Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
First up, ZeusTKP, I kind of wonder why we - as in you and I - are having this conversation - it feels to me like some irksome discussion of 'what's right for other folks.'


A: Why do you say that? I'm asking them what reparations would be enough to erase the past. It might be that nothing can. If that's the case, I just want them to say that. But they are too mad to even say that. They are just totally pissed off, period.

quote:
It's beyond me to intellectualize about something that I have no true experience or deep knowledge of.


B:Words like "intellectualize" and "deep" knowledge are foreign to me, I'm afraid. To me, somethings is logical or it's not.

quote:
Affirmative Action and Reparations, in particular, are profoundly about people, a human experience, history and healing, not an intellectual exercise I choose to toy with.

Sure I can throw up some of my thoughts but I feel they're meaningless (beyond posturing) unless I can offer some concrete ideas that are actionable. I'm honest enough to admit I can't. While I have a vision of sorts, I feel it's pointless if I can't also suggest the mechanics of it. But back to your question...


I'm in Australia, so I have limited knowledge of the practicalities, actualities, and outcomes of Affirmative Action - it's further down on my Afr Amer studies reading list.

So... my answer is broadstrokes. I'd have to say that any system of 'fairness-by-legislation' is legislation created to enforce fairness, where fairness only exists selectively.


C:What % of the Australian population is African-Australian? How did they get there?

quote:
Any system has the potential to be exploited or create dependancy - is that your the gripe about it ??


No.

quote:
- however in my opinion it's more important to ensure equality of opportunity and potential for employment for everyone. To not penalize many because of the few who may exploit those rights.

To answer your question more directly, until I see no need for Affirmative Action


D:When do you think that will be? What would it be like then?


I'll keep my answers short coz it's been a long day.
A: I imagine no Reparations could ever erase the past... Reparations are more about remembering than forgetting.
B: like I said, logic isn't enough. You and I CANNOT experience being African American or experience the legacy of the past. 'Intellectualize' is what you are doing. Don't be cute and say that word is foreign to you or I'll get angry.
C: I don't know. Good question, I'll try and find out. To my knowledge any African Americans here in Australia arrived by plane. Wink However, there is much indigenous Australian history, but fewer than 2.5% of our Pop. is indigenous.
D: When do I see the need to end AA? Probably never. When there is NO need. Which is when American society (and this applies globally too) truly is democratic and everyone has equal rights and opportunities - probably never. What would it BE like if everyone had equal opportunities and equal rights? Utopia probably. A diverse, equal, intelligent, creative and culturally enriched society.
bye 4 now.
.
BV,

It's important that you note that I NEVER referred to Zeus as a klansman. That was all he was willing to take from my responses. I did, however, mention [one time] the term racialist here:
quote:
Yes, I believe Firefly to be white and an anti-racist; but from what I've read, Firefly's purpose here is vastly different from your's. She asks questions to understand the thoughts of the members and to clarify her own. She has yet [to my knowledge] to pose a question as a platform to defend racialist positions, e.g., the right to discriminate based on race.
to his position as one typically taken by "racialists."

[BTW, Racialist is a term coined by psuedo-intellectual white supremacist to deflect the negative connotations associated with the term "racist."]

But at any rate, I stand by my reference based on this exchange:

Zeus wrote:
quote:
... The government should not discriminate based on race, especially the police. And no one should be able to interfere with someone else's private business.


I responded:
quote:
So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices? Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams? Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions? Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?


Zeus replied, after attempting to distinguish these interferences in private enterprise:
quote:
My anti-anti-discrimination stance is a direct result of my position that everyone should be free to do anything as long as they don't directly harm anyone.


Noting that Zeus's dodge, I replied:
quote:
I see that your objection to interference in private business is merely a picking and choosing of legitimate expressions of the public will, based in white [male] priviledge. Consumer protections, e.g., contracts, environmental protections and health codes, all clearly touch on your life, and upholding them is to your benefit; whereas, your inability to see anti-discrimination laws directly benefiting you prevents your advocacy.

Can one provide a better example of an argument based in white supremacy/priviledge?


Zeus then unconvinvingly backtracks to offer that he does not support consumer protections, environmental protections and health codes after having argued that each of these were different than anti-discrimination laws.

So Zeus ... if the robe and pointy cap fit ... lol
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
ZeusTKP I'll respond to your questions later...

As a non-African American, before you immerse yourself in the rest of the discussion, I'd like to suggest/ask (whichever you find less offensive) you do one thing... Smile


I don't get offended easily. And even if I do, I can control my emotions pretty well.

quote:
Take a quiet moment and ask yourself - honestly - which is your core motivation in seeking and discussing your solution to the two seperate issues of AA and Reparations?


