagellation.)
--
{((>:o}~ <<<<Oh look!!! An idolatrous image of the prophet!!! Surely
we must now avenge this blasphemy by burning down the world!!!
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-05-04 16:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
They're not interested in a conversation on race. They are interested
in you listening while they lecture you. (You might be allowed to
participate on a level of self-flagellation.)
Bingo.
michael anderson
2015-05-04 17:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Allllllllllllllllllrighty then. Guess there's no point in replying to
the rest of your post. Think you might have been pleasantly surprised.
Have a nice day - I'm out. Take care.
They're not interested in a conversation on race. They are interested
in you listening while they lecture you. (You might be allowed to
participate on a level of self-flagellation.)
which is why the best strategy is to just ignore completely race mongers/racists....by even engaging them in conversation you've already lost.
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-04 19:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Allllllllllllllllllrighty then. Guess there's no point in replying to
the rest of your post. Think you might have been pleasantly surprised.
Have a nice day - I'm out. Take care.
They're not interested in a conversation on race.
Who is this monolithic "they" you're referring to? Do you mean those black folk who are tired of being told that black poverty rates, black incarceration rates, and black unemployment rates are of their own making? Because that's not and never was a conversation.
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
They are interested
in you listening while they lecture you.
Physician, heal thyself.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-04 17:09:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 May 2015 09:38:20 -0700 (PDT), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out w=
hy. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyo=
ne else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsew=
here - I ignore their posts
You have my vote for the resident ignorant.

Hugh
Eric Ramon
2015-05-04 17:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.

I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.

Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.

I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)

Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.

I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-04 17:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
Pretty sure you realize the only reason I mentioned you here, was all this started b/c I replied to a post of yours and that I'm not singling you out - yes?
Post by Eric Ramon
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
well said
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-04 19:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.

And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-04 19:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.
I'm the flipside - b/c I don't live this like you do, I'm too dispassionate and absolutely broaden it to where I can grok it - and it quite likely reads that way and comes off cold and rude. Thanks to Eric for nailing this.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-05-04 19:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
+1
Ken Olson
2015-05-04 20:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.
I'm the flipside - b/c I don't live this like you do, I'm too dispassionate and absolutely broaden it to where I can grok it - and it quite likely reads that way and comes off cold and rude. Thanks to Eric for nailing this.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
I think you hit it very well here. I recognize problems, but there's
little that I look at emotionally. I had to train myself to do that
with most things to be able to do my job. I just look for solutions
where I can affect them.

I don't drink alcohol any more, but I'd be more than happy to buy a beer
for any of you and drink diet pop myself while we hash things around.

Ken
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-04 20:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Olson
I don't drink alcohol any more, but I'd be more than happy to buy a beer
for any of you and drink diet pop myself while we hash things around.
Ken
I have Coke Zero in the ice box if you get a round tuit.

Hugh
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-05-04 21:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by Ken Olson
I don't drink alcohol any more, but I'd be more than happy to buy a beer
for any of you and drink diet pop myself while we hash things around.
Ken
I have Coke Zero in the ice box if you get a round tuit.
Hugh
WHOM DO I HAZ TO RSFCK TO GET A DIET BARQ'S IN THIS HERE CHARRUUM?
Ken Olson
2015-05-05 04:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by Ken Olson
I don't drink alcohol any more, but I'd be more than happy to buy a beer
for any of you and drink diet pop myself while we hash things around.
Ken
I have Coke Zero in the ice box if you get a round tuit.
Hugh
WHOM DO I HAZ TO RSFCK TO GET A DIET BARQ'S IN THIS HERE CHARRUUM?
Diet Barq's is good-ass route bier.
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-05 14:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Olson
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.
I'm the flipside - b/c I don't live this like you do, I'm too dispassionate and absolutely broaden it to where I can grok it - and it quite likely reads that way and comes off cold and rude. Thanks to Eric for nailing this.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
I think you hit it very well here. I recognize problems, but there's
little that I look at emotionally. I had to train myself to do that
with most things to be able to do my job. I just look for solutions
where I can affect them.
I don't drink alcohol any more, but I'd be more than happy to buy a beer
for any of you and drink diet pop myself while we hash things around.
Pop? My man.

(My wife keeps trying to convert me to saying "soda".)
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-05 14:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.
I'm the flipside - b/c I don't live this like you do, I'm too dispassionate and absolutely broaden it to where I can grok it - and it quite likely reads that way and comes off cold and rude. Thanks to Eric for nailing this.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
Cool. There's a possibility I'll be in Wisconsin this summer, but I don't know what city yet. I'll let you know!
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
2015-05-05 14:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of "Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us "crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm stating the obvious.
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same. Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now, giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it (although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *highly* emotional issue for me. It's one thing when people you don't know casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people. It's quite another when people you *do* know, people who you think should *know* better, when those people start repeating the same negative things. I've ignored a large part of it--I think I've been called a racist, by name, ITHCR at least once over the last six months and I didn't even respond, even though a couple of other regulars co-signed like a choir backing up a preacher. But sometimes when I peek in, the circlejerking is just too rampant.
I'm the flipside - b/c I don't live this like you do, I'm too dispassionate and absolutely broaden it to where I can grok it - and it quite likely reads that way and comes off cold and rude. Thanks to Eric for nailing this.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
The only appropriate response I can think of here is this: I'd totally have beers with you.
Cool. There's a possibility I'll be in Wisconsin this summer, but I don't know what city yet. I'll let you know!
Madison in the summertime is why we put up with winter - lemme know!
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-06 13:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Paternalism can result from attempts to help. I hired blacks, I
coached mostly blacks, I loaned money that I never expected to get
back. That's probably paternalism.
No. It's not.
I'm in shock.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
People not having kids out =
of wedlock is a great idea, but it's not going to solve the main problem. =
And in the case of black people having kids out of wedlock, black fathers a=
re statistically *more* likely to be involved in their kids lives than fath=
ers from other racial groupings anyway. That flies in the face of popular =
stereotypes about black fathers, though, so most people don't realize.
It's not just that. It's absentee dads,
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
women with multiple bastards
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
on ADC. That's part of the problem but no part of the soultion -
BASED ON WHAT STATISTICS?
No one is so blind as those who refuse to see. My fact is what I see.
Stats are for those who can't see.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
people must WANT to do better. And the facts I see indicate that
blacks are disproportionally a big part of that problem.
WHAT FACTS?!? You think the average African American is an absentee father or a woman with children by multiple men, and on ADC? (HUGE HINT: HELL. NO.)
I don't know about the average. I know African American is a
meaningless term since according to science we all are. They must not
be the ones on welfare or making the police reports.
Post by a***@gmail.com
In 2012, African Americans made up 22% of the poor, and received a paltry 14% of government benefits. White non-Hispanics, OTOH, made up 42% of the poor, yet received 69% of government benefits.
Here is a fact for you - we have had more than one black lady work for
us who could only receive a certain amount of pay or she would lose
her benefits. They have actually quit working to get the freebies. You
obviously refuse to see that. Facts, not stats.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I think the athletes at Bama believe in God and give Him thanks.
So?
It's a good feeling when a black thanks God for his opportunities and,
IMO, shames whites who don't. Public prayer to get attention is a
no-no but thanking God isn't.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Whites are really made to look bad in that respect. Did you think I
haven't noticed? At the same time they have committed all the
infractions post-Saban.
The fact that you think this has any relevance as a predictor on my or any other black person's behavior is telling.
The fact that you don't is even more telling - unfortunately. Now you
don't even believe in stats. You are predictable in that you are not
looking for solutions you are looking for someone else to blame.
Post by a***@gmail.com
And disgusting.
The truth often is.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Have you never heard of the term "confirmation bias"?
Nope.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Do you think I don't understand that? It has to be a recognition of
the causes and a universal effort to better. Throwing money at the
problem and looking the other way doesn't solve anything. But talking
calmly to a black kid for throwing his helmet in a youth football game
prevented him from throwing it in a major high school game. I saw it
and he told me so. But one-on-one ain't gonna cut the mustard unless
it's gazillions of them.
Again, you're looking in the wrong direction for the problem. And that's a *BIG* problem.
I KNOW the problems and the causes - I'm looking for solutions.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I have not seen that here any more than you have seen it from me. We
have not gotten to the point where we can talk - we're just throwing
rocks at each other.
One of us wouldn't be throwing rocks if the other would stop grabbing rocks from the pile labeled "Shit that wasn't acceptable even 60 years ago".
I probably have more rocks than you have and certainly more time to
throw them even though there is no profit in either. And it's so
apparent that your interest lies solely in casting blame. I'm having
difficulty trying to think of something more unproductive than that.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a biggie for me: Why do you keep throwing Dr. King in my face when =
you have no intention of acknowledging the rest of his words? When you kee=
p bring up his adultery as if I somehow have him on a pedestal wearing a ha=
lo?
I don't know the rest of his words.
I don't believe you.
That's your problem. I had rather be in someone's face than lie to
them. I'm surpirised at your lack of awareness.
Post by a***@gmail.com
So you feel the need to bring up an (entirely irrelevant, I might add) character flaw because...why? You don't want to have to argue against the words?
I don't argue very much. I tell it like it is and those that hear can
like it or lump it. I'm not into personality contests.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or should we just acknowledge that Dr. King=
understood that sometimes, when conditions become unbearable, riots are go=
ing to happen?
I know that without the help of the man.
Could have fooled me.
Then you are the fool.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
One solution I recommend is for recipients of unearned welfare to be
required to do something to earn it. Pick up the trash by highways -
do animal surveys.
Or we could move able-bodied folk off welfare onto those work rolls, and pay them a living wage. Two birds, one stone.
I have discussed living wage. Less than $5,000 per year was such in
the 50s. But socialists kept boosting the minimum while I got more and
the gap only widened. In 65 years the imbeciles have not been
convinced.

