Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
I take things one step at a time. I don't see any point on elaborating on anything until you've finished studying institutional racism.


OK, that's perfectly fine by me.

quote:
This is too funny! I agree with most of what K4R posts, but he's the exception. I disagree with Nmag, Blaqfist, and Virtue, far more often than I agree. But, it would seem that one of the rare things we all agree on is that you are full of shit. Someone should put this on a calender or something...


I never said that you agree with them or that you speak for them. I only said that all of you guys refused to continue the dialog.

K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak to me and blaqfist literally hates me.

quote:
Stupid... there's only one of me too. That's why that "you people" phrase makes you look so retarded.


See above.

quote:
Bullshit. Your questions were answered.


Do you want me to re-post the exact questions that are addressed to you that you did not answer?

quote:
I don't know you, so whether I "like" you or not is irrelevent and unappreciable.

Remember that "agenda" Nmag has been refering to?


Frankly, a lot of the stuff he says is not coherent.

quote:
Why should we state your agenda, when you keep stating it so clearly?


I'm telling you that I have no hidden agenda. You're telling me that I do. State what it is then.

What, exactly, will you lose by talking to me? Also, why haven't you taken a vow to not talk to me like K4R and Virtue?

quote:
More useless rhetoric. We can't have a discussion regarding something you know nothing about. Go and read something (accurate) about institutional racism... then you can have a discussion about Affirmative Action. Go and read something (accurate) about slavery... then you can have a discussion about Reparations. Go and read something (accurate) about White Supremacy... then you can have a discussion about race relations.


OK. Let's have a discussion about institutional racism.

What is something that I don't know about it?

Name any one fact.

quote:
Until you do that... you're just blowing smoke.

It's not hard... it's ridiculously easy. Several people have done it several times. It's so easy that most of us seem to have gotten bored with it.

Nmag did all that... and very accurately I might add. I see very little point in repeating it, since you won't get it the second time around either.


OK, let's just limit this to the discussion between us.
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
Have you guys been keeping up with whats going on in the middle east? talk about racism, its amazing how much power Israel has.These cats have dam near blown up a whole country over 2 soldiers.


And the West is just sitting back and justifying their barberism. "The democracy of Israel has every right to use everything at it's disposal to eliminate all perceived threats. If there were a missle launched at America, we would not hesitate to eliminate all threats by any means necessary. We would not care what the world thought about." (irrational genocidal mania)

F%@K! I'm so pissed I can't even see straight. Mad
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
This is too funny! I agree with most of what K4R posts, but he's the exception. I disagree with Nmag, Blaqfist, and Virtue, far more often than I agree. But, it would seem that one of the rare things we all agree on is that you are full of shit. Someone should put this on a calender or something...


I never said that you agree with them or that you speak for them.

By saying that "you people" refers to the people on this message board, and that I don't speak for all Black people... you are then implying that I do speak for the other people on this message board. You see.. it's this silly framing of yours that keeps getting you into trouble.

quote:
I only said that all of you guys refused to continue the dialog.

K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak to me and blaqfist literally hates me.

Here's more of your silly framing. Nmag has been in dialog with you for some time now. The bulk of these two threads of yours are his responses. But, because K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak with you, then that gives you license to say, "all of you guys refused to continue the dialog"?

Here's a hint...

Stop bullshitting! You don't get to say one thing, and then on the next page (or the next thread) say the exact opposite... while denying that you said the first thing. No one here is that stupid. Everyone who has participated in these threads of yours has called you on this annoying habit you have at least once.

quote:
quote:
Bullshit. Your questions were answered.


Do you want me to re-post the exact questions that are addressed to you that you did not answer?

Sure, go right ahead. But, be careful not to make yourself look like an idiot. If you repost a question that I or someone else answered... I will repost the answer.

quote:
I'm telling you that I have no hidden agenda. You're telling me that I do. State what it is then.

Stop asking questions that have already been answered. I said...
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
You came in here to prove a point to us "people".


quote:
What, exactly, will you lose by talking to me?

Nothing. Now... why do you keep projecting this kind of nonsense? Did I ever suggest, or imply, that I would lose something by talking to you?

quote:
Also, why haven't you taken a vow to not talk to me like K4R and Virtue?

I don't see how that's at all relevant. But, for the record... I don't have any problem discussing Black issues with White people. So long as they can get used to being called on their bullshit. If they can't get used to that, they need to either...

a) Stop bullshitting

or

b) Stop talking

Either way, it doesn't frustrate me all that much. Mainly because, in the final analysis, it really doesn't matter whether or not you "get it". The balance of power will shift, and eventually all things will be equal... with or without your consent. It's in your best interest that you understand this (because if you don't you may waste your entire life resisting the inevitable), but it's practically irrelevant to me.

Ironically, I am much more likely to become frustrated discussing Black issues with Black people. It's a part of my character that I don't think I can change. I have so much pride in African America and everything that we have accomplished in the face of overwhelming odds... that I just expect more from them. Because I expect more, I am more frequently disappointed. I just have to keep reminding myself that ultimately people are people, and the higher standard I hold in my head for Black folks is inherently unfair... especially considering the toll that the struggle takes on us all.

White people rarely disappoint me. I don't expect much from them.

quote:
OK. Let's have a discussion about institutional racism.

What is something that I don't know about it?

Name any one fact.

Is naming any one fact that you don't know what you call a discussion?

*Sigh* Roll Eyes

Read! Mad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
quote:
Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) is a form of racism that occurs in institutions such as public bodies and corporations, including universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party Stokely Carmichael. In the late 1960s, he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".[1]

In the UK, the inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence accused the police force of being institutionally racist, an accusation that has subsequently been leveled at the media by Sir Ian Blair.[2]

Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic yet covert policies and practices that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Race-based discrimination in housing (see restrictive covenants) and bank lending (see redlining), for example, are forms of institutional racism.