Your question is loaded. AA and Reparations are not just separate. They're not the same thing, but they are related. I'd be happy to discuss them one at a time.

quote:
Is it to find a solution for African Americans themselves;


I'm not going to tell them how to live. I just want dialogue with them.

quote:
is it to find an equitable solution on a national scale;


yes

quote:
is it to find a personal solution;


This is not a personal issue for me.

quote:
is it a desire to project manage; or maybe it's a combination?


Huh?

quote:
Once you've answered that honestly, and have absolute clarity in your own mind, you may find less need for 'logic for logic's sake', and hopefully a greater empathy, and openness to others' perspectives.
.


I seem to be lacking empathy with the people on this board because they get angry at every single post. What can I do about it?
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
And the difference, in your view, is what?


The difference is that I am very willing to actually debate my position. I am going to listen and respond to any arguments against my position. I'm not going to call people names and just stop talking to them.

quote:
That's not true. K4R has addressed you point by point. There is not a lack of discussion going on here. It's a lack of understanding.


K4R has not responded to many direct statements and questions including the ones below.

quote:

quote:
Me:
"Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?"
"Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it?"
"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?"

All of these questions show a profound lack of understanding of what institutional racism is.


OK, then tell me what institutional racism is.
(And remember, that I said that the government must treat everyone equally regardless of race.)

quote:
That's not true either. Maybe being called a racialist and being alluded to as a clansman are the only parts of this thread you remember. I suggest you go back and read K4R's posts again.


I can re-post every single thing that I said and that people did not reply to. If you really really want me to.

quote:
Start with institutional racism. Wikipedia is not my favorite source to use, but it's a start.


Don't just point to a link unless you're willing to defend every word there as your own.


quote:
Huh??? I never said anything about White privilege. That's something else entirely.


OK, what is white priviledge?

quote:
Now what are you talking about? No one said anything about wealth. What are you projecting now?


Ignore that last part for now, we need to agree on the basics first.
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
I'll keep my answers short coz it's been a long day.
A: I imagine no Reparations could ever erase the past... Reparations are more about remembering than forgetting.


What ARE, in your opinion, reparations?

quote:
B: like I said, logic isn't enough. You and I CANNOT experience being African American or experience the legacy of the past. 'Intellectualize' is what you are doing. Don't be cute and say that word is foreign to you or I'll get angry.


"Foreign" was a bad choice of words on my part. It made me sound snobby or something. All I was trying to say is that I don't understand what exactly you mean by 'Intellectualize'. How can I say the same things I said without intellectualizing? I think that's the only way I ever speak, period.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
BV,

It's important that you note that I NEVER referred to Zeus as a klansman.


Kweli:
"But at any rate, your hood is showing here ... nono"

I guess you meant hood like the little red riding hood...

quote:
That was all he was willing to take from my responses.


Answer me these questions three:
"Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?"
"Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it?"
"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?"


quote:
But at any rate, I stand by my reference based on this exchange:

Zeus wrote:
quote:
... The government should not discriminate based on race, especially the police. And no one should be able to interfere with someone else's private business.


I responded:
quote:
So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices? Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams? Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions? Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?


Zeus replied, after attempting to distinguish these interferences in private enterprise:
quote:
My anti-anti-discrimination stance is a direct result of my position that everyone should be free to do anything as long as they don't directly harm anyone.


Kweli is purposefully omitting important parts of m reply which he ignored anyway.

This was my actual response in FULL:

K4R: So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices?

Me: Depends what you mean by that. You can't lie when you sign a contract with someone. That's the same as stealing.

K4R: Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams?

Me: The environment is a special case because everyone has to share it. The government has to conserve the environment for everyone.

K4R: Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions?

Me: I'd have to elaborate on that, if you want. [no response from K4R]

K4R: Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?

Me: My anti-anti-discrimination stance is a direct result of my position that everyone should be free to do anything as long as they don't directly harm anyone.

quote:
Noting that Zeus's dodge, I replied:
quote:
I see that your objection to interference in private business is merely a picking and choosing of legitimate expressions of the public will, based in white [male] priviledge. Consumer protections, e.g., contracts, environmental protections and health codes, all clearly touch on your life, and upholding them is to your benefit; whereas, your inability to see anti-discrimination laws directly benefiting you prevents your advocacy.

Can one provide a better example of an argument based in white supremacy/priviledge?


Zeus then unconvinvingly backtracks to offer that he does not support consumer protections, environmental protections and health codes after having argued that each of these were different than anti-discrimination laws.