Obama generates legislation to import more people to work for low
wages who put more of your "living wage" people on welfare. And his
supporters are too ignorant to see that.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars.
Only if the work provided does not benefit private employers.
I agree completely - I would even insist. Help underfunded communities
and charities. You might say welfare work for welfare pay.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Tie the tubes of
women with multiple absentee dads on ADC. There are probably better
ideas...
Than economic eugenics? Fuck yeah there are.
You forgot to list any. How 'bout a Noassatall pill?
Post by a***@gmail.com
I would *LOVE* to get people off welfare and back into the workforce. The problem is that the workforce pool is bigger the jobs pool.
Action and equal but opposite reaction. When people are too lazy or
too ignorant employers seek alternative solutions. Why do you have a
job when so many do not? Could it be because you qualified yourself
and are willing to work? I can't believe you would accept the
paternalism of Affirmative Action.

So I suppose you blame the Catholics for that since they have large
families??? But, I don't see many of them on welfare. Wonder why that
is???

When do you start talking about workable solutions?

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-06 23:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Paternalism can result from attempts to help. I hired blacks, I
coached mostly blacks, I loaned money that I never expected to get
back. That's probably paternalism.
No. It's not.
I'm in shock.
I don't know why.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
People not having kids out =
of wedlock is a great idea, but it's not going to solve the main problem. =
And in the case of black people having kids out of wedlock, black fathers a=
re statistically *more* likely to be involved in their kids lives than fath=
ers from other racial groupings anyway. That flies in the face of popular =
stereotypes about black fathers, though, so most people don't realize.
It's not just that. It's absentee dads,
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
women with multiple bastards
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
on ADC. That's part of the problem but no part of the soultion -
BASED ON WHAT STATISTICS?
No one is so blind as those who refuse to see.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
My fact is what I see. Stats are for those who can't see.
That's mighty convenient how you use stats when it suits you, and ignore them when it doesn't.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
people must WANT to do better. And the facts I see indicate that
blacks are disproportionally a big part of that problem.
WHAT FACTS?!? You think the average African American is an absentee father or a woman with children by multiple men, and on ADC? (HUGE HINT: HELL. NO.)
I don't know about the average. I know African American is a
meaningless term since according to science we all are.
You know you don't like the term because it takes power from you.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
They must not be the ones on welfare or making the police reports.
Most African-Americans aren't on welfare. The vast majority (by FAR) of African-Americans don't commit violent crimes, either. Prohibition, OTOH, caused an awful lot of white people to make the police reports back in the day too.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
In 2012, African Americans made up 22% of the poor, and received a paltry 14% of government benefits. White non-Hispanics, OTOH, made up 42% of the poor, yet received 69% of government benefits.
Here is a fact for you - we have had more than one black lady work for
us who could only receive a certain amount of pay or she would lose
her benefits. They have actually quit working to get the freebies. You
obviously refuse to see that. Facts, not stats.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I think the athletes at Bama believe in God and give Him thanks.
So?
It's a good feeling when a black thanks God for his opportunities and,
IMO, shames whites who don't. Public prayer to get attention is a
no-no but thanking God isn't.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Whites are really made to look bad in that respect. Did you think I
haven't noticed? At the same time they have committed all the
infractions post-Saban.
The fact that you think this has any relevance as a predictor on my or any other black person's behavior is telling.
The fact that you don't is even more telling - unfortunately.
And there we have it: Hugh believes there's an actual difference between black people and white people.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Now you
don't even believe in stats. You are predictable in that you are not
looking for solutions you are looking for someone else to blame.
I have all kinds of solutions. I already know you don't like them. Ergo, I'm not going to waste my figurative breath any more than I already am.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
And disgusting.
The truth often is.
Yep.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Have you never heard of the term "confirmation bias"?
Nope.
Shame on you.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Do you think I don't understand that? It has to be a recognition of
the causes and a universal effort to better. Throwing money at the
problem and looking the other way doesn't solve anything. But talking
calmly to a black kid for throwing his helmet in a youth football game
prevented him from throwing it in a major high school game. I saw it
and he told me so. But one-on-one ain't gonna cut the mustard unless
it's gazillions of them.
Again, you're looking in the wrong direction for the problem. And that's a *BIG* problem.
I KNOW the problems and the causes - I'm looking for solutions.
You THINK you know the problems and the causes. Your solutions would make things *worse*.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I have not seen that here any more than you have seen it from me. We
have not gotten to the point where we can talk - we're just throwing
rocks at each other.
One of us wouldn't be throwing rocks if the other would stop grabbing rocks from the pile labeled "Shit that wasn't acceptable even 60 years ago".
I probably have more rocks than you have and certainly more time to
throw them even though there is no profit in either. And it's so
apparent that your interest lies solely in casting blame. I'm having
difficulty trying to think of something more unproductive than that.
Sure. *I'm* casting blame, but *you're* just altruistically blaming African Americans for the problems facing them even though you admit--almost in passing--that racism is still a problem in this country.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a biggie for me: Why do you keep throwing Dr. King in my face when =
you have no intention of acknowledging the rest of his words? When you kee=
p bring up his adultery as if I somehow have him on a pedestal wearing a ha=
lo?
I don't know the rest of his words.
I don't believe you.
That's your problem. I had rather be in someone's face than lie to
them. I'm surpirised at your lack of awareness.
Ha.

Here's one:

"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society."

Consider yourself enlightened.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
So you feel the need to bring up an (entirely irrelevant, I might add) character flaw because...why? You don't want to have to argue against the words?
I don't argue very much. I tell it like it is and those that hear can
like it or lump it. I'm not into personality contests.
LOL.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or should we just acknowledge that Dr. King=
understood that sometimes, when conditions become unbearable, riots are go=
ing to happen?
I know that without the help of the man.
Could have fooled me.
Then you are the fool.
For continuing to argue with a bigot and a racist? Guess so.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
One solution I recommend is for recipients of unearned welfare to be
required to do something to earn it. Pick up the trash by highways -
do animal surveys.
Or we could move able-bodied folk off welfare onto those work rolls, and pay them a living wage. Two birds, one stone.
I have discussed living wage. Less than $5,000 per year was such in
the 50s. But socialists kept boosting the minimum while I got more and
the gap only widened. In 65 years the imbeciles have not been
convinced.
Funny you should say that:

"There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American whether he [or she] is a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer."

Maybe you should reconsider quoting MLK if you disagree so violently with him.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Obama generates legislation to import more people to work for low
wages who put more of your "living wage" people on welfare. And his
supporters are too ignorant to see that.
The reality is that if our immigration system hadn't been broken and such a political hot potato for so long, we could do something about that. But those "imported people" aren't the problem. It's corporations shipping jobs offshore that's the problem.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars.
Only if the work provided does not benefit private employers.
I agree completely - I would even insist. Help underfunded communities
and charities. You might say welfare work for welfare pay.
I'd take the term "welfare" out of the equation entirely, and call it simply, "work".
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Tie the tubes of
women with multiple absentee dads on ADC. There are probably better
ideas...
Than economic eugenics? Fuck yeah there are.
You forgot to list any. How 'bout a Noassatall pill?
How about sex education? How about getting those people, you know, *jobs* so they can be productive and spend less time in shitty situations with few outlets for their frustrations?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
I would *LOVE* to get people off welfare and back into the workforce. The problem is that the workforce pool is bigger the jobs pool.
Action and equal but opposite reaction. When people are too lazy or
too ignorant employers seek alternative solutions.
That must be why thousands of people show up for tens of jobs so frequently and in so many places.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Why do you have a
job when so many do not? Could it be because you qualified yourself
and are willing to work? I can't believe you would accept the
paternalism of Affirmative Action.
I have a job because somebody took a chance on me. I worked my ass off to get where I am, but I'm highly aware of the number of doors that were closed in my face--often because of the color of my skin. You can see the surprise in the interviewers' eyes when I show up.