The term institutional racism has also, somewhat controversially, been applied to policies, systems, and processes which are not necessarily caused by intentional racism but which have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial groups. For instance, the use of standardized testing has also been termed institutional racism by some commentators, who claim that this kind of assessment is significantly influenced by cultural and social background, with the supposed result that in much of the Western world racial minorities tend to score lower. Detractors of this view point out that the tests are usually intended to determine the aptitude of the candidate for the subject that is being tested, and if it so happens that a particular racial minority has a lower than average aptitude (just as if a particular racial minority has a higher than average aptitude) then that is simply a fact and as such cannot be racist, institutionally or otherwise.

Charges of institutional racism have been applied to other governmental, social, and educational policies as well. For example, the eagle feather law (50 CFR 22), which governs the possession and religious use of eagle feathers, has met various legal challenges and charges of racial discrimination due to the law's strict limitation of the possession of eagle feathers to members of only one ethnic group, Native Americans. Other examples of institutional racism abound, including the use of ethnic mascots in popular sports, the over-representation of minorities in the prison inmate population, and the under-representation of minorities in the media, advanced positions in academia and various professions.

Moreover, employers, the primary users of the results of such tests, make decisions based upon the scores of individuals, not on the basis of average results for a particular social group; even if the result is that fewer members of a particular racial minority are employed in a particular field, it does not necessarily follow that racial discrimination has taken place (to argue that it does is a classic non sequitur).

Now... if taken for granted that this definition is 100% accurate (since you can't really prove otherwise)... explain why you feel that AA is not justified, given this reality.

quote:
OK, let's just limit this to the discussion between us.

No.
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:By saying that "you people" refers to the people on this message board, and that I don't speak for all Black people... you are then implying that I do speak for the other people on this message board. You see.. it's this silly framing of yours that keeps getting you into trouble.


I said "you people" to Nmag. You did a little "19" at me. So, since you didn't actually use any words, I had to guess as to what you meant. I thought that you got offended because "you people" is what some people say to blacks. I said "you people", I'm embarassed to say, on purpose because I was getting a but frustrated.

But I only meant the people that I listed, not even the whole board.

quote:
Here's more of your silly framing.


What "framing"? I made a direct statement.

quote:
Nmag has been in dialog with you for some time now. The bulk of these two threads of yours are his responses.


Whatever it is that we had was not dialogue. It turns out that Nmag does not care about anything I say no matter how I say it.

quote:
But, because K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak with you, then that gives you license to say, "all of you guys refused to continue the dialog"?


No.

I'll go over the list again:

K4R + Virtue - vows of silence
blaqfist - hates me, I'm assuming not going to reply to anything (has questions he never answered)
Nmag - does not care about anything I have to say
You - didn't answer questions (which I'll list in a sec) and seemed like you were gone for good as well

quote:
Here's a hint...

Stop bullshitting!


Stop telling me to stop bullshitting before giving me a chance to respond.

Did you see what you just did? You accused me of generalizing virtue's and k4r's behavior to the rest of you. Fine. But then you told me to "stop bullshitting" without waiting for a response.

quote:
You don't get to say one thing, and then on the next page (or the next thread) say the exact opposite... while denying that you said the first thing.


OK.

quote:
No one here is that stupid.


Sure, but everyone here is incredibly insecure.

quote:
Everyone who has participated in these threads of yours has called you on this annoying habit you have at least once.


And I responded to everyone just like I am to you.

quote:
Sure, go right ahead. But, be careful not to make yourself look like an idiot. If you repost a question that I or someone else answered... I will repost the answer.


See questions at the end of this post.

quote:
Stop asking questions that have already been answered. I said...
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
You came in here to prove a point to us "people".


No, I didn't. I asked a yes or no question. What point can I prove by asking a yes or no question?

AND, after the first thread collapsed, I TRIED to ask for your opinion of race relations without arguing for anything. (the thread has long since been derailed)

The bottom line is that I can't prove to you that I'm not trying to prove some point or that I'm don't have any other ulterior motive. But why does that prevent you from responding in a civil manner?

quote:
Nothing. Now... why do you keep projecting this kind of nonsense? Did I ever suggest, or imply, that I would lose something by talking to you?


No. So why didn't you (talk to me)?

quote:
I don't see how that's at all relevant. But, for the record... I don't have any problem discussing Black issues with White people. So long as they can get used to being called on their bullshit. If they can't get used to that, they need to either...

a) Stop bullshitting

or

b) Stop talking

Either way, it doesn't frustrate me all that much. Mainly because, in the final analysis, it really doesn't matter whether or not you "get it". The balance of power will shift, and eventually all things will be equal... with or without your consent. It's in your best interest that you understand this (because if you don't you may waste your entire life resisting the inevitable), but it's practically irrelevant to me.

Ironically, I am much more likely to become frustrated discussing Black issues with Black people. It's a part of my character that I don't think I can change. I have so much pride in African America and everything that we have accomplished in the face of overwhelming odds... that I just expect more from them. Because I expect more, I am more frequently disappointed. I just have to keep reminding myself that ultimately people are people, and the higher standard I hold in my head for Black folks is inherently unfair... especially considering the toll that the struggle takes on us all.


K

quote:
White people rarely disappoint me. I don't expect much from them.


heh

quote:
Is naming any one fact that you don't know what you call a discussion?

*Sigh* Roll Eyes

Read! Mad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Now... if taken for granted that this definition is 100% accurate (since you can't really prove otherwise)... explain why you feel that AA is not justified, given this reality.


As defined, institutional racism envolves government and private entities.

I never said that I think that AA is not justified given government racism.

But I don't think that there should be any laws to prevent private racism, this includes corporations and universities that do not receive any government money.

So if when you say institutional racism, you have to specify if you're talking about the part that involves the government or the part that doesn't.


So why do I think that private institutions should be allowed to be racist? Because I don't see why they should be forced not to.