So, instead of posting my reply, or even part of it, and INSTEAD OF REPLYING TO MY POST IN THE FIRST PLACE, Kweil just declared it "unconvincing". Bravo.

This is not the first time that Kweli has simply mocked me instead of putting up a real argument:
"Let me take this one ...

quote:
My core motivation is to confront and intellectual whip a bunch of negroes, thus demonstrating for all the superiority of the great white race. "

No, no insults there...

quote:
So Zeus ... if the robe and pointy cap fit ... lol


You seem to be wearing a pointy cap as far as I'm concerned.

Why don't you be a man/woman and reply to my post(s)?
Last edited {1}
ZeusTKP, maybe I'm confusing you. Maybe I am not making myself clear. Mea culpa if that is the case. Or maybe we are just on very different wavelengths.

I'll try again.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

"Is it to find a solution for African Americans themselves; " is just that... a 'solution' for them, not you.

"is it to find a personal solution; " your answer is: "This is not a personal issue for me."
why are you asking then? You are - by default - part of what happens in the USA by living there so it does affect you in some way. You are either reacting to it, or participating in it, either by action, or inaction. Your beliefs - whatever they are - make you a participant whether passive or active.

"I seem to be lacking empathy with the people on this board because they get angry at every single post. What can I do about it?"

Then let me ask you what it is you want out of the discussion with the posters on AA?
If you want to know what they think, they are telling you - and on their terms.

Fact is, it is their forum not yours, or mine. It's up to you whether to listen and think about exactly what they are saying - whether they are angry or not - whether you agree or not.

All I can offer from my own experience is to spend a serious amount of time thinking about white priviledge and what it offers you and others who are not the minority, then think about how that affects everyone else who is a minority. IMHO if you really think about that... then what you, me or anyone else might bring to the table is not a debate about IF there should be AA or Reparations. I will say it again, I see no reason to abolish AA until there is no need for it. With Reparations, I'd prefer everyone put their energies into how such a monumental task could be done equitably and sustainably, not debate if it should be. Seriously, why expect anyone on AA to waste a second considering if or why it should be?

This is not a slap, it's a reality check. How can you say "This is not a personal issue for me" and somehow try to remain at a distance, when you (and I) are in fact, part of the majority that affect this. If emotionally, you remain distant from this issue, then you haven't asked yourself what your core motivation is. By "huh?" 'project manage', I mean... remaining distant and disengaged, yet expect people to engage with your 'solution.' A 'solution' which can never be soley academic because it involves people. I keep saying that because I sense a disconnectedness with that side of your questioning. Needless to say I am only speaking for myself.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
What ARE, in your opinion, reparations?


What they may symbolize to me, most likely are of little consequence to anyone else. It is not about me. I'm not suprised anyone on AA.org would be insulted at a non-minority person proposing any kind of solution. Which is why I haven't done so to date.

[if I were running the USA] I would rather have a Referendum-style compulsory vote and ask African Americans to: answer that question in their own words, and then hold a 2nd Referendum to vote on several 'models' put forward, then debate them. And I see that as being only Stage 1.

Honestly, I see that as being of more value.
.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Kweli:
"But at any rate, your hood is showing here ... "

I guess you meant hood like the little red riding hood...


Now Zeus ... I'm sure that even you would understand that your arguments regarding AA and anti-discrimination laws are the same as those found at Stormfront, AmRen and the other white supremacist sites. My pointing that out is not the same as my calling you a klansman. Right? Besides, a racialist [a term, BTW, that you did not object to 19] complaining about being compared to a klansman is a lot like a theft complaining that s/he was compared to a burglar.

quote:
Kweli is purposefully omitting important parts of m reply which he ignored anyway.

This was my actual response in FULL:

K4R: So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices?

Me: Depends what you mean by that. You can't lie when you sign a contract with someone. That's the same as stealing.

K4R: Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams?

Me: The environment is a special case because everyone has to share it. The government has to conserve the environment for everyone.

K4R: Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions?

Me: I'd have to elaborate on that, if you want. [no response from K4R]

K4R: Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?

Me: My anti-anti-discrimination stance is a direct result of my position that everyone should be free to do anything as long as they don't directly harm anyone.


Yes, I edited the exchange to exhibit the pertainent parts. And now you object ... Okay fine. Let me use the above to make clear the point.

My point is that you claim to object to restrictions and/or interference into private enterprise; but I assert that, as evidenced by your "unredacted" version of our exchange, you pick and choose those expressions of the public will that you consider to be interferences [e.g., anti-discrimination laws] and attempt to distinguish those interferences [e.g., consumer protection laws, health and safety laws, environmental protections] that you consider acceptable. And, it so happens that those interferences you object to are those that you don't see as benefiting you; while those you attempt to distinguish are those that touch you life. Is that clear?