Affirmative Action is paternalism? Not when it's combating racism. But of course, your definition of AA likely is a gross distortion of what AA actually *is*, so we'll take your statements with a boulder of salt.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
So I suppose you blame the Catholics for that since they have large
families??? But, I don't see many of them on welfare. Wonder why that
is???
Considering that 97% of Catholics are white, gee, I wonder.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
When do you start talking about workable solutions?
When you prove you know how to listen.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-07 11:19:54 UTC
Permalink
My fact is what I see. Stats are for those who can't see.=20
That's mighty convenient how you use stats when it suits you, and ignore th=
em when it doesn't.
Show me where I have used stats. I almost always use "generally
speaking" or "many, if not most". I almost always use qualifiers.
I don't know about the average. I know African American is a
meaningless term since according to science we all are.
You know you don't like the term because it takes power from you.
Calling oneself half-American is half intelligent. I regard the term
as an ignorant attempt to promote one's self esteem.
Most African-Americans aren't on welfare. The vast majority (by FAR) of Af=
rican-Americans don't commit violent crimes, either. Prohibition, OTOH, ca=
used an awful lot of white people to make the police reports back in the da=
y too.
There must be a point there somewhere. I'm sort of like a rioter. I'll
break any law I wish.
The fact that you think this has any relevance as a predictor on my or a=
ny other black person's behavior is telling.
=20
The fact that you don't is even more telling - unfortunately.
And there we have it: Hugh believes there's an actual difference between b=
lack people and white people.
The facts appear to be on my side.
I have all kinds of solutions.
I said workable solutions and you have expressed none so far. Throwing
money at the problem doesn't work.
I already know you don't like them. Ergo, =
Have you never heard of the term "confirmation bias"?
=20
Nope.
Shame on you.
If it was important I would know the term.
I KNOW the problems and the causes - I'm looking for solutions.=20
You THINK you know the problems and the causes.
We basically agree on the problems and causes. Thus you also only
think you know.
Your solutions would make =
things *worse*.
I have precedent on my side. There was no starvation and no rioting in
the 40s - it worked. Back then people must have been intelligent
enough to know there is no such thing as equality. What was unfair is
that blacks didn't have the same opportunities as whites but they were
a helluva lot happier than they are today.
Sure. *I'm* casting blame, but *you're* just altruistically blaming Africa=
n Americans for the problems facing them even though you admit--almost in p=
assing--that racism is still a problem in this country.
Are you a liar or just an imbecile. I have never placed the blame on
blacks for they problem. I say they are the worst problem but the most
blame lies elsewhere. Get with the program, boy.
"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may b=
e deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a =
special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not s=
eeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are ma=
inly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of so=
cial protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many func=
tions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consu=
mer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Ne=
gro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. Bu=
t most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherish=
es property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. The=
re are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may ex=
plain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetitio=
n, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that =
the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infin=
itesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.
A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century=
ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. =
The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darknes=
s.'=20
My solution to violence and looting is simple - keep shooting until
they stop breaking the law. Personally I never needed a gang to
accomplish anything - only the weak need one.
The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create=
discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, i=
gnorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have =
committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the grea=
ter crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, l=
et us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos.
I was aware of that before you were born.
Day-in an=
d day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allo=
tments;
Not true in my youth - people survived without government welfare. The
current situation results from the failures your solutions have
caused.
he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police m=
ake a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and educatio=
n and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a v=
icious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make th=
em any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the v=
iolations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculat=
ed and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened =
criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say bu=
t I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth =
in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society."
Consider yourself enlightened.
Again you whine about causes and only suggest more failing solutions.
So you feel the need to bring up an (entirely irrelevant, I might add) c=
haracter flaw because...why? You don't want to have to argue against the w=
ords?
=20
I don't argue very much. I tell it like it is and those that hear can
like it or lump it. I'm not into personality contests.
LOL.
Arguing implies that I think the other person is my equal. I don't
argue.
For continuing to argue with a bigot and a racist? Guess so.
We are equal there. The only difference is that I am honest about it.
I have discussed living wage. Less than $5,000 per year was such in
the 50s. But socialists kept boosting the minimum while I got more and
the gap only widened. In 65 years the imbeciles have not been
convinced.
"There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an =
adequate wage to every American whether he [or she] is a hospital worker, l=
aundry worker, maid, or day laborer."
Maybe you should reconsider quoting MLK if you disagree so violently with h=
im.
That might be an intelligent statement if paying a living wage to
everyone, whether entitled or not, didn't result in increasing the
wages for those higher in the pecking order and maintaining or
increasing the gap. Otherwise it is stupidity.
Obama generates legislation to import more people to work for low
wages who put more of your "living wage" people on welfare. And his
supporters are too ignorant to see that.
The reality is that if our immigration system hadn't been broken and such a=
political hot potato for so long, we could do something about that. But t=
hose "imported people" aren't the problem. It's corporations shipping jobs=
offshore that's the problem.
Can you spell NAFTA, unions and minimum wage? Shipping offshore is
recent vintage.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars.
Only if the work provided does not benefit private employers.
=20
I agree completely - I would even insist. Help underfunded communities
and charities. You might say welfare work for welfare pay.
I'd take the term "welfare" out of the equation entirely, and call it simpl=
y, "work".
Words only hurt weak people. If you don't earn it, it's welfare.
How about sex education? How about getting those people, you know, *jobs* =
so they can be productive and spend less time in shitty situations with few=
outlets for their frustrations?
Good start. But lots of people already doing the sex ed lab work. And
swabbing the deck is not worth $50,000 per year.
That must be why thousands of people show up for tens of jobs so frequently=
and in so many places.
...and why probably hundreds of thousands don't.
Why do you have a
job when so many do not? Could it be because you qualified yourself
and are willing to work? I can't believe you would accept the
paternalism of Affirmative Action.
I have a job because somebody took a chance on me. I worked my ass off to =
get where I am, but I'm highly aware of the number of doors that were close=
d in my face--often because of the color of my skin. You can see the surpr=
ise in the interviewers' eyes when I show up.
There is the solution. Why weren't you a failure when so many others
blacks are? Sounds like too many have more ass than they can work off.
Affirmative Action is paternalism? Not when it's combating racism. But of=
course, your definition of AA likely is a gross distortion of what AA actu=
ally *is*, so we'll take your statements with a boulder of salt.
AA is non-competitive. It is a gift from working people to some worthy
people and a slew of unworthy ones.
So I suppose you blame the Catholics for that since they have large
families??? But, I don't see many of them on welfare. Wonder why that
is???
Considering that 97% of Catholics are white, gee, I wonder.
Racist!
When do you start talking about workable solutions?
When you prove you know how to listen.
I listen to anything that is intelligent enough to work. I have the
resume to prove that. Whether it is to your satisfaction is moot.

I had a definite advantage at being employed at an entry level
position because I was white and you are black. When color didn't
matter you would have reported to me in the military and in a civilian
job if we worked in the same area. You carry WAY too much baggage.

Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-04 20:14:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 May 2015 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT), ***@gmail.com wrote:

To you anything I say appears to be paternalism. You may not have
noticed that makes me hesitant to respond.
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *=
highly* emotional issue for me.
I understand that and in my youth, standing in your shoes, I would
have done something about it. I've been on Peace Bond twice with
whites but never blacks.
It's one thing when people you don't know =
casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people.
Stereotypes occur because they are stereotypes. The problem is that
buzzards associating with swans will still be buzzards regardless of
race.
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*.
I think your emotion overrides your good intent, not that you are the
only one.
I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I wa=
s made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the othe=
r kids in my school.
Perhaps it's because you are too defensive to look for solutions.
Understandable, but not profitable.
There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I w=
as able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost =
back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openl=
y wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, an=
d why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than =
reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to t=
reat them as human beings or not.
If Dr. King made sense there would be no rioting and looting with
protests. Should we conclude he didn't make sense?

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-05 14:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
To you anything I say appears to be paternalism. You may not have
noticed that makes me hesitant to respond.
Because most of what you say *is* paternalism. People not having kids out of wedlock is a great idea, but it's not going to solve the main problem. And in the case of black people having kids out of wedlock, black fathers are statistically *more* likely to be involved in their kids lives than fathers from other racial groupings anyway. That flies in the face of popular stereotypes about black fathers, though, so most people don't realize.

In fact, if you stopped relying on stereotypes about black people altogether, the tenor of our interactions would change *entirely*.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Ha, just saw this. Agreed, there is definitely a disconnect, and it is a *=
highly* emotional issue for me.
I understand that and in my youth, standing in your shoes, I would
have done something about it. I've been on Peace Bond twice with
whites but never blacks.
I have very little idea what that is, sorry.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
It's one thing when people you don't know =
casually regurgitate negative memes and stereotypes about black people.
Stereotypes occur because they are stereotypes. The problem is that
buzzards associating with swans will still be buzzards regardless of
race.
Stereotypes occur because they are *repeated*. They may be true on an _individual_ level, but humans are humans are humans are humans. The stereotype about black people not valuing education? At best, it's based on black people stuck in the worst ghettos, living in abject poverty, with little or no hope of ever improving their situation. But for every one of those examples, there's three other examples of black parents telling their kids that they have to outperform their white peers just to be able to make it in the real world.

But what do most white people hear and believe? The negative stereotype.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*.
I think your emotion overrides your good intent, not that you are the
only one.
That would be because I'm beating my head against a brick wall and making no progress.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I wa=
s made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the othe=
r kids in my school.
Perhaps it's because you are too defensive to look for solutions.
My defensiveness led me to look *for* solutions. In fact, my looking for solutions led me to be more progressive than back when I just tried to flat-out *avoid* these kinds of conversations.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Understandable, but not profitable.
There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I w=
as able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost =
back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openl=
y wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, an=
d why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than =
reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to t=
reat them as human beings or not.
If Dr. King made sense there would be no rioting and looting with
protests. Should we conclude he didn't make sense?
Here's a biggie for me: Why do you keep throwing Dr. King in my face when you have no intention of acknowledging the rest of his words? When you keep bring up his adultery as if I somehow have him on a pedestal wearing a halo?

Dr. King said a lot of things about rioting. I quoted Dr. King at the very beginning of this thread. Should I conclude from that something uncharitable about your reading skills? Or should we just acknowledge that Dr. King understood that sometimes, when conditions become unbearable, riots are going to happen?
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-05 16:18:03 UTC
Permalink
This is the type of discussion we should have. I don't express it very
well because I am used to being in charge and that probably shows in
my every post. I don't find many O-6s or CEOs here.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Because most of what you say *is* paternalism.
Paternalism can result from attempts to help. I hired blacks, I
coached mostly blacks, I loaned money that I never expected to get
back. That's probably paternalism.
Post by a***@gmail.com
People not having kids out =
of wedlock is a great idea, but it's not going to solve the main problem. =
And in the case of black people having kids out of wedlock, black fathers a=
re statistically *more* likely to be involved in their kids lives than fath=
ers from other racial groupings anyway. That flies in the face of popular =
stereotypes about black fathers, though, so most people don't realize.
It's not just that. It's absentee dads, women with multiple bastards
on ADC. That's part of the problem but no part of the soultion -
people must WANT to do better. And the facts I see indicate that
blacks are disproportionally a big part of that problem.