This might sound convoluted, but, as I explained before, I don't think that anyone should be forced to do or not to do anything if they're not directly harming anyone else.

I will clarify/go into detail on any part of this.



Questions: (paraphrased)

Why is AA justified, more specifically, why is non-government discrimination not allowable?

Why must a person be forced to hire/associate with someone?

(this is kind of moot now, but)
Why can't you answer "stupid" questions?
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

But you don't want to even discuss the subject matter. Right? You don't want to discuss anything with me, not even my "ignorance". Right?


Sorry, no time for charity. Quit begging for people to REMEDIATE you. And those sorry reverse psychology tactics just don't work. You're too obvious with your begging.

quote:
Then why is it so hard to point out my mistakes?


What?

"Language of Engagement", "agendas", "mentality", etc = YOUR MISTAKES.

Plenty of other things were pointed out. With me alone, you begging to START OVER = YOUR MISTAKES. Pointed out. Highlighted. Demonstrated. PROVEN.

Now what?
quote:
Don't answer the question. Say: "Zeus, that's a loaded question. It makes the implicit assumption that I beat my wife. That's not the case."


But then you'll be crying... begging for someone to answer your questions.

quote:
Why

are

you

asking me anything if you don't care about anything I have to say?


lol Sorry, sap... I told you:
I don't care what your position or argument is. To me, it is immaterial. You've stated you're against AA, etc. I don't care why. It's not important to me. And no. I don't have anything to gain from a One Way 'conversation' with you.

You show how pathetic and how NOT READY you are wwhen the best you can do is to twist that to be a statement about "anything you have to say."

MISTAKE #303!

quote:
Are you afraid that I'm going to change your thoughts?


lol What a comedian! appl

Dude, you would first have to have the aptitude and we already know you don't have the ability. Dude, you've been schooled and keep crying because you keep gettin' changed:



quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

Are you asking me to name names? Do you not agree that at least some blacks voted for AA laws?


That is not the issue. YOU CAN READ:

"When I said Blacks Didn't Make Those Laws... He'd figured he'd just say they did."

quote:
ON July 08, 2006 11:12 PM, YOU POSTED
quote:

Nmaginate: "Misdirected Angst... Blacks didn't make those laws (e.g. AA and anti-discrim. laws.)"


Zeus: Yes they did. At least partially. It's not like blacks have no power at all.


Name names... Give me a count. Whatever.

Tell me what Blacks made those laws. VOTING and drafting legislation is two different things. You know that. I know that. And you know I know that. Now what, besides not being able to be honest, is your problem?

This is a perfect example of why you're not ready.

quote:
I have no idea why I thought that.

And I don't either. But you sure tried, assuming you could get by with that BS.



I'm sure that's like "a lot of the (other) stuff" I've said that's so "incoherent." Nevertheless, you're still here (working under the same premise, mind you) even after that huge DISCONNECT between your focus/angst and the REALITY has been clearly demonstrated. Obvioulsy, you're continuing despite your Gross Belligerent IGNORANCE being exposed.

Now that's even more hilarious. "A lot of stuff" I say is "incoherent" but you've had to BACKTRACK:

quote:
No, I don't agree with your claim that I was initially claiming that blacks were mostly responsible for AA.

((A FLAT OUT LIE. Nmag didn't make any such claim and Zeus is telling a LIE about what he did say/suggest. Nmag's point stands, regardless. Zeus' focus/angst here is misplaced and even more misguided and misdirected when he concedes that African-Americans aren't the ones "mostly responsible" for AA, etc.))

However, I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to entertain that I, infact DID argue that blacks were mostly responsible for implementing AA.

((And Nmag is willing to NEVER let them be NO FACE SAVING! The Post Record is clear. Zeus knows what he did "in fact" argue. No "for the sake of argument" about it.))

I have no idea why I thought that. Because I don't think that now.

((I wonder why? See what a little "incoherence" will do? Nmag will have you CHANGING your mind quicker than you can change the meaning of something Nmag says as you try to pose your next asinine and pathetically loaded, rhetorical question.))


It seems that I claimed that blacks were mostly reponsible for AA. This is not true. I don't claim that now. I'm at a TOTAL AND COMPLETE LOSS AS TO WHY I WAS CLAIMING THAT. I guess temporary insanity?

((Nah!! That's not going work. You condition is CHRONIC. You're "crazy" to the core for ever thinking you even had the stuff to step off in this arena. And that's all the charity I got for you. Sorry but I will not be REMEDIATING YOUR AZZ full-time and no time after this (on any other subject).))


Let's move on?


((Nope! That's where the road ends for you, my Out-Of-YOUR-League friend.))


___________________________________________
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:By
Here's a hint...

Stop bullshitting!


Stop telling me to stop bullshitting before giving me a chance to respond.

Did you see what you just did? You accused me of generalizing virtue's and k4r's behavior to the rest of you. Fine. But then you told me to "stop bullshitting" without waiting for a response.

I was calling bullshit on something you had already said. I didn't need a response.

quote:
quote:
No one here is that stupid.


Sure, but everyone here is incredibly insecure.

Whatever.

quote:
quote:
Everyone who has participated in these threads of yours has called you on this annoying habit you have at least once.


And I responded to everyone just like I am to you.

quote:
Sure, go right ahead. But, be careful not to make yourself look like an idiot. If you repost a question that I or someone else answered... I will repost the answer.


See questions at the end of this post.

quote:
Stop asking questions that have already been answered. I said...
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
You came in here to prove a point to us "people".


No, I didn't. I asked a yes or no question. What point can I prove by asking a yes or no question?

AND, after the first thread collapsed, I TRIED to ask for your opinion of race relations without arguing for anything. (the thread has long since been derailed)

The bottom line is that I can't prove to you that I'm not trying to prove some point or that I'm don't have any other ulterior motive. But why does that prevent you from responding in a civil manner?

quote:
Nothing. Now... why do you keep projecting this kind of nonsense? Did I ever suggest, or imply, that I would lose something by talking to you?