I declared your later protestations, that you oppose consumer protection laws, health and safety laws and environmental protections, as unconvincing because you did not state these objections until after I pointed out your picking and choosing. Is that clear?

quote:
This is not the first time that Kweli has simply mocked me instead of putting up a real argument:


It is true that I mocked you; but it is equally true that I have addressed you questions, line for line. That you choose to recognize my insult while ignoring my argument says more about your sincerity in this discussion than my expression of frustration that you refuse to acknowledge my argument says about me.

quote:
Why don't you be a man/woman and reply to my post(s)?


Okay Chuckie-Come-Lately [insult intended], here is my reply to your questions:

quote:
"Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?"


With the exception of commerce, I agree there should be no requirement that individuals or groups be forced to associate. But, I don't believe that there are any such laws. Please cite to one.

However, in the case of commerce the rules of engagement are, and always have been, different from those governing purely private interaction. These rules are designed to faciliate the free flow of commerce. That expression of the public will is evidenced by the establishment of commercial codes that differ from civil and criminal codes.

quote:
"Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it?"


This is clearly a fallacious and ridiculous question/argument. There is, and never has been, any requirement/rule/law in these United States, that requires "a shopkeep to give employment to anyone who asks for it." Either cite to such a requirement/rule/law; or, drop the argument/question. No ... be man/woman/god enough to acknowledge the absurdity of the question/argument, then drop it from the discussion.

quote:
why should someone be forced to hire you?


Again, no one is forced to hire anyone. Any employer is free to not hire any person for any reason, so long as the reason is not a prohibited reason, as expressed by the will of the people. And, in these United States the will of the people, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct. Never-the-less, an employer is free to act as s/he chooses in making hiring decisions. But here, as in most commercial instances, failure to abide by the rule of law [commercial, civil or that of economic principles], e.g., hiring the most qualified individual, comes with a price.

Have I answered your questions?
quote:
"I seem to be lacking empathy with the people on this board because they get angry at every single post. What can I do about it?"

Then let me ask you what it is you want out of the discussion with the posters on AA?
If you want to know what they think, they are telling you - and on their terms.

Fact is, it is their forum not yours, or mine. It's up to you whether to listen and think about exactly what they are saying - whether they are angry or not - whether you agree or not.

yeah

But I beg to differ on one point. This is not "our" forum, as opposed to yours or his. Everyone is welcome.

But my (our) "anger" is born of the insulting nature of a racialist to expect a warm welcome when s/he comes into this forum for the purpose of dictating to Black folks how we should think on matters, such as AA and anti-discrimination laws, even if the dictate is couched in terms of engaging in information gathering. Moreover, it is the height of arrogance and an expression of white priviledge.
quote:
Or maybe we are just on very different wavelengths.


Quite possible. But I'm more than happy to take things slow and keep talking until we come to some sort of understanding.

quote:
I'll try again.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

"Is it to find a solution for African Americans themselves; " is just that... a 'solution' for them, not you.


How can a solution only affect them and not me?

Or do you mean that it must be their decision?

Basically, I don't understand what you mean when you say "a 'solution' for them, not you."

quote:
"is it to find a personal solution; " your answer is: "This is not a personal issue for me."
why are you asking then? You are - by default - part of what happens in the USA by living there so it does affect you in some way. You are either reacting to it, or participating in it, either by action, or inaction. Your beliefs - whatever they are - make you a participant whether passive or active.


Yes, the issue does affect me, or I wouldn't be talking about it. I guess "personal", to me, means "highly emotional".

quote:
"I seem to be lacking empathy with the people on this board because they get angry at every single post. What can I do about it?"

Then let me ask you what it is you want out of the discussion with the posters on AA?


I want their opinions on what is going on and how it can be fixed. The only opinions they are giving me is their view of my character - basically that I'm racist and insensitive.

quote:
If you want to know what they think, they are telling you - and on their terms.


I mostly just seeing attacks on my person.

quote:
Fact is, it is their forum not yours, or mine. It's up to you whether to listen and think about exactly what they are saying - whether they are angry or not - whether you agree or not.


I'm listening to everything they're saying, and it makes no sense to me. If you want, I can quote the parts that make no sense, and you can tell me what you think it means.

quote:
All I can offer from my own experience is to spend a serious amount of time thinking about white priviledge and what it offers you and others who are not the minority, then think about how that affects everyone else who is a minority. IMHO if you really think about that... then what you, me or anyone else might bring to the table is not a debate about IF there should be AA or Reparations. I will say it again, I see no reason to abolish AA until there is no need for it. With Reparations, I'd prefer everyone put their energies into how such a monumental task could be done equitably and sustainably, not debate if it should be. Seriously, why expect anyone on AA to waste a second considering if or why it should be?