I think the black athletes at Bama believe in God and give Him thanks.
Whites are really made to look bad in that respect. Did you think I
haven't noticed? At the same time they have committed all the
infractions post-Saban.
Post by a***@gmail.com
In fact, if you stopped relying on stereotypes about black people altogethe=
r, the tenor of our interactions would change *entirely*.
Most of what I say is what I see. I can differentiate between
statements and opinions. I don't think innocent people are jailed
witout some justification at the time. More blacks are in jail and
they are not close to 50% of the population. It's not all police
prejudice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I understand that and in my youth, standing in your shoes, I would
have done something about it. I've been on Peace Bond twice with
whites but never blacks.
I have very little idea what that is, sorry.
I would have kicked some ass when younger - or gotten mine kicked
which was doubtful. I would have been jailed had I done anything
belligerent no matter how provoked.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Stereotypes occur because they are stereotypes. The problem is that
buzzards associating with swans will still be buzzards regardless of
race.
Stereotypes occur because they are *repeated*. They may be true on an _ind=
ividual_ level, but humans are humans are humans are humans. The stereotyp=
e about black people not valuing education? At best, it's based on black p=
eople stuck in the worst ghettos, living in abject poverty, with little or =
no hope of ever improving their situation. But for every one of those exam=
ples, there's three other examples of black parents telling their kids that=
they have to outperform their white peers just to be able to make it in th=
e real world. =20
Those are the reasons and I have never refused to accept them. But I'm
for the attempt to solve problems. Sometimes the best way is to get
someone mad enough that a solution can be discussed. Sometimes one has
to go to extremes that are beyond what he actually believes to get
someone's attention. I usually do what it takes whether it works or
not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
That would be because I'm beating my head against a brick wall and making n=
o progress.
Do you think I don't understand that? It has to be a recognition of
the causes and a universal effort to better. Throwing money at the
problem and looking the other way doesn't solve anything. But talking
calmly to a black kid for throwing his helmet in a youth football game
prevented him from throwing it in a major high school game. I saw it
and he told me so. But one-on-one ain't gonna cut the mustard unless
it's gazillions of them.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Perhaps it's because you are too defensive to look for solutions.
My defensiveness led me to look *for* solutions. In fact, my looking for s=
olutions led me to be more progressive than back when I just tried to flat-=
out *avoid* these kinds of conversations.
I have not seen that here any more than you have seen it from me. We
have not gotten to the point where we can talk - we're just throwing
rocks at each other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a biggie for me: Why do you keep throwing Dr. King in my face when =
you have no intention of acknowledging the rest of his words? When you kee=
p bring up his adultery as if I somehow have him on a pedestal wearing a ha=
lo?
I don't know the rest of his words. He had his faults just like the
rest of us. My posts were a counter to your accusations.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or should we just acknowledge that Dr. King=
understood that sometimes, when conditions become unbearable, riots are go=
ing to happen?
I know that without the help of the man.

One solution I recommend is for recipients of unearned welfare to be
required to do something to earn it. Pick up the trash by highways -
do animal surveys. Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars. Tie the tubes of
women with multiple absentee dads on ADC. There are probably better
ideas...

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-05 20:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
This is the type of discussion we should have. I don't express it very
well because I am used to being in charge and that probably shows in
my every post. I don't find many O-6s or CEOs here.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Because most of what you say *is* paternalism.
Paternalism can result from attempts to help. I hired blacks, I
coached mostly blacks, I loaned money that I never expected to get
back. That's probably paternalism.
No. It's not.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
People not having kids out =
of wedlock is a great idea, but it's not going to solve the main problem. =
And in the case of black people having kids out of wedlock, black fathers a=
re statistically *more* likely to be involved in their kids lives than fath=
ers from other racial groupings anyway. That flies in the face of popular =
stereotypes about black fathers, though, so most people don't realize.
It's not just that. It's absentee dads,
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
women with multiple bastards
Based on what statistics?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
on ADC. That's part of the problem but no part of the soultion -
BASED ON WHAT STATISTICS?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
people must WANT to do better. And the facts I see indicate that
blacks are disproportionally a big part of that problem.
WHAT FACTS?!? You think the average African American is an absentee father or a woman with children by multiple men, and on ADC? (HUGE HINT: HELL. NO.)

Here's a fact for you:

In 2012, African Americans made up 22% of the poor, and received a paltry 14% of government benefits. White non-Hispanics, OTOH, made up 42% of the poor, yet received 69% of government benefits.

So even when on welfare, black folk are being discriminated against!
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I think the athletes at Bama believe in God and give Him thanks.
So?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Whites are really made to look bad in that respect. Did you think I
haven't noticed? At the same time they have committed all the
infractions post-Saban.
The fact that you think this has any relevance as a predictor on my or any other black person's behavior is telling.

And disgusting.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
In fact, if you stopped relying on stereotypes about black people altogethe=
r, the tenor of our interactions would change *entirely*.
Most of what I say is what I see. I can differentiate between
statements and opinions. I don't think innocent people are jailed
witout some justification at the time. More blacks are in jail and
they are not close to 50% of the population. It's not all police
prejudice.
Have you never heard of the term "confirmation bias"?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I understand that and in my youth, standing in your shoes, I would
have done something about it. I've been on Peace Bond twice with
whites but never blacks.
I have very little idea what that is, sorry.
I would have kicked some ass when younger - or gotten mine kicked
which was doubtful. I would have been jailed had I done anything
belligerent no matter how provoked.
Yeah...still no idea what your point is.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Stereotypes occur because they are stereotypes. The problem is that
buzzards associating with swans will still be buzzards regardless of
race.
Stereotypes occur because they are *repeated*. They may be true on an _ind=
ividual_ level, but humans are humans are humans are humans. The stereotyp=
e about black people not valuing education? At best, it's based on black p=
eople stuck in the worst ghettos, living in abject poverty, with little or =
no hope of ever improving their situation. But for every one of those exam=
ples, there's three other examples of black parents telling their kids that=
they have to outperform their white peers just to be able to make it in th=
e real world. =20
Those are the reasons and I have never refused to accept them.
Um...
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
But I'm
for the attempt to solve problems. Sometimes the best way is to get
someone mad enough that a solution can be discussed. Sometimes one has
to go to extremes that are beyond what he actually believes to get
someone's attention. I usually do what it takes whether it works or
not.
What?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
That would be because I'm beating my head against a brick wall and making n=
o progress.
Do you think I don't understand that? It has to be a recognition of
the causes and a universal effort to better. Throwing money at the
problem and looking the other way doesn't solve anything. But talking
calmly to a black kid for throwing his helmet in a youth football game
prevented him from throwing it in a major high school game. I saw it
and he told me so. But one-on-one ain't gonna cut the mustard unless
it's gazillions of them.
Again, you're looking in the wrong direction for the problem. And that's a *BIG* problem.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Perhaps it's because you are too defensive to look for solutions.
My defensiveness led me to look *for* solutions. In fact, my looking for s=
olutions led me to be more progressive than back when I just tried to flat-=
out *avoid* these kinds of conversations.
I have not seen that here any more than you have seen it from me. We
have not gotten to the point where we can talk - we're just throwing
rocks at each other.
One of us wouldn't be throwing rocks if the other would stop grabbing rocks from the pile labeled "Shit that wasn't acceptable even 60 years ago".
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Here's a biggie for me: Why do you keep throwing Dr. King in my face when =
you have no intention of acknowledging the rest of his words? When you kee=
p bring up his adultery as if I somehow have him on a pedestal wearing a ha=
lo?
I don't know the rest of his words.
I don't believe you.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
He had his faults just like the
rest of us. My posts were a counter to your accusations.
So you feel the need to bring up an (entirely irrelevant, I might add) character flaw because...why? You don't want to have to argue against the words?
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or should we just acknowledge that Dr. King=
understood that sometimes, when conditions become unbearable, riots are go=
ing to happen?
I know that without the help of the man.
Could have fooled me.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
One solution I recommend is for recipients of unearned welfare to be
required to do something to earn it. Pick up the trash by highways -
do animal surveys.
Or we could move able-bodied folk off welfare onto those work rolls, and pay them a living wage. Two birds, one stone.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars.
Only if the work provided does not benefit private employers.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Tie the tubes of
women with multiple absentee dads on ADC. There are probably better
ideas...
Than economic eugenics? Fuck yeah there are.

I would *LOVE* to get people off welfare and back into the workforce. The problem is that the workforce pool is bigger the jobs pool.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
2015-05-04 21:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
I realize I cannot walk a mile in your shoes, but I still find it confusing. I can understand fear of the police in some backwaters (North Charleston proved that recently). What I don't get why the authorities would be so oppressive in Baltimore. The mayor, chief of police and most of the city council are black. It all makes no sense to me.

Doug
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-04 21:28:22 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 2:32:05 PM UTC-5,
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm
*tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty
much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same
color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge
progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of
the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days
leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly
wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly
rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when
approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't
know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
I realize I cannot walk a mile in your shoes, but I still find it
confusing. I can understand fear of the police in some backwaters
(North Charleston proved that recently). What I don't get why the
authorities would be so oppressive in Baltimore. The mayor, chief
of police and most of the city council are black. It all makes no
sense to me.
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
argument has gone, over the past 5 years:

It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
--
{((>:o}~ <<<<Oh look!!! An idolatrous image of the prophet!!! Surely
we must now avenge this blasphemy by burning down the world!!!
Eric Ramon
2015-05-04 21:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-04 22:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
Demands to change their religion so that they can support
gay marriage. And, "Bake me a cake, bigot!"
--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Eric Ramon
2015-05-04 22:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
Demands to change their religion so that they can support
gay marriage. And, "Bake me a cake, bigot!"
gay marriage doesn't affect me in the slightest and it doesn't affect Christians either, other than that the idea offends them. For some reason, Christians (some of them) think it's any of their business what somebody else is doing.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean Christians. You mean people who believe that *they* are the true believers and everyone else must be corrected.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-05 00:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
Demands to change their religion so that they can support
gay marriage. And, "Bake me a cake, bigot!"
gay marriage doesn't affect me in the slightest and it doesn't affect
Christians either, other than that the idea offends them.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this little
dustup.
Post by Eric Ramon
For some reason, Christians (some of them) think it's any of their
business what somebody else is doing.
That contention is being belied by them being forced to bake cakes for
weddings -- at the point of a gun.
Post by Eric Ramon
I'm pretty sure you don't mean Christians. You mean people who believe
that *they* are the true believers and everyone else must be
corrected.
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding? No one was trying to stop the wedding, they were
choosing not to participate.

"Bake me a cake, and put a picture of two grooms on it, or I'll put you
out of business."

Once again, I will refer to Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility,
best summarized with the sentence:

It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..