No. So why didn't you (talk to me)?

Whatever.

quote:
As defined, institutional racism envolves government and private entities.

I never said that I think that AA is not justified given government racism.

But I don't think that there should be any laws to prevent private racism, this includes corporations and universities that do not receive any government money.

I disagree... because ALL private institutions benefit financially from the consumer public. Therefore, they have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide equal access to any of those said benefits.

Private institutions should provide equal opportunity to the public for the same reason that they should pay their taxes...

Because it's in the best interest of the public, community, and country that makes them viable in the first place.

quote:
So if when you say institutional racism, you have to specify if you're talking about the part that involves the government or the part that doesn't.

No... I don't. The same principle applies.


quote:
So why do I think that private institutions should be allowed to be racist? Because I don't see why they should be forced not to.

This might sound convoluted, but, as I explained before, I don't think that anyone should be forced to do or not to do anything if they're not directly harming anyone else.

So, tell me which part of the following you think does not constitute as "harm" in your view...

quote:
he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".[1]


quote:
Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic yet covert policies and practices that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Race-based discrimination in housing (see restrictive covenants) and bank lending (see redlining), for example, are forms of institutional racism.

The term institutional racism has also, somewhat controversially, been applied to policies, systems, and processes which are not necessarily caused by intentional racism but which have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial groups.


quote:
Why is AA justified, more specifically, why is non-government discrimination not allowable?

ALL private institutions benefit financially from the consumer public. Therefore, they have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide equal access to any of those said benefits.

quote:
Why must a person be forced to hire/associate with someone?

*Ahem*

( I hope you don't mind, K4R. But, you said it better than I ever could.)

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
You didn't answer my question: why should someone be forced to hire you? Why should someone be forced to share their priviledge with you?


You have it twisted, the are no laws of compulsion with regards to race and discrimination, only laws of prohibition. For the most part public and private employers can hire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, so long as the reason is not one prohibited by law.

There is no law that requires a public or private employer to hire anyone, other than the "law" of prudent business practices that you stated earlier:
quote:
If someone hires inferior workers, then their company will suffer and will lose out to companies that hire the best workers regardless of race.
quote:
K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak to me and blaqfist literally hates me.


Okay, let me clear something up ... While I cannot speak for Virtue, I most certainly did not take a vow to not speak to me. Here is [the pertainent part of] what I said:

quote:
I vow to never again discuss the issue of race with a white person. I will answer any question put to me, but I will not respond beyond my initial answer. I will not give any white person the priviledge of debating my position on race.


Do you see how what I said is completely foreign from your characterization of my vow?

I will provide my thoughts on just about any topic ... I will not, however, suffer a debate.

Is that clear.

Edited to include: And, BTW if this
quote:
I want an answer to a question.
statement is true, you should be completely cool with my vow. Or, you confirm my observation regarding some white folk found here:
quote:
1) Seek information to confirm their assumptions, even if they have to twist, ignore and/or invent arguments to do so;

2) Are merely seeking a fight;

3) "Want in" even though their sole purpose is to disrupt meaningful dialogue amongst the membership;
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
I disagree... because ALL private institutions benefit financially from the consumer public. Therefore, they have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide equal access to any of those said benefits.


Why? The consumers are not forced to buy anything from racist companies. No one is forced to buy anything from any private company. Why should a private company be forced to do anything for a consumer?

When a consumer buys a product voluntarily, BOTH the consumer and the company benefit.

And finally, if a company is forced to hire someone, the consumer will not necessarily benefit. In fact, it's more likely that the cost of labor will be increased and therefore the cost of the product for the consumer will be increased.

quote:
Private institutions should provide equal opportunity to the public for the same reason that they should pay their taxes...


Everyone pays taxes because everyone benefits from government services and no one can chose to not use government services. Consumers can chose to not buy products, why can't companies chose not to sell products or not to hire someone?

quote:
Because it's in the best interest of the public, community, and country that makes them viable in the first place.


It might be argued that not having AA can create resentment and division in the country which will be bad for evryone, but I don't think that this is the case. I think AA creates more hostility than it cures, and I don't think that racism will be prevalent even without AA.


quote:
So if when you say institutional racism, you have to specify if you're talking about the part that involves the government or the part that doesn't.

No... I don't. The same principle applies.


quote:
So, tell me which part of the following you think does not constitute as "harm" in your view...

quote:
he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".[1]


quote:
Institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic yet covert policies and practices that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Race-based discrimination in housing (see restrictive covenants) and bank lending (see redlining), for example, are forms of institutional racism.

The term institutional racism has also, somewhat controversially, been applied to policies, systems, and processes which are not necessarily caused by intentional racism but which have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial groups.


I think that a person or company has a right to not do business with anyone for any reason. The only exceptions would be something like a hospital.

If someone refuses to do business with someone else, he/she is not harming that person.

Likewise, if a group of customers refuse to do business with a company, they are not harming that company.

Would you agree, that if discrimination by companies should be illegal, that boycots of companies should also be illegal?

quote:
*Ahem*

( I hope you don't mind, K4R. But, you said it better than I ever could.)

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
You didn't answer my question: why should someone be forced to hire you? Why should someone be forced to share their priviledge with you?


You have it twisted, the are no laws of compulsion with regards to race and discrimination, only laws of prohibition. For the most part public and private employers can hire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, so long as the reason is not one prohibited by law.

There is no law that requires a public or private employer to hire anyone, other than the "law" of prudent business practices that you stated earlier:


OK, what's the difference between forcing someone to do something and prohibiting someone from not doing something?
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
K4R and Virtue have taken vows to not speak to me and blaqfist literally hates me.