This is not a slap, it's a reality check. How can you say "This is not a personal issue for me" and somehow try to remain at a distance, when you (and I) are in fact, part of the majority that affect this. If emotionally, you remain distant from this issue, then you haven't asked yourself what your core motivation is.


If I'm not emotionally involved in this subject, what do you think my core motivation is?

quote:
By "huh?" 'project manage', I mean... remaining distant and disengaged, yet expect people to engage with your 'solution.' A 'solution' which can never be soley academic because it involves people. I keep saying that because I sense a disconnectedness with that side of your questioning. Needless to say I am only speaking for myself.
.


I don't want to project manage, I first just want their opinion. Instead of:
"You're racist, go away"
I want:
"To make amends with us you must ..."
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
What they may symbolize to me, most likely are of little consequence to anyone else. It is not about me. I'm not suprised anyone on AA.org would be insulted at a non-minority person proposing any kind of solution. Which is why I haven't done so to date.

[if I were running the USA] I would rather have a Referendum-style compulsory vote and ask African Americans to: answer that question in their own words, and then hold a 2nd Referendum to vote on several 'models' put forward, then debate them. And I see that as being only Stage 1.

Honestly, I see that as being of more value.
.


That's all I'm trying to ask:

If there was a Referendum-style compulsory vote tomorrow, what would you answer?

Can you ask them this exact question? At least your motives will not be questioned.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
are any of my friends white...?
that is a dumb azz question?
why would you assume that i know no white people?


I didn't say "know white people"

I said "friends" as in you're friendly with them

quote:
i grew up in orange county (huntington beach) kalifornia..


I have no idea where that is, or what it's like. But I'll google it.

quote:
that should answer you sophmoric(a polite word for stupid) question


Thank you very much. All I'm asking is that you answer my questions even if they're really stupid. I hope that's not too much to ask of you.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

"To make amends with us you must ..."



Dude, them generals or, rather, your general can't count. That's the First Amendment.

Second, to get your 'general' back up to snuff, address this:

LIST THE ATROCITIES BLACK FOLKS COMMITTED AGAINST WHITES.


Hey, it's your War analogy...

But since you're diligent in your begging... Nothing short of a total and complete restructuring of this society. Bye, bye Constitution, See ya WHITE SUPREMACY! Everything. Start off fresh = make amends.

You game?
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Now Zeus ... I'm sure that even you would understand that your arguments regarding AA and anti-discrimination laws are the same as those found at Stormfront, AmRen and the other white supremacist sites.


Have you actually read the stuff they post on stormfront? I didn't even want to mention that site's name on this message board. But since you brought it up...

quote:
My pointing that out is not the same as my calling you a klansman. Right?


You didn't literally call me a klansman, no. You might as well have though, just get it off your chest.

quote:
Besides, a racialist [a term, BTW, that you did not object to 19]


I did, implicitly. And I am explicitly now.

If we were to actually have a civil discussion, I would have pointed out that racism would not probably exist even without anti-discrimination laws. Most whites and blacks would get along just as well if not better. The racist fringes would have a much harder time gaining popular support.

Do you think that people like FireFly would be racist if it weren't for the current laws?

quote:
Yes, I edited the exchange to exhibit the pertainent parts. And now you object ... Okay fine. Let me use the above to make clear the point.

My point is that you claim to object to restrictions and/or interference into private enterprise; but I assert that, as evidenced by your "unredacted" version of our exchange, you pick and choose those expressions of the public will that you consider to be interferences [e.g., anti-discrimination laws] and attempt to distinguish those interferences [e.g., consumer protection laws, health and safety laws, environmental protections] that you consider acceptable. And, it so happens that those interferences you object to are those that you don't see as benefiting you; while those you attempt to distinguish are those that touch you life. Is that clear?


What you've just said IS clear and doesn't even have any insults sprinkled in. I'm going to respond to it again, point-by-point so that it's crystal clear. There should be no reason why you would not be able to, in turn, respond to me.

"and attempt to distinguish those interferences [e.g., consumer protection laws, health and safety laws,"

I did NOT say that I support consumer protection/health and safety laws. I said that "I'd have to elaborate on that, if you want." I never did. You never asked. I don't think that the government should have a hand in consumer protection if it can be done by any other means. I think that it's possible (I'm not 100% certain, though). But that's a whole other thread.

But the answer is no. No, the government should not enforce consumer protection laws even if they do benefit me.