Christians are suffering from the extension of gay rights.
--
Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
-- anonymous
Jim G.
2015-05-05 01:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American sent the following on 05/04/2015 at
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
Demands to change their religion so that they can support
gay marriage. And, "Bake me a cake, bigot!"
gay marriage doesn't affect me in the slightest and it doesn't affect
Christians either, other than that the idea offends them.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this little
dustup.
Post by Eric Ramon
For some reason, Christians (some of them) think it's any of their
business what somebody else is doing.
That contention is being belied by them being forced to bake cakes for
weddings -- at the point of a gun.
Post by Eric Ramon
I'm pretty sure you don't mean Christians. You mean people who believe
that *they* are the true believers and everyone else must be
corrected.
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding? No one was trying to stop the wedding, they were
choosing not to participate.
"Bake me a cake, and put a picture of two grooms on it, or I'll put you
out of business."
Once again, I will refer to Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility,
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
Christians are suffering from the extension of gay rights.
Discrimination doesn't count if it's against evil Christians, you know.
So it's okay to force them to be a part of gay weddings, or force them
to subsidize birth control for others, or force them to pray in private
so as not to offend others, etc. Because they're just Christians, after
all. Just a bunch of hateful bigots, and all that.
--
Jim G. | It's baseball season, so all is right with the world
"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it."
-- Knute Rockne
Wolfie
2015-05-05 01:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding?
The world didn't end when they were forced to
allow people of other races into their bakery, did it?
Are you against that too?
Eric Ramon
2015-05-05 03:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolfie
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding?
The world didn't end when they were forced to
allow people of other races into their bakery, did it?
Are you against that too?
but it says right there in the Bible, do not wear clothing made of leather and, since it's the word of God, that must be obeyed. Forcing them to wear shoes is oppressing them. They want to protect their right to not wear shoes while they're turning away people.
Ken Olson
2015-05-05 04:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Wolfie
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding?
The world didn't end when they were forced to
allow people of other races into their bakery, did it?
Are you against that too?
but it says right there in the Bible, do not wear clothing made of leather and, since it's the word of God, that must be obeyed. Forcing them to wear shoes is oppressing them. They want to protect their right to not wear shoes while they're turning away people.
Crap like this makes me glad I'm not into organized religion.
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
2015-05-05 10:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Olson
Crap like this makes me glad I'm not into organized religion.
Yea, verily.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-05 10:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by Wolfie
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding?
The world didn't end when they were forced to
allow people of other races into their bakery, did it?
Are you against that too?
but it says right there in the Bible, do not wear clothing made of
leather and, since it's the word of God, that must be obeyed. Forcing
them to wear shoes is oppressing them. They want to protect their
right to not wear shoes while they're turning away people.
And it isn't a question of "letting people of other races into
their bakery". They would sell a cake to anyone. It is the *participation*
that is the problem.
--
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying
employers must discriminate against people who have low skills.
-- Milton Friedman
Wolfie
2015-05-05 12:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
And it isn't a question of "letting people of other races into
their bakery". They would sell a cake to anyone. It is the *participation*
that is the problem.
I'd have a lot easier time believing that if just
one of them had previously made a point of
denying a white, heterosexual Catholic couple
where one of the couple didn't have an church
annulment of a previous marriage.

Or if they refused to serve a nice Jewish couple
because they don't believe in Jesus.

Or even "I can bake the cake, but my supplier
doesn't provide two women toppers. You can
order one online and put it in this space I'll
leave up top, okay?"

The idea a baker is "participating" in a marriage
is stupid.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-05 16:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolfie
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
And it isn't a question of "letting people of other races into
their bakery". They would sell a cake to anyone. It is the *participation*
that is the problem.
I'd have a lot easier time believing that if just
one of them had previously made a point of
denying a white, heterosexual Catholic couple
where one of the couple didn't have an church
annulment of a previous marriage.
Or if they refused to serve a nice Jewish couple
because they don't believe in Jesus.
Or even "I can bake the cake, but my supplier
doesn't provide two women toppers. You can
order one online and put it in this space I'll
leave up top, okay?"
The idea a baker is "participating" in a marriage
is stupid.
So is requiring one to recognize a queer marriage if it is against his
convictions.

I would serve a queer couple but the line would always form in front
of them and it would be a shame if they didn't have time to wait.

Or I might decorate the cake in an unacceptable way and say that I had
to be honest.

There are all sorts of ways to legitimately discourage queers when one
is forced to violate his principles.

Please don't agree with me.

Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-05 12:15:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 May 2015 20:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote=20
=20
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Excuse me? Are you just ignoring the New Mexico photography case
and the Oregon floral and bakery cases, where Christian businesses
have been forced to close because they wouldn't participate in a
gay wedding?=20
=20
The world didn't end when they were forced to
allow people of other races into their bakery, did it?
Are you against that too?
but it says right there in the Bible, do not wear clothing made of leather =
and, since it's the word of God, that must be obeyed. Forcing them to wear =
shoes is oppressing them. They want to protect their right to not wear shoe=
s while they're turning away people.
People with a little education know that Jesus came to fulfill the Law
of the Old Testament. Your statement indicates a troublesome lack of
education.

I'm not a Bible authority but I recognize when someone is lying to me
about the sky falling.

Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-05 12:07:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 May 2015 15:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
Post by Eric Ramon
gay marriage doesn't affect me in the slightest and it doesn't affect Christians either, other than that the idea offends them.
Some might think government endorsement of sin (man lying with man) is
a bit troublesome.

Hugh
Eric Ramon
2015-05-04 21:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nothing makes sense when your goto move is playing victim. And
the victim often turns into the oppressor -- witness the current
debate about gay marriage. As Rod Dreher observed, basically the
It's a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a
single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve
what they're going to get..
preposterous. What are "they" going to get?
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-06 02:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
I realize I cannot walk a mile in your shoes, but I still find it confusing. I can understand fear of the police in some backwaters (North Charleston proved that recently). What I don't get why the authorities would be so oppressive in Baltimore. The mayor, chief of police and most of the city council are black. It all makes no sense to me.
Missed this before...It doesn't matter. Baltimore's police department has an ugly history with its black citizens, and in spite of the fact that only 28% of the city's residents are white, 46% of its police force is white. What that means is that most of those white officers don't live in the city they're policing, and they have very little incentive to view Baltimore or its citizens favorably. Furthermore, if you're a black officer, you're feeling the pressure to *not* go easy on the people you encounter, lest your white coworkers view you with suspicion. It's easy to say that the power structure is majority black, but the underlying problems are still there, and they don't go away easily or quickly. Hell, the city's been hollowing out since at least the 1950s.
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-06 02:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
Post by a***@gmail.com
And as a result, perhaps my responses have been too harsh, but I'm *tired*. I've been fighting the same old rehashed arguments pretty much since I was made aware of the fact that I *wasn't* the same color as most of the other kids in my school. There was huge progress being made (or, at least, I was able to tune out most of the low-level stuff), and yet now we're almost back to the days leading up to the Civil Rights Act when white people openly wondered why black people were so violent and were constantly rioting, and why didn't they simply submit to the police when approached, rather than reacting out of fear because they didn't know if the police were going to treat them as human beings or not.
I realize I cannot walk a mile in your shoes, but I still find it confusing. I can understand fear of the police in some backwaters (North Charleston proved that recently). What I don't get why the authorities would be so oppressive in Baltimore. The mayor, chief of police and most of the city council are black. It all makes no sense to me.
Missed this before...It doesn't matter. Baltimore's police department has an ugly history with its black citizens, and in spite of the fact that only 28% of the city's residents are white, 46% of its police force is white. What that means is that most of those white officers don't live in the city they're policing, and they have very little incentive to view Baltimore or its citizens favorably. Furthermore, if you're a black officer, you're feeling the pressure to *not* go easy on the people you encounter, lest your white coworkers view you with suspicion. It's easy to say that the power structure is majority black, but the underlying problems are still there, and they don't go away easily or quickly. Hell, the city's been hollowing out since at least the 1950s.
Forgot to finish my thought:

Regarding the city's residents moving to the suburbs, why do you suppose that is, and how many of those police officers, white or otherwise, have internalized that reason?
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-06 14:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the city's residents moving to the suburbs, why do you suppose th=
at is, and how many of those police officers, white or otherwise, have inte=
rnalized that reason?
Loss of property value.

I owned 3 houses in a nice residential area of Greenville MS. The
areas were landscaped and well-maintained. I sold them and, as time
went by, blacks occupied the neighborhood where Hodding Carter once
lived. I had no respect for him but you might know the name.

Now grass is sparse, cars (some junk) parked in yards, houses boarded
up or need maintenance. That happens over and over in towns (in the
South at least) but according to you it is not a predictor. Like a
baby, every day for you is a new day.

Don't bother listing the causes, I already know them. What intelligent
action should be taken to eliminate the problem?

I visited the house where I was raised several years ago. The blacks
were nice and were interested in things I pointed out that they had
not noticed. I actually enjoyed the visit even though it looked more
like a cat house inside than a residence. But the area has become a
ghetto.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-06 23:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Regarding the city's residents moving to the suburbs, why do you suppose th=
at is, and how many of those police officers, white or otherwise, have inte=
rnalized that reason?
Loss of property value.
AKA, White Flight.

When black people move in, property values decline.

Not because of the "quality" of black people, mind you. Inevitably, the first black people to move into a neighborhood pay higher prices to do so--and since they were less likely to get bank loans, they had to be more well-to-do than their new white neighbors.

But hey, the good outstanding white citizens living there didn't usually like to see a black family move in. So they dumped their properties almost the moment the inevitable occurred. And they took their neighborhood businesses with them.