Okay, let me clear something up ... While I cannot speak for Virtue, I most certainly did not take a vow to not speak to me. Here is [the pertainent part of] what I said:

quote:
I vow to never again discuss the issue of race with a white person. I will answer any question put to me, but I will not respond beyond my initial answer. I will not give any white person the priviledge of debating my position on race.


Do you see how what I said is completely foreign from your characterization of my vow?

I will provide my thoughts on just about any topic ... I will not, however, suffer a debate.

Is that clear.


Crystal.

So can you reply to this post:
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/5731083014

It's not very-well worded because it's a direct quote of FireFly, but I can elaborate if needed.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
And let me make this perfectly clear:

quote:
You didn't answer my question: why should someone be forced to hire you? Why should someone be forced to share their priviledge with you?



There is no room for an intelligent conversation when your language
(and, hence, mentality) is no more sophisticated than that.


Nmaginate, do you want me to reply to this or any other of your posts? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm directly asking you if you actually want me to reply to your posts.)
quote:


If I understand the question correctly, I am being asked what I would seek in terms of reparations.

First, my seeking of reparations would not merely be for the ravages slavery; but would extend from 1867 [with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866] through at least until 1965, after the passage and "effective date" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So off the top of my head and to start with, I would seek [on an individual level]:

A cash Reimbursement for all tax dollars [State, local and federal] that my ancestrial line paid between the above dates, plus a reasonable interest payment. For more than 100 years, my family paid for services which were by law denied them.

But at any rate, I would not/do not see any reparations as foreclosing current affirmative actions.

And BTW, for a comprehensive discussion on this, maybe MBM can revive the Reparations thread, where many of us stated what we would seek. I looked but could not find the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

Nmaginate, do you want me to reply to this or any other of your posts? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm directly asking you if you actually want me to reply to your posts.)



It's clear you don't have a response (and can't defend your curious language use) otherwise you wouldn't continue to ask asinine questions per your usual evasive tactics.

And, dude, "want" has nothing to do with it. Either you can defend what you say or you can't.

It's just that simple.
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
subtley is not your strong point is it?


My strong point is using logic and remaining cool and collected.

quote:
And please refrain from putting any words into my mouth or I'll be tempted to put something else into yours.


I didn't put words in your mouth and I wasn't planning to.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
It's clear you don't have a response (and can't defend your curious language use) otherwise you wouldn't continue to ask asinine questions per your usual evasive tactics.

And, dude, "want" has nothing to do with it. Either you can defend what you say or you can't.

It's just that simple.


I'm more than happy to defend my post, normally. But you've stated more than once that you simply don't care about anything I say. I don't see any point in responding to you untill you indicate that you want to listen. I also don't understand why you're posting so much in turn.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

My strong point is logic and remaining cool and collected.



There is no (proper application of) logic in contradicting or otherwise betraying your pretenses.

The "cool" and calm stuff is largely immaterial and way too self-serving inasmuchas it is so subjective with your peculiar self-pronounced self-judgement.

Why bring up this crap...?

... is not indicative of being "calm" or collected. Given how you are quick to and frequently characterize other people's views with such terms shows NO LOGIC on your point. In fact, it shows the opposite. And it's really hilarious how at one point you declared you didn't have to and, basically, wouldn't use such terms as if you could/would actually be "calm", collected and applying logic in these discussions as opposed to the Bush League rhetoric I've pointed out in your "Language", "Agendas", "Mentality", etc.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

I'm more than happy to defend my post, normally. But you've stated more than once that you simply don't care about anything I say. I don't see any point in responding to you untill you indicate that you want to listen. I also don't understand why you're posting so much in turn.



COP OUT!

You should be presenting your position and defending it regardless. No one should have to provoke you to do that if you want a real discussion. A TWO-WAY debate/discussion.

Whether I care or not, your previous question(s) were addressed yet, instead of presenting/defending your position, you avoid dealing with the problems those responses cause for your position. So you're reduced to trying to find someone your pre-scripted ideas possibly might have a chance with.

No one ever indicated that they "want" to listen to you, much less invited you to open your mouth, yet you keep posting. You keep posting even when what I've just pointed out (on the other thread) is EXHIBIT A, prima facia evidence that YOU DON'T LISTEN!

Your problem is that you want this to be a ONE-WAY conversation with you dictating even when it's been proven that you aren't ready!
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

The "cool" and calm stuff is largely immaterial and way too self-serving inasmuchas it is so subjective with your peculiar self-pronounced self-judgement.

Why bring up this crap...?


Emotion does not transmit very well over the internet. But I think I'm doing much better than most people would.

quote:
Given how you are quick to and frequently characterize other people's views with such terms


I still think that I'm by far the least guilty of that than anyone else here.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
COP OUT!

You should be presenting your position and defending it regardless.


Why?

quote:
No one should have to provoke you to do that if you want a real discussion. A TWO-WAY debate/discussion.

Whether I care or not, your previous question(s) were addressed yet, instead of presenting/defending your position, you avoid dealing with the problems those responses cause for your position. So you're reduced to trying to find someone your pre-scripted ideas possibly might have a chance with.

No one ever indicated that they "want" to listen to you, much less invited you to open your mouth, yet you keep posting. You keep posting even when what I've just pointed out (on the other thread) is EXHIBIT A, prima facia evidence that YOU DON'T LISTEN!

Your problem is that you want this to be a ONE-WAY conversation with you dictating even when it's been proven that you aren't ready!


Again, I've responded to you numerous times. I've asked numerous yes/no questions that should be trivial to answer, yet you have not.

First it was the "language of engagement", then you just said flat-out that you don't care about anything I say.
And what does any such subjective comparisons have to do with your claim that you are "calm" and "collected"?


That's a claim by you that you are not guilty of those things at all. "Far Less Guilty" and "doing much better" then are contradictions to your claim - i.e. there is NO LOGIC to your response. You have not maintained your premise:

My strong point is logic and remaining cool and collected.