"environmental protections"

The ONLY reason that I think the government should enforce these is because it's not possible otherwise. Prove me wrong.

quote:
I declared your later protestations,


What "protestations"? I responded to you, point-by-point? Why do you call that a "protestation"?

quote:
that you oppose consumer protection laws, health and safety laws and environmental protections,

(But I DON'T oppose environmental laws.)
quote:
as unconvincing because you did not state these objections until after I pointed out your picking and choosing. Is that clear?


No, it's not clear, it's absurd. I responded to your claims that the only intervention that I object to is the one that doesn't favor me. I told you that it's not the case. Your argument, then, is not valid unless you CAN show that I only object to intervention that doesn't favor me.

quote:
It is true that I mocked you; but it is equally true that I have addressed you questions, line for line.


No, no it's not true. Do you want me to re-post those lines that were ignored?

quote:
That you choose to recognize my insult while ignoring my argument says more about your sincerity in this discussion than my expression of frustration that you refuse to acknowledge my argument says about me.


Let me ask you something: can you refrain from using insults in the first place?

quote:
Okay Chuckie-Come-Lately [insult intended],

sigh... I don't even know what that means other than a general belittlement of some sort(hey, at least I'm being honest)
quote:
here is my reply to your questions:

quote:
"Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?"


With the exception of commerce, I agree there should be no requirement that individuals or groups be forced to associate. But, I don't believe that there are any such laws. Please cite to one.


Private golf clubs and private schools come to mind, but no, I don't know of any for a fact.

quote:
However, in the case of commerce the rules of engagement are, and always have been, different from those governing purely private interaction. These rules are designed to faciliate the free flow of commerce. That expression of the public will is evidenced by the establishment of commercial codes that differ from civil and criminal codes.


I agree that this is the public's will. But what makes it right?

quote:
quote:
"Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it?"


This is clearly a fallacious and ridiculous question/argument. There is, and never has been, any requirement/rule/law in these United States, that requires "a shopkeep to give employment to anyone who asks for it." Either cite to such a requirement/rule/law; or, drop the argument/question. No ... be man/woman/god enough to acknowledge the absurdity of the question/argument, then drop it from the discussion.


OK, I'll be glad to re-phrase the question. That question was actually copied-and-pasted repeatedly and doesn't stand very well on it's own out of context.

Obviously, no one is forced to hire just anyone. But people are NOT free to chose whoever they want. There are some criterias based on which no one is allowed to discriminate. Race being one of them. My question is why?

quote:
quote:
why should someone be forced to hire you?


Again, no one is forced to hire anyone. Any employer is free to not hire any person for any reason, so long as the reason is not a prohibited reason, as expressed by the will of the people. And, in these United States the will of the people, through its anti-discrimination laws, has clearly and specifically designated the basing of a non-hiring decision on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability status or age, as prohibited conduct. Never-the-less, an employer is free to act as s/he chooses in making hiring decisions. But here, as in most commercial instances, failure to abide by the rule of law [commercial, civil or that of economic principles], e.g., hiring the most qualified individual, comes with a price.


Maybe I should also ask if you think there is a difference between forcing someone to hire someone and not allowing someone to not hire someone based on some set of criteria. (I hope that sentence is readable.)

And yes, I know what the will of the people is. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why is that right?

These three questions are basically the same question, obviously.

And finally, just because something is the will of the people, doesn't mean that it's what's best for you or me. I think history shows that.

quote:
Have I answered your questions?


Yes, thank you very much. If you can do so again, we'll practically have a discussion. Maybe soon you won't even feel the need to hurl insults.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Dude, them generals or, rather, your general can't count. That's the First Amendment.

Second, to get your 'general' back up to snuff, address this:

LIST THE ATROCITIES BLACK FOLKS COMMITTED AGAINST WHITES.


I was going to reply to your post in the other thread. Just give me time. Anyway, I'll just reply in this thread.

The answer to your question is NONE. But I still think my analogy works.

Yes, the word "war" is too extreme, but the words "peace treaty" is good I think. If it's not a war, then what is it? A skirmish? A difference of opinion?

I know that white legislators support AA, but black people do too. They voted for those legislators.

quote:
Hey, it's your War analogy...

But since you're diligent in your begging... Nothing short of a total and complete restructuring of this society. Bye, bye Constitution, See ya WHITE SUPREMACY! Everything. Start off fresh = make amends.

You game?


Yes.

What would you replace the constitution with? What are the new laws?
    Yes, the word "war" is too extreme.
    ____________ VS. _____________
    If it's not a war, then what is it?