But hey, those darned statistics that you don't believe in...
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-06 13:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Missed this before...It doesn't matter. Baltimore's police department has =
an ugly history with its black citizens, and in spite of the fact that only=
28% of the city's residents are white, 46% of its police force is white. =
What that means is that most of those white officers don't live in the city=
No, it says NOTHING about where they live. Your statement may be true
but your conclusion based on what is seen here is wrong.
Furthermore, if you're a black officer, you're fe=
eling the pressure to *not* go easy on the people you encounter, lest your =
white coworkers view you with suspicion.
I find it impossible to imagine such weakness. But I suppose it's
because I am not black.
It's easy to say that the power s=
tructure is majority black, but the underlying problems are still there, an=
d they don't go away easily or quickly.
I believe you.

Hugh
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
2015-05-04 20:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
I saw my name so I'm jumping in. You mean call me out because I don't
challenge all the crazy racist comments here? Some comments here are
so far gone that it seems pointless to even start. We get a lot of
"Black thugs attack blah blah blah" and those posters never give us
"crazy white man shoots wife despite restraining order". But I'm
stating the obvious.
You are? You are suggesting that there isn't one "Crazy black man shoots
wife despite restraining order" for every white? For instance, liberals
often say "Well, white people do mass shootings" when "people of color"
do them more frequently per capita.
Post by Eric Ramon
I'm happy to talk politics/reality/solutions with anyone who is
willing to discuss such with an open mind and I hope I bring the same.
Some people here, however, are totally set in their opinions. Maybe
someday...maybe I'll make the effort.
Anytime someone is telling me shit like "check your privilege", they
get tuned out. It's just like Salman Rushdie and his But Brigade -- the
moment anyone says "I believe in free speech, but..." he starts ignoring
them.
Post by Eric Ramon
Mostly I try to take the good from everybody. I know in the big old
world certain attitudes are harmful and I probably shouldn't ignore
them but if some dumb redneck knows something about the defensive
scheme that LSU will be using then I'll listen to that while, for now,
giving him a pass on his bizarre lack of understanding of how the
Republican Party is playing him.
I'm more likely to say something about this SJW meme, which feels like
it's been cooked up by talk radio. (There's a lot of so-called Left
that I don't like. I lump it together as the Nanny State. That's the
part that has self-appointed scolds telling us what we must think, how
we must take care of our children, etc. In my opinion it pales
compared to the hypocrisies of the Right.)
Andre's right about this issue. I won't tell him how to express it
(although I think that's where the disconnect is) because it's as
important as anything gets and of course he reacts emotionally. And I
think you know he's right and have tried to say so while expanding
the topic.
I've got to get some work done so I'll pause here....
Right about what? Right about anger? Is it the old liberal cant, "you
can't be right if you're white"?

I bet if you measure intact black families, they do pretty good
right now. So if 75% of black children grow up in single-mother homes,
who's at fault?
--
"Laughter is inner jogging." -- Norman Cousins
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-04 20:50:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2015 15:19:56 -0500, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
Post by Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I bet if you measure intact black families, they do pretty good
right now. So if 75% of black children grow up in single-mother homes,
who's at fault?
That's gonna hurt.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-04 19:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
FWIW, I very rarely respond to posts by J Hugh and Mia - so that's half of them.
And yet you have no qualms with calling out faceless "SJWs".
Faceless SJWs aren't posting in this thread - Hugh and Mia did.
Case in point. Faceless SJWs aren't a threat to my well-being. Or that of my young cousins and nieces and nephews.
=
Goal posts moved to a different zip code - somehow we've moved past you wondering why I didn't do something I normally don't do to something else
Not really. It's part of my larger point.
You keep harping about "both sides are the same"--but you keep ignoring the racism *here*, by people you _know_, even if you don't interact with them. You don't acknowledge their racism, you skip right over their bigotry, yet you mention SJWs on the *regular*. Which do you really think is the bigger problem? Because based on your words, you seem to be more intent on fighting phantom folk who may or may not be going overboard than dealing with real people right here who are helping to perpetrate one of America's biggest and most enduring problems.
But - you called me out for not replying to Mia and Hugh - and I laid out why. If you're going to go down this path, then you have to call out everyone else - including Eric. And it's not as if I reply to Mia and Hugh elsewhere - I ignore their posts on pretty much everything else too - so my not replying to their posts in this thread is consistent with other threads on other topics.
No, I don't. Re-read Eric's initial response.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Wow - was that supposed to be as insulting as I'm reading it?
Not nearly as insulting as the strong implication that anything raised by either of those posters in this thread was worthy of considering.
To you, apparently not - to me they were. Shrug
Because they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
You'll notice I "agreed and amplified" - I noted his point and expanded it.
No. You tried to turn it into a "Both sides are the same" situation.
Both sides are far more similar than they care to admit.
You are not in a position to make that argument. You're far too invested in that equivocation, because it keeps you feeling safe about your current inaction.
Um.....no. I'm absolutely in a position to make whatever argument I wish - and for whatever reason I wish.
You absolutely are. And I'm absolutely in a position to call you on the hypocrisy in that argument.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Is it okay if I bring up issues of poverty? I grew up in poverty - I drank powdered milk as a child and wore school clothes from Goodwill. I had one pair of shoes at a time until I reached high school and we moved around a lot - my single mother and I - and yes, we were food-stamp eligible at a time when it was far harder and the carried stigma was precisely my mom never accepted them. I know poverty - I lived it.
Were you a minority? Were you a *visible* minority? Were you viewed with suspicion whereever you went, no matter how you were dressed or behaved, just because of the color of your skin? Were you inundated with negative stereotypes about people who looked like you? Were your parents or grandparents forced to step off the sidewalk and keep their eyes averted--not by force, by *custom*--when white people passed? "Poor" is an easily hidden situation. "Visible minority" is not.
Ever been followed around a house by someone holding a can of Lysol?
I can beat that. I've been banned from visiting a house because someone found out I was black.
I can match that with not being welcomed in friends' houses b/c I was a dirty hippie kid.
Yeah. Still not comparable. You can change or camouflage either of those conditions.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yeah - we were followed around stores - among many, many other experiences.
Then you have a small inkling of what it's like.
Yep - and I'm fully aware that it's not a universal experience - I've never pretended otherwise.
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP BRUSHING ASIDE MY AND OTHER MINORITIES' EXPERIENCES?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
And yes, skin color makes it easier to be accepted later on - but don't pretend I have no experience with being slighted.
I didn't. I said you were able to ESCAPE being slighted.
Yep - and that IS a difference for white ethnics like hippies or the Irish as opposed to minorities with differing colors of skin be it black, brown or yellow.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm not claiming to match yours - just as your not claiming to match mine.
Actually, you are. You keep trying to diminish what I'm saying by retorting "Well I had it bad too!" I'm sure you did, but touting your own travails when someone else complains means you AREN'T LISTENING. You're making it about YOU.
See directly below
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Poverty is poverty - and that's what I was talkin' 'bout
There's poverty, and then there's racism. There can be plenty of overlap, but poverty + racism is rarely going to be the same experience as plain ol' poverty.
Remember, this subthread came about b/c I specifically asked about *poverty*
Remember, you tried to equivocate being poor with being a *minority*
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- you said I should shut my mouth about issues of race b/c I'm white,
I said that in the first post about those who didn't bother to read any of the linked articles. I did *not* say that in any other circumstance, save to say that you can't speak *for* minorities.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
so I asked was it okay if I talked about poverty b/c I had been poor - I laid out what I did so you could understand that yeah, I do have some experience there.
See above.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
My comment was directed at your personal self - rather than some image I might have of you as a black man - I'm not that condescending.
That's great. Irrelevant, but great.
Bueno
Post by a***@gmail.com
The fact remains that when the subject of race comes up, there are a bunch of mostly conservative white guys on here clucking their tongues and sitting in judgement, and yet most of you have never truly experienced any real racism, and you *certainly* have never dealt with the day-to-day grind of racism against you IN THE COUNTRY YOU WERE BORN TO.
You're absolutely correct - and we're also part of discussion whether we like it or not.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations - the assumption of failure and lesser abilities, the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
Yeah, fuck that too. That's still racism repackaged as concern trolling. You still haven't acknowledge the root causes; you're just blaming the victim in a different manner.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
What have you *done*? I know what I *haven't* seen you do--I *haven't* seen you acknowledge that racism is a real problem, that affects real people, and when real people feel they have no other recourse, they protest. They riot. They revolt.
Either you don't read much of my stuff, I don't write clearly enough or what I do write isn't to your satisfaction - or some combination thereof.
I've seen you imply the importance of having a discussion on the legitimacy of rioting with no apparent acknowledgement of the circumstances or events leading up to the riot. I've seen you imply that young black men are committing suicide by cop if only they would stop being so darn black!
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
If you're specifically talking about rioting tho - then it's likely you're not going to see me agree - not sure if you saw my post blasting the Mayday demonstrators in Seattle and Portland.
I'm not asking you to *condone* what happened in Baltimore or Ferguson. I'm saying you should understand *why* things happened before blanket condemning them.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
If I judge a man by his character, I'm apparently racist. If I judge him by his skin color, racist. If I'm colorblind, racist. If I offer to help, racist. If I ignore, racist. If I set up laws to help, racist. If I don't, racist. If I accept low behavior, racist. If I have equal expectations, racist. If I acknowledge causes, racist. If I ask hard questions, racist. If I think of blacks as a group, racist. If I don't, racist.
So I'll just say this - IMO and experience, the very worst aspect of paternalism directed towards minorities and the poor, is the soft bigotry of low expectations
So it's worse paternalism to acknowledge that minorities start with a disadvantage than it is to pretend such a disadvantage is minimal or doesn't exist? Really?
You're assuming I don't recognize or acknowledge this - I do.
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP THROWING IT IN MY FACE AS A SOLUTION?
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Not sure why you think otherwise - so let me very, very clear - racism exists and it sucks and it creates barriers many cannot overcome.
Just apparently not enough of a barrier to keep you from blaming black people as a group for not overcoming it.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
- the assumption of failure and lesser abilities,
Right, because acknowledging an uneven playing field and that minorities need help means that *all* failure is racism-related and that of *course* if they need help, the only answer is that their abilities must be lessened.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
the willingness to accept mediocrity and unproductive behavior.
And here, again, you make the same baseless assumptions. Damned if you do? The only thing you've *done* is regurgitate the same old racist tropes against minority assistance.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
White man's burden, right?
If you actually believe that, my respect for you will be dropping to zero.
Head:bang:desk - I mocking myself here...was it that unclear? An "oh woe is me b/c this whole racism thing is sooooooooo hard for me as a poor widdle white man!1!!!1!"?
Yes, it was that unclear. I'm more than happy to apologize for misreading that.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Only if I allow it to be.
Jesus.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
I'm totally willing to have a talk and listen about race - obviously.
No, you're not.
Allllllllllllllllllrighty then. Guess there's no point in replying to the rest of your post. Think you might have been pleasantly surprised.
It's possible I would have been. It's also possible you would have found other justifications for maintaining your stance while still being legitimately concerned about racism. I guess we'll never know.
Post by The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior
Have a nice day - I'm out. Take care.
You too.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-04 17:00:20 UTC
Permalink
The fact remains that when the subject of race comes up, there are a bunch =
of mostly conservative white guys on here clucking their tongues and sittin=
g in judgement, and yet most of you have never truly experienced any real r=
acism, and you *certainly* have never dealt with the day-to-day grind of ra=
cism against you IN THE COUNTRY YOU WERE BORN TO.
As one who has stated numerous times over the last decade that white
people have had all the advantages, and have prevented blacks from
having the same advantages, your statement parrots what I have said. I
must add that a lot of whites have refused to use their advantages
wisely.