Dude, I pointed out things you called "crap" a long time ago. Those were all things that showed how you were NOT using logic and you were doing all of that without provocation and hardly with anyone else joining you.

You came here with that type of stuff. How you feel "most people would" do is IRRELEVANT. We're talking about you in this forum, talking about this subject matter and approaching it all the wrong way in a manner that made your more guilty than everyone else in your threads because, again, that was the basis of your discourse.

You couldn't speak about anything without reducing the issue(s) to the most inane and simplistic terms.

quote:
You should be presenting your position and defending it regardless.
quote:

Why?


Posted July 05, 2006 01:51 PM
"I'm asking black people questions to see what they think and to see how they respond to my arguments."

Your argument(s) have to be laid out for all to see in order for people to respond to them.



NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
First it was the "language of engagement", then you just said flat-out that you don't care about anything I say.


That's not what I said. Hyperbole will get you nowhere.

But you presenting and defending your position has little if anything to do with me. Again, I've pointed out how you haven't presented or defended your position with respect to question(s) you posed to others (and ones that other people responded to).

Obviously, you must be GUILTY AS CHARGED
(trying to AVOID addressing the HOLES in your position they exposed).

And whether I care or not about the content of what you have to say (on the actual issue you keep begging for a conversation on), none of that has anything to do with why you have chosen NOT to respond to the comments from other posters who have dismantled your scripted Talking Points and left you mumbling the same stuff you already tried with NO SUCCESS.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
"I told you rather clearly, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR VIEWS ARE. Period."

Then why are you asking me anything?


Your excuses for not responding effectively to MBM, Kweli4Real, etc.?


No. It's not because of me. It's because YOU ARE NOT READY! This is THE END OF SCRIPTS!

You got to come here with more than that and you have to live with yourself knowing that you have way too much stuff that you haven't figured out.

That's why YOU ARE NOT READY!
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
I disagree... because ALL private institutions benefit financially from the consumer public. Therefore, they have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide equal access to any of those said benefits.


Why? The consumers are not forced to buy anything from racist companies. No one is forced to buy anything from any private company.

That's not true. The vast majority of everything we buy to survive comes from private companies. Where do you buy your gas from? Do you buy it from the government, or a private company?

quote:
Why should a private company be forced to do anything for a consumer?

Because the consumer is the only reason the private company exists at all.

quote:
When a consumer buys a product voluntarily, BOTH the consumer and the company benefit.

That sounds good on paper. But it takes for granted that the purchase was voluntary.

The reality is this...

The only way for that to be reasonable is if there other options. So, in order to not buy something from a racist company... there must be non-racist companies with the same product, at the same price, with the same level of quality and service. Otherwise, there is a disconnect... a "disadvantage". This is why segregation was a failure. Separate is not equal.

quote:
And finally, if a company is forced to hire someone, the consumer will not necessarily benefit. In fact, it's more likely that the cost of labor will be increased and therefore the cost of the product for the consumer will be increased.

Why is that more likely? When has that ever happened?

quote:
Everyone pays taxes because everyone benefits from government services and no one can chose to not use government services. Consumers can chose to not buy products, why can't companies chose not to sell products or not to hire someone?

OK, this comes from your juvenile understanding of business.

It is in the community's, and the business's, best interest for every business to do as much business as possible. To refuse service to any segment of the population that is able to pay for it is a reduction in revenue, circulatory funds, and taxes. No business that wants to stay in business will turn away a Black consumer's money. That would be stupid.

Therefore, for reasons I already stated, they owe that Black consumer an opportunity to participate in that business structure.

quote:
It might be argued that not having AA can create resentment and division in the country which will be bad for evryone, but I don't think that this is the case.

If you don't think that's the case, then you haven't been paying attention. Where do you think AA came from? It was born out of resentment and hostility that resulted from centuries of unfair business practices. AA did not come from liberal White people who were trying to make everything right. AA is a bone thrown from White supremacy to keep us from burning this whole thing to the ground. Power concedes nothing without demand. AA exists because we demanded it... period. And there was enough "resentment and hostility" behind that demand that the White elite gave it to us.

quote:
I think AA creates more hostility than it cures,

For you... probably. AA is not about you.

quote:
and I don't think that racism will be prevalent even without AA.

Huh???

quote:
I think that a person or company has a right to not do business with anyone for any reason.

Actually they don't have that right. But, I get your point.

So, tell me... where did they get that so called "right" from?

quote:
The only exceptions would be something like a hospital.

Now your going to make exceptions? Why?

quote:
If someone refuses to do business with someone else, he/she is not harming that person.

Really? So, where do you buy your gas from again? If they wouldn't sell it to you, wouldn't that be to your "disadvantage"?

quote:
Likewise, if a group of customers refuse to do business with a company, they are not harming that company.

You're joking right? There is a reason why boycotts work.

quote:
Would you agree, that if discrimination by companies should be illegal, that boycotts of companies should also be illegal?

No. Again, these private companies exist to serve us.. not the other way around. We pay for their service.

quote:
OK, what's the difference between forcing someone to do something and prohibiting someone from not doing something?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with Constructive Feedback...
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
If I understand the question correctly, I am being asked what I would seek in terms of reparations.

First, my seeking of reparations would not merely be for the ravages slavery; but would extend from 1867 [with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866] through at least until 1965, after the passage and "effective date" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So off the top of my head and to start with, I would seek [on an individual level]:

A cash Reimbursement for all tax dollars [State, local and federal] that my ancestrial line paid between the above dates, plus a reasonable interest payment. For more than 100 years, my family paid for services which were by law denied them.

But at any rate, I would not/do not see any reparations as foreclosing current affirmative actions.

And BTW, for a comprehensive discussion on this, maybe MBM can revive the Reparations thread, where many of us stated what we would seek. I looked but could not find the thread.