Now you see the problem with your odd (and lacking) Language of Engagement. Given that, there is no way your Generals analogy works. Don't know any generals who square off in any Conflict but a war. Don't know of any/many wars, worth regarding as a war, where there are NO ATROCITIES perpetrated by one of the supposed "warring" factions.

It's clear you are now aware of your own confusion.

quote:

A skirmish? A difference of opinion?


A difference of opinion over what? Besides your type of convenient twisting of history and reality. Only that would have you think that your Generals (or "War") Analogy fits.

I'm trying to figure out why it is that you feel you (individually or collectively) have been "attacked." I mean, that's what everything you have said, up to and including your Generals Analogy, keeps suggesting.

Like I said... I see your view as one from a largely misdirected angst. You have improperly come to view the source of your angst as Black people who are responding to the "atrocities." Knowing that THERE HAVE BEEN NO ATROCITIES THAT BLACK FOLKS COMMITTED AGAINST WHITES and admitting how that is the case... Well, even with that, you persist with this curious frame - your War/Generals Analogy.

I shouldn't have to say that it is beyond absurd to pretend like Black people resistance to White Supremacy is something that can simply be called "a difference of opinion." I mean, you practically said that with a straight cyber-face... Like there is something to broker there (over that) - This much WHITE SUPREMACY vs. That Much WHITE SUPREMACY. Which one?

I suppose that's your view of a compromise. Like your "I Come In Peace" offering is some sort of deal with both sides working out a "solution" or resolution that's "agreeable" to both sides.

quote:
What would you replace the constitution with? What are the new laws?


That was not your question. Your question was, in essence:

What would it take to make amends (with you)?


That question was answered. And the answer was: AN END TO WHITE SUPREMACY in all it forms.
quote:
"That's all I'm trying to ask:

If there was a Referendum-style compulsory vote tomorrow, what would you answer?

Can you ask them this exact question? At least your motives will not be questioned."


This was written hastily before I go to work, but perhaps a read of an earlier Reparations thread in the Issues forum may help answer your question.

The initial Referendum-style compuslory vote I am suggesting is aimed only at African Americans to find out what they want themselves, ie. their vision - not yours or mine - to collect the opinions of each individual (that's why I say compulsory) African American of voting age. Their responses to what I imagine would need to be quite broad questions - as opposed to a yes/no questions - would then be used to develop a series of 'models' that African Americans would then be asked to vote on and then debated, honed, and put forward and reduced down to a smaller number of more detailed models. As unpopular as this may be to some - I don't propose any involvement in this process by non-African Americans until the next stage of vote Number 3, which would put the previously 'honed', and more tangible, ideas out there for a national vote.

There are some impracticalities in this concept of course, but nothing is impossible, and my point is it is more relevant and important IMHO for Afr Amer themselves to discuss some tangible solutions that suit THEM first before asking everyone else. Yes, Reparations affect everyone, but remember who they are for and why there is a need, then consider who should have the first 'say' and who is best able to design it.

That's my 2 cents, and it's very loose, and I'm not sure anyone here would agree with it. If it's going to be done at all, it should be done by self determination, before it is molded into legislation. gotta go.
.
btw: Zeus... are you from Russia? It would be polite if you could share a little bit more about yourself. You've jumped in here without much of an intro about yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:

Referendum-style compuslory vote I am suggesting is aimed only at African Americans to find out what they want themselves, ie. their vision...



Item # 9: Do you believe that racial inequality exist in American society ?

Yes = 86.57% ______ No = 7.74% ______ Uncertain = 5.69%


Item # 11: Do you believe that in certain instances African-American have the right to be treated as a "collective body", and not just as "individuals", in the attempt to address their common problems and needs ?

Yes = 66.81% ______ No = 19.15% ______ Uncertain = 14.04%

African-Americans Only: Yes = 68.67% ______ No = 17.99% ______ Uncertain = 13.35%


Item # 12: If presented with the opportunity, should African-American voters participate in an independent election to create a "National Assembly" to help monitor and represent their own collective interests ?

Yes = 60.50% ______ No = 23.35% ______ Uncertain = 16.15%

African-Americans Only: Yes = 65.95% ______ No = 19.65% ______ Uncertain = 14.40%


Item # 13: Would you be in favor of African-Americans having some degree of independent control over those institutions and services that most directly affect their own communities ?

Yes = 74.82% ______ No = 14.35% ______ Uncertain = 10.83%

African-Americans Only: Yes = 81.01% ______ No = 9.69% ______ Uncertain = 9.30%



http://www.hri.ca/racism/Submitted/Author/ihraam.shtml
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Yes, the word "war" is too extreme.
    ____________ VS. _____________
    If it's not a war, then what is it?