Dwelling on the cause does not solve the problem any more than
quitting and letting the government take care of you.

All the exchages are fun but we can't speed up time and that would
appear to be the only solution.

Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-01 15:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
When, in a thread with only five responses, and four of them are borderline if not flat-out racist,
It's so amusing when a man is called a racist because he is not black.
At the same time I suppose any recitation of facts about black
failures might be considered racist by small minds. Posts about white
failures don't seem to require such a feeble response.

I note that you qualified your statement with "if not flat-out" so I
still think there is hope for you.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-02 14:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
When, in a thread with only five responses, and four of them are borderline if not flat-out racist,
It's so amusing when a man is called a racist because he is not black.
That's your conclusion, not mine.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
At the same time I suppose any recitation of facts about black
failures might be considered racist by small minds.

Nah, just the cherry-picked ones, by the same people who conveniently ignore other recitations of fact. Like the fact that black people are *less* likely to use drugs than white people, but are disproportionately arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced. Or the fact that, when all other factors are equivalent, black people are also slightly *less* likely to commit violent crimes than white people. Or the fact that, regardless of racial makeup, the police in America traditionally have been and continue to both be used as and see *themselves* as a mean to control and oppress black people, who to this day are *not* seen as equals or even merely _human_.

But I'm sure great minds would be open enough to examine and comprehend such facts.

And their implications.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-02 19:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
It's so amusing when a man is called a racist because he is not black.
That's your conclusion, not mine.
That's the only conclusion that matters to me since it has been very
accurate for close to 70 years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
At the same time I suppose any recitation of facts about black=20
failures might be considered racist by small minds.
Nah, just the cherry-picked ones, by the same people who conveniently ignor=
e other recitations of fact. Like the fact that black people are *less* li=
kely to use drugs than white people, but are disproportionately arrested, p=
rosecuted, and sentenced.
I'm not sure what stats you are using. Total numbers are moot. The
percentage based on the population might not be. Pulling figures out
of the air, if 50% of one race uses illegal drugs and 5% of another,
the race with 50% is more suspicious, caught and sentenced more. The
"appearance of guilt" matters.

At the present time I don't know anyone who uses illegal drugs - but
I'll bet you do.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or the fact that, when all other factors are equ=
ivalent, black people are also slightly *less* likely to commit violent cri=
mes than white people.
The problem is that all other factors are NEVER equivalent.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or the fact that, regardless of racial makeup, the =
police in America traditionally have been and continue to both be used as a=
nd see *themselves* as a mean to control and oppress black people, who to t=
his day are *not* seen as equals or even merely _human_.
As a general statement I agree. But I tend to view it more as looking
for fire where you see the most smoke proportionally speaking.
Equality is meaningless except for the soul. If you look and act like
a bum you will probably be treated that way - I presume regardless of
race.

I do think more whites than blacks drive around with windows down and
music volume peaked because they are too stupid to find the volume
control - but if there is a fox tail on the antenna of the old
Cadillac I can make money betting the driver is a black guy.

For example, if laws or NCAA rules have been broken 25 times (no
actual count) and every time by blacks at Bama, why would you think
the next offender would be white since the law of averages doesn't
apply.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But I'm sure great minds would be open enough to examine and comprehend suc=
h facts.
Without a doubt I am less biased than you - but you do have more
reason to be biased than I have.

Hugh
michael anderson
2015-05-02 23:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Guys, you can't communicate with race-baiters....whether they are black, white, asian, etc. people who view everything through that lens rather than one of equality just aren't worth the time or frustration. It's a policy that has always worked well for me - just treat all people as equals regardless of race AND fail to engage those that are stuck in racial identity thinking.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-03 13:26:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 May 2015 16:00:57 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
Guys, you can't communicate with race-baiters....whether they are black, wh=
ite, asian, etc. people who view everything through that lens rather than =
one of equality just aren't worth the time or frustration. It's a policy t=
hat has always worked well for me - just treat all people as equals regardl=
ess of race AND fail to engage those that are stuck in racial identity thin=
king.
I don't consider race as being a determiner of "equal". People of all
races can do things I can't do and I used to be able to do some things
better than others (at least that's what they chose and paid me for).

I enjoy confrontation unless I have the responsibility to make things
work. I can compromise but I don't like it.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-03 15:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
It's so amusing when a man is called a racist because he is not black.
That's your conclusion, not mine.
That's the only conclusion that matters to me since it has been very
accurate for close to 70 years.
I've never met anyone so proud to be a bigot before.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
At the same time I suppose any recitation of facts about black=20
failures might be considered racist by small minds.
Nah, just the cherry-picked ones, by the same people who conveniently ignor=
e other recitations of fact. Like the fact that black people are *less* li=
kely to use drugs than white people, but are disproportionately arrested, p=
rosecuted, and sentenced.
I'm not sure what stats you are using.
Of course not.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Total numbers are moot. The
percentage based on the population might not be. Pulling figures out
of the air, if 50% of one race uses illegal drugs and 5% of another,
the race with 50% is more suspicious, caught and sentenced more. The
"appearance of guilt" matters.
Instead of pulling figures out of the air, why don't you, you know, do some *real* research? Because the statistics don't support anything you're saying.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
At the present time I don't know anyone who uses illegal drugs - but
I'll bet you do.
Just...wow. You're wrong, by the way.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or the fact that, when all other factors are equ=
ivalent, black people are also slightly *less* likely to commit violent cri=
mes than white people.
The problem is that all other factors are NEVER equivalent.
In-freaking-deed. The other problem is assholes like you who never draw that thought to its logical conclusion.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
Or the fact that, regardless of racial makeup, the =
police in America traditionally have been and continue to both be used as a=
nd see *themselves* as a mean to control and oppress black people, who to t=
his day are *not* seen as equals or even merely _human_.
As a general statement I agree. But I tend to view it more as looking
for fire where you see the most smoke proportionally speaking.
Equality is meaningless except for the soul. If you look and act like
a bum you will probably be treated that way - I presume regardless of
race.
Ignoring your disgusting class politics, it goes far beyond that.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
I do think more whites than blacks drive around with windows down and
music volume peaked because they are too stupid to find the volume
control - but if there is a fox tail on the antenna of the old
Cadillac I can make money betting the driver is a black guy.
Confirmation bias generally works that way, yes.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
For example, if laws or NCAA rules have been broken 25 times (no
actual count) and every time by blacks at Bama, why would you think
the next offender would be white since the law of averages doesn't
apply.
Yeah, I'm sure socioeconomic status is *entirely* irrelevant. You are truly unbelievable.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by a***@gmail.com
But I'm sure great minds would be open enough to examine and comprehend suc=
h facts.
Without a doubt I am less biased than you
LOL. LMAO. ROFL.

Denial, river, Egypt, all that jazz.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
- but you do have more
reason to be biased than I have.
No, I just get affected by your bias more. A *lot* more. As you pointed out (entirely incorrectly in your case, I might add), it's a numbers game. And I actually make the effort to keep my biases under control. You *revel* in yours, even as you deny that you have any.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-03 17:55:53 UTC
Permalink
No, I just get affected by your bias more. A *lot* more. As you pointed o=
ut (entirely incorrectly in your case, I might add), it's a numbers game. =
And I actually make the effort to keep my biases under control. You *revel=
* in yours, even as you deny that you have any.
I have just been psychoanalized. Where do I send the fee, boy?

I find it strange that this country was settled by so many
nationalities and blacks are the only ones still whining. Maybe it's
only on rsfc.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-04-30 13:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Ramon
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
you gave it a good try but you can see where you are. Peoples' minds are made up and they won't change 'em unless their authority figures tell them to.
I'd be surprised if they would change their minds even then. It's rather depressing, actually; I honestly thought most of this was simple ignorance. Now I think it's ignorance and fear.
the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com
2015-04-30 11:01:42 UTC
Permalink
The black community rioting is the current problem.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-04-30 12:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
The black community rioting is the current problem.
It's such a shame to criticize them for something they do so well. Too
mnay people think all they can do is play sports.

Hugh
YosemiteSam
2015-05-02 15:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
https://instagram.com/p/2B2Mf6ne_4/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/greys-anatomy-star-in-heartfelt-twitter-essay-perfectly-shuts-down-baltimore-critics-tweets/
https://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
"No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace." -- unknown
Read it all, or don't. But if you don't, then shut the FUCK up about that which you have no knowledge, because your ignorance is showing.
I read it A L L . All, including all the responses thus far. I find it absolutely necessary to ask a question of you before I toss in my dos centovos.