Thank you for your reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
QUOTE me IN CONTEXT!

You only wish I wouldn't comment about "anything" you have to say. I also told you "rather clearly" that YOU ARE NOT READY. That's exactly what I keep demonstrating as I continue to say and ask you things to solidify an already solid case.


NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How can I become "ready"?
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
QUOTE me IN CONTEXT!

You only wish I wouldn't comment about "anything" you have to say. I also told you "rather clearly" that YOU ARE NOT READY. That's exactly what I keep demonstrating as I continue to say and ask you things to solidify an already solid case.


NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How can I become "ready"?


No... QUOTE ME IN CONTEXT!
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
That's not true. The vast majority of everything we buy to survive comes from private companies. Where do you buy your gas from? Do you buy it from the government, or a private company?


That still doesn't mean that you're forced to buy gas from 1 particular company. I don't think that there's anything that you need to survive that you can't get from a non-racist company.

quote:
Because the consumer is the only reason the private company exists at all.


And?

quote:
That sounds good on paper. But it takes for granted that the purchase was voluntary.

The reality is this...

The only way for that to be reasonable is if there other options. So, in order to not buy something from a racist company... there must be non-racist companies with the same product, at the same price, with the same level of quality and service. Otherwise, there is a disconnect... a "disadvantage". This is why segregation was a failure. Separate is not equal.


What do you mean by "The only way for that to be reasonable"?

It is true, no matter what the situation is, that people only enter voluntary contracts if both parties benefit. Why esle would they enter the contracts?

Anyway, why must there be a law forcing companies to provide the same service to everyone?

If, for example, there was a racist shoe maker who made the best shoes in the country and sold them very cheaply, why must that shoe maker be forced to sell the shoes to everyone?

By your logic, it would be better if the shoe maker didn't make any shoes at all. But that's an overall loss of productivity.

quote:
quote:
And finally, if a company is forced to hire someone, the consumer will not necessarily benefit. In fact, it's more likely that the cost of labor will be increased and therefore the cost of the product for the consumer will be increased.

Why is that more likely? When has that ever happened?


It is more likely because the company will know best what workers it needs. If you ever tell a company what to do, it will probably be worse for the company.

quote:
OK, this comes from your juvenile understanding of business.

...
quote:
It is in the community's, and the business's, best interest for every business to do as much business as possible. To refuse service to any segment of the population that is able to pay for it is a reduction in revenue, circulatory funds, and taxes. No business that wants to stay in business will turn away a Black consumer's money. That would be stupid.


Even if it's stupid, why not let a company do it? It's stupid to drink alcohol, but we still let people do it, for example.

quote:
Therefore, for reasons I already stated, they owe that Black consumer an opportunity to participate in that business structure.


I still don't understand why anyone owes anything in this situation. It may be in the company's interest to do business, but why does it HAVE to do business with anyone?

Bottom line: either contracts are voluntary or they're not.

quote:
If you don't think that's the case, then you haven't been paying attention. Where do you think AA came from?


I think that AA was created to repay for government racism of the post-slavery, pre-civil rights era.

quote:
It was born out of resentment and hostility that resulted from centuries of unfair business practices.


That resentment was justified.

quote:
AA did not come from liberal White people who were trying to make everything right. AA is a bone thrown from White supremacy to keep us from burning this whole thing to the ground.


I don't agree. I don't think you can burn it all down to the ground. But that's a whole other discussion.

quote:
Power concedes nothing without demand. AA exists because we demanded it... period. And there was enough "resentment and hostility" behind that demand that the White elite gave it to us.


That's fine. I have nothing against you getting your way by force. But that's a double-edged sword, and I think you'll get burned in the end.

quote:
For you... probably. AA is not about you.


Yes, but you're living in the same country with me and people like me, and a lot of other people who are not as nice as I am.

quote:
quote:
and I don't think that racism will be prevalent even without AA.

Huh???


Believe it or not, but I don't think that companies will be racist even if you get rid of AA. Exactly because it is stupid to be racist in business. If companies miss out on business because they are racist, other companies will pick up that business and overtake them.

quote:
Actually they don't have that right. But, I get your point.

So, tell me... where did they get that so called "right" from?


It's not really a "right", it's just an agreement between everyone in society to leave each other alone and let people freely make contracts with each other. Such an arrangement is better for everyone involved.

quote:
Now your going to make exceptions?

Yes
quote:
Why?


Because that's the way the world is. You have to make an exception for the military, for example. That's what defines a country, otherwise you have feudalism.

But let's ignore the exceptions for now. That's a separate thread.

quote:
quote:
If someone refuses to do business with someone else, he/she is not harming that person.

Really?
Yes
quote:
So, where do you buy your gas from again?


If you're in the middle of the desert and you're out of gas, and the only gas station around won't sell you gas, then you have to ask yourself how you got in this situation in the first place.

What if there was no gas station there at all? Would you still drive out into the middle of the desert?

What if you knew that the owners are racist and wouldn't sell you gas, would you still drive out?

And how did people manage to survive before there was gasoline?

Also, let's say a racist scientist creates hydrogen fuel. Why does he have to sell it to you? What's the difference between that and gas?

quote:
If they wouldn't sell it to you, wouldn't that be to your "disadvantage"?


It's their gas. It would be to my disadvantage if they didn't give it to me for free also. If I can't force them to give it to me for free, why can I force them to sell it at a certain price?

quote:
You're joking right? There is a reason why boycotts work.


I'm not joking, you're just using a different definition of "harm". There's a difference between harming a car dealership by torching their cars and "harming" it by boycotting it. Don't you agree?

If you torch their cars, then you use force against them and deprive them of their wealth. If you boycott them, they still have their cars, you didn't deprive them of anything, you didn't steal or destroy anything.

The business EXPECTED that you would buy their product. But you don't HAVE TO buy anything. If someone spent all their money making a product that nobody wants, that's their own damn fault. No one should be forced to buy it.

quote:
No. Again, these private companies exist to serve us..


Ummmm... You're kidding, right?

These companies are people too. You're saying that there are people who exist to serve you. Does this remind you of anything???

quote:
not the other way around.


It's not either of those ways. No one exists to serve anyone else. People are free, at least in this country, at least for now.

quote:
We pay for their service.


And they work to make the service.
..............I'm sorry Zeus, I know you weren't talking to me, but I gotta post. Some of the stuff you said is just really..."out there" and it's bugging me to no end.

Sorry BV. Frown


quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
That still doesn't mean that you're forced to buy gas from 1 particular company. I don't think that there's anything that you need to survive that you can't get from a non-racist company.


Why do you assume that everyone can just "go to another company"? People's spending habits are influenced by location (where they live), cultural tastes, availability and price. Not everyone can afford or has the luxury to go somewhere else. "Somewhere else" may be 100 miles away or may cost 3 times as much.

quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
Because the consumer is the only reason the private company exists at all.


quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
And?


And....therefore a private company shouldn't bite the hand that feeds it.

quote:
What do you mean by "The only way for that to be reasonable"?

It is true, no matter what the situation is, that people only enter voluntary contracts if both parties benefit. Why esle would they enter the contracts?


Do you mean to tell me that sweatshop workers in Asia and Latin-America and mine workers and farmers on corporate farms in Africa entered through "voluntary contracts"? Do you really think they "benefit" from this deal?

"Voluntary contract" means that you were not forced, coereced and made in some way to enter a contract. That's not the reality. Almost everyone is coerced (some people are forced, such as piece workers, prostitutes, corporate farm serfs, slaves, etc.) to work where they do. Do you really believe that people work at McDonald's because that's where they want to work?

quote:
Anyway, why must there be a law forcing companies to provide the same service to everyone?


Why must there be a law forcing people to labor contracts?

quote:
If, for example, there was a racist shoe maker who made the best shoes in the country and sold them very cheaply, why must that shoe maker be forced to sell the shoes to everyone?

By your logic, it would be better if the shoe maker didn't make any shoes at all. But that's an overall loss of productivity.


If forcing someone to end discrimination is wrong, then you are wrong if you believe in ending slavery by force.

quote:
It is more likely because the company will know best what workers it needs. If you ever tell a company what to do, it will probably be worse for the company.


That's a 'Rational Choice' assumption. You're assuming that most managers/employers/owners are rational, competent, informed people who make scientific decisions about the course of their business. Companies like Enron are not an acception to the rule in real life, and many people could tell you how idiotic, ignorant and unqualified their bosses/mangers/owners are to run a business.

quote:
Even if it's stupid, why not let a company do it? It's stupid to drink alcohol, but we still let people do it, for example.


This is the same rationale as saying, "It's stupid to bully someone, but we still let people do it."

quote:
I still don't understand why anyone owes anything in this situation. It may be in the company's interest to do business, but why does it HAVE to do business with anyone?


Because if it didn't, it wouldn't exist. Beggars can't be choosers.

quote:
It's not really a "right", it's just an agreement between everyone in society to leave each other alone and let people freely make contracts with each other. Such an arrangement is better for everyone involved.


This is assuming that everyone is on an equal footing in society. If society is unequal, than "leaving each other alone and let people freely make contracts with each other" means that those who have more would use their natural monopoly to gain off of those who have less.

If one person owns 200 hectares of land, and another person owns and acre, and the person with 200 hectares of land buys the acre from that person and hires them to till it for them, how is that "free"?

quote:
Also, let's say a racist scientist creates hydrogen fuel. Why does he have to sell it to you? What's the difference between that and gas?


That's commonly known as "hoarding". The logical conclusion of your statement is that they should also be allowed to charge whatever they want for it because they are not obligated to sell it to anyone, vis-a-vis price gouging.

What a terrible society that would be.

quote:
Ummmm... You're kidding, right?

These companies are people too. You're saying that there are people who exist to serve you. Does this remind you of anything???


Companies are people? Roll Eyes Come on now. Roll Eyes That's like saying the market is an entity.

A company is nothing more than a collection of individuals and the interactions and structures there between and their interactions and structures between others outside of the business.

It's a system. Nothing more. It has no inherent existence and has no inherent rights because it is a weak connection of constituents. Much like the Buddhist view of the "self" (Anatman).
Last edited {1}
No problem EP. You hit the nail on the head in everything you addressed. There is one thing I'd like to add though..

quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
It is in the community's, and the business's, best interest for every business to do as much business as possible. To refuse service to any segment of the population that is able to pay for it is a reduction in revenue, circulatory funds, and taxes. No business that wants to stay in business will turn away a Black consumer's money. That would be stupid.


Even if it's stupid, why not let a company do it? It's stupid to drink alcohol, but we still let people do it, for example.

The point is that they will not do it. No company will turn away anyone's money. Refusing to get paid is the epitome of bad business, and nothing drives a company out of business faster than that.

They absolutely WILL take Black folks money. If they are allowed, they will make us sit in the back of the bus, eat in the "coloreds only" section, buy property only in certain sections of town, care for us only at cetain hospitals... and gouge us for any all services and products. But, make no mistake... they will take our money.

The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that the quality of service is equitable. That's the start of making sure that all citizens are able to maintain a fair standard of living. The only reason you can't see the value in this, is because you can't see past your own Whiteness. You can't see how this would disadvatage you, so you're desperately trying to minimize this to some sort of intellectual game.

However, take a moment to consider how it does disadvantage you...

As I told you before, the balance of power is shifting. It has been for a long time now. White Supremacy is waning. It is an unsustainable system, and history has proven this. For any White people to survive this power shift, you're going to have to help us make sure that the next system that replaces it is fair and equitable. Because if it's not, y'all are going to be in deep shit.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×