I read from your posts these personal P'sOV concerning the respones to your OP:

"....borderline if not flat-out racist..." and "racist garbage.."

Now, excluding the obvious, where/what is the source that you use to clearly, at times, define flat-out / racist garbage when the obvious isn't being used?

I'm not sure of your initial reaction upon reading this, but I doubt it will be taken as I intend. No snark here. I want to know how you determined racism was behind the lack of concurring or differing opines.

~YS~
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-03 14:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by YosemiteSam
Post by a***@gmail.com
If you can read _any_ of this and still yammer on about "the black community" rioting as if *that's* the real problem, you're irredeemable. Period.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
Some of you may think that's overly harsh. It's not. Read on, if you dare.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
https://instagram.com/p/2B2Mf6ne_4/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/greys-anatomy-star-in-heartfelt-twitter-essay-perfectly-shuts-down-baltimore-critics-tweets/
https://www.upworthy.com/he-shows-how-the-news-talks-about-black-people-by-talking-about-white-people-instead
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
"No justice, no peace. Know justice, know peace." -- unknown
Read it all, or don't. But if you don't, then shut the FUCK up about that which you have no knowledge, because your ignorance is showing.
I read it A L L . All, including all the responses thus far. I find it absolutely necessary to ask a question of you before I toss in my dos centovos.
"....borderline if not flat-out racist..." and "racist garbage.."
Now, excluding the obvious, where/what is the source that you use to clearly, at times, define flat-out / racist garbage when the obvious isn't being used?
So you think looting and destroying businesses in your own neighborhood are legitimate forms of protest?
Considering how our country was founded? Considering the utter lack of response to months of protesting at other locations for THIS EXACT SAME PROBLEM? Considering the complete unconcern by most white people about the many riots that result in destruction of property at pumpkin festivals and after sporting events, all starring predominantly white participants? Yes. Racist.
Post by YosemiteSam
Not only that, it is a majority-black police department with
a black mayor and black police commissioner.

As if that matters? Black people can and have internalized racism against their own kind.
Post by YosemiteSam
Perhaps young black men should live their lives with a goal of fewer
police transactions.

...such as this. Adjusted for socioeconomic backgrounds, young black men are no more likely to commit crimes than young white men, but they are *far* more likely to be PERCEIVED as criminals, ARRESTED, and SENTENCED with _much_ harsher penalties.

Even young black boys are disproportionately punished, suspended, and expelled in primary and secondary schools. It *can't* be genetics; this has long been proven to be irrelevant. It *isn't* "black culture"; the children of immigrants from majority-black countries _generally_ outperform both black *and* white American kids, and at any rate, black people in this country were *stripped*of their culture and forced to adopt the culture of their white slaveowners. So what is different?

I'll give you a big hint: It starts with "structural" and ends with "racism".

But these geniuses keep blaming the very people who have no power, who have been discriminated against and systematically disenfranchised for centuries, who *couldn't even vote* in many cases until the Civil Rights Act was passed. Who repeatedly had their land and property taken from them--or their neighborhoods destroyed by the Interstate system--who were often forced or redlined into living apart from their fellow white citizens in more desirable locations, And this is quite often heavily documented. The Greenwood district of Tulsa was destroyed less than 100 years ago by rioting white folk. Most of the race riots of the 100 years were *instigated* by white people, who for the most part rolled right over their black neighbors with superior numbers and power, legal and extralegal. Even the slave rebellions that were put down are looked upon as somehow legitimate uses of power these days. But for some reason the term "riot" has come to be associated primarily with black people.

Oh, did I mention that the police were used, both legally and illegally, to oppress black people during almost the entire history of this country?
Post by YosemiteSam
I'm not sure of your initial reaction upon reading this, but I doubt it will be taken as I intend. No snark here.
Understood. Plenty of snark _here_, but it's not aimed at you.
Post by YosemiteSam
I want to know how you determined racism was behind the lack of concurring or differing opines.
Occam's Razor. The problem is that the answer is too uncomfortable for many white people to consider. It's far more comforting to blame black people for their own problems.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-03 15:05:08 UTC
Permalink
...such as this. Adjusted for socioeconomic backgrounds, young black men a=
re no more likely to commit crimes than young white men, but they are *far*=
more likely to be PERCEIVED as criminals, ARRESTED, and SENTENCED with _mu=
ch_ harsher penalties.
Perception is based on what one sees so no points there. Harsher
punishment when everything else is equal is unfair.
Even young black boys are disproportionately punished, suspended, and expel=
led in primary and secondary schools. It *can't* be genetics; this has lon=
g been proven to be irrelevant. It *isn't* "black culture"; the children o=
f immigrants from majority-black countries _generally_ outperform both blac=
k *and* white American kids,
You just proved it's not black, it's culture.
and at any rate, black people in this country =
were *stripped*of their culture and forced to adopt the culture of their wh=
ite slaveowners. So what is different?
In 150 years a lot is different. What is different between successful
American blacks and unsuccessful ones, since they were "stripped"
equally? I suggest responsibility and ambition as two factors.
But these geniuses keep blaming the very people who have no power, who have=
been discriminated against and systematically disenfranchised for centurie=
s, who *couldn't even vote* in many cases until the Civil Rights Act was pa=
ssed. Who repeatedly had their land and property taken from them--or their=
neighborhoods destroyed by the Interstate system--who were often forced or=
redlined into living apart from their fellow white citizens in more desira=
ble locations, And this is quite often heavily documented.
Yet that has not prevented many of them from being very successful.
They had the cojones to overcome such obstacles, just the the settlers
and founders of this country did.
The Greenwood =
district of Tulsa was destroyed less than 100 years ago by rioting white fo=
lk. Most of the race riots of the 100 years were *instigated* by white peo=
ple, who for the most part rolled right over their black neighbors with sup=
erior numbers and power, legal and extralegal. Even the slave rebellions t=
hat were put down are looked upon as somehow legitimate uses of power these=
days. But for some reason the term "riot" has come to be associated prima=
rily with black people.
That's what most people call "coming up to the 2000s".
Oh, did I mention that the police were used, both legally and illegally, to=
oppress black people during almost the entire history of this country?
Don't forget the Klan.
Occam's Razor. The problem is that the answer is too uncomfortable for man=
y white people to consider. It's far more comforting to blame black people=
for their own problems.
And for liberals it's easier to throw money at the problem then look
the other way.

In my lifetime I have seen amazing beneficial changes in blacks and
opportunities for blacks. The problem is that far too many blacks
refuse to accept the changes if it involves effort on their part.

Dropping out of school and wearing pants at half mast doesn't help the
problem. I see as many blacks as whites doing that but the black
population here is less than 12%.

Hugh
a***@gmail.com
2015-05-03 15:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
...such as this. Adjusted for socioeconomic backgrounds, young black men a=
re no more likely to commit crimes than young white men, but they are *far*=
more likely to be PERCEIVED as criminals, ARRESTED, and SENTENCED with _mu=
ch_ harsher penalties.
Perception is based on what one sees so no points there. Harsher
punishment when everything else is equal is unfair.
Oh no, you don't get to pretend that everything is equal. Not even close to it.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Even young black boys are disproportionately punished, suspended, and expel=
led in primary and secondary schools. It *can't* be genetics; this has lon=
g been proven to be irrelevant. It *isn't* "black culture"; the children o=
f immigrants from majority-black countries _generally_ outperform both blac=
k *and* white American kids,
You just proved it's not black, it's culture.
Yes. The culture of racism and bigotry that this country was *founded* upon, that still permeates American society even today. If you looked at the study (which you obviously don't care to do), you'd see that even as those children of black immigrants outperform everyone else, they're already falling prey to the same racism that oppresses black Americans. Unemployment rates are significantly higher than those of white Americans, even with on average higher educational levels. And the grandchildren of immigrants? They generally perform much closer to other black American kids.

But you keep blaming black people for it.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2015-05-03 18:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Perception is based on what one sees so no points there. Harsher
punishment when everything else is equal is unfair.
Oh no, you don't get to pretend that everything is equal. Not even close t=
o it.
Since my posts have always insisteded that, except for the soul, there
is no equality, are you having memory problems or is it just
ignorance? Countless times I have pointed to the injustice done blacks
- and you call it patronizing. I wish your attitude surprised me.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Even young black boys are disproportionately punished, suspended, and ex=
pel=3D
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
led in primary and secondary schools. It *can't* be genetics; this has =
lon=3D
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
g been proven to be irrelevant. It *isn't* "black culture"; the childre=
n o=3D
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
f immigrants from majority-black countries _generally_ outperform both b=
lac=3D
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
k *and* white American kids,=20
=20
You just proved it's not black, it's culture.
Yes. The culture of racism and bigotry that this country was *founded* upo=
n, that still permeates American society even today.
Add lack of responsibility and refusal to perform and who is arguing.
You are happily wallowing in your self pity.
If you looked at the =
study (which you obviously don't care to do), you'd see that even as those =
children of black immigrants outperform everyone else, they're already fall=
ing prey to the same racism that oppresses black Americans.
Where are they outperforming other than sports? It's the Asians who
are outperforming otherwise.
Unemployment r=
ates are significantly higher than those of white Americans, even with on a=
verage higher educational levels.
In 35 years at work (for the best company in the country)I saw one
application for a black. I hired her and she later became a
supervisor. But applicants had to pass an entrance exam and they had
to be qualified. I guess the qualified applicants must have been out
protesting slavery instead of getting an education.
And the grandchildren of immigrants? Th=
ey generally perform much closer to other black American kids. =20
In this country we are all the descendants of immigrants - an African
woman if we believe science.
But you keep blaming black people for it.
I recite the facts and draw obvious conclusions. I don't blame black
people - I blame ignorant, lazy, irresponsible black people (and
whites, too).

I don't have to be a farmer because all my ancestors were. I don't
have to be uneducated because all my ancestors were.

Hugh
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...