Now you see the problem with your odd (and lacking) Language of Engagement. Given that, there is no way your Generals analogy works. Don't know any generals who square off in any Conflict but a war. Don't know of any/many wars, worth regarding as a war, where there are NO ATROCITIES perpetrated by one of the supposed "warring" factions.

It's clear you are now aware of your own confusion.

quote:

A skirmish? A difference of opinion?


A difference of opinion over what?


Basically laws suchs as affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws.

quote:
Besides your type of convenient twisting of history and reality. Only that would have you think that your Generals (or "War") Analogy fits.

I'm trying to figure out why it is that you feel you (individually or collectively) have been "attacked." I mean, that's what everything you have said, up to and including your Generals Analogy, keeps suggesting.

Like I said... I see your view as one from a largely misdirected angst. You have improperly come to view the source of your angst as Black people who are responding to the "atrocities." Knowing that THERE HAVE BEEN NO ATROCITIES THAT BLACK FOLKS COMMITTED AGAINST WHITES and admitting how that is the case... Well, even with that, you persist with this curious frame - your War/Generals Analogy.

I shouldn't have to say that it is beyond absurd to pretend like Black people resistance to White Supremacy is something that can simply be called "a difference of opinion." I mean, you practically said that with a straight cyber-face... Like there is something to broker there (over that) - This much WHITE SUPREMACY vs. That Much WHITE SUPREMACY. Which one?

I suppose that's your view of a compromise. Like your "I Come In Peace" offering is some sort of deal with both sides working out a "solution" or resolution that's "agreeable" to both sides.


First of all, my war and peace analogy is just that - an analogy. It's not supposed to match exactly. You're saying that it's a very bad analogy. Fine. I can try to re-phrase my position if you let me.

Second of all, only a small portion of my angst is directed at black people, and only at SOME of them. The vast majority of my angst is directed at WHITE people (actually, just people. most of whom happen to be white). And most of my angst is not due to race relations, it is due to things like the War in Iraq and Chrisitan theocracy in this country.


quote:
quote:
What would you replace the constitution with? What are the new laws?


That was not your question. Your question was, in essence:

What would it take to make amends (with you)?


That question was answered. And the answer was: AN END TO WHITE SUPREMACY in all it forms.


This is a new question.

You said:
"Bye, bye Constitution"

The Constitution is the Law. So that's why I'm asking what you want to replace it with.

And you said:
"You game?"

The answer is yes. Tell me what must be done to end white supremacy.
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
This was written hastily before I go to work, but perhaps a read of an earlier Reparations thread in the Issues forum may help answer your question.


k

quote:
The initial Referendum-style compuslory vote I am suggesting is aimed only at African Americans to find out what they want themselves, ie. their vision - not yours or mine

yes, exactly
quote:
- to collect the opinions of each individual (that's why I say compulsory) African American of voting age. Their responses to what I imagine would need to be quite broad questions - as opposed to a yes/no questions - would then be used to develop a series of 'models' that African Americans would then be asked to vote on and then debated, honed, and put forward and reduced down to a smaller number of more detailed models. As unpopular as this may be to some - I don't propose any involvement in this process by non-African Americans until the next stage of vote Number 3, which would put the previously 'honed', and more tangible, ideas out there for a national vote.

There are some impracticalities in this concept of course, but nothing is impossible, and my point is it is more relevant and important IMHO for Afr Amer themselves to discuss some tangible solutions that suit THEM first before asking everyone else. Yes, Reparations affect everyone, but remember who they are for and why there is a need, then consider who should have the first 'say' and who is best able to design it.

That's my 2 cents, and it's very loose, and I'm not sure anyone here would agree with it. If it's going to be done at all, it should be done by self determination, before it is molded into legislation. gotta go.


I agree with all that. That's one of the things I'm trying to ask here.

quote:
.
btw: Zeus... are you from Russia? It would be polite if you could share a little bit more about yourself. You've jumped in here without much of an intro about yourself.


I intentionally said that I have white skin. And that's true. My skin is quite white.

But yes, I'm actually a Russian immigrant to the US. I came here in '93 when I was 10.

Feel free to ask me anything more specific.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

Basically laws suchs as affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws.


Misdirected Angst... Blacks didn't make those laws.

quote:
The vast majority of my angst is directed at WHITE people (actually, just people. most of whom happen to be white).


Disingenuous. We're talking about this issue and this issue only. So all of your "angst" over things other than things that fall into your concept of Race Relations are IRRELEVANT.

Typical, though... Always running for the COP OUT!

MOST OF YOUR ANGST on these things you label as RACE RELATIONS, should be properly directed towards (other) Whites. But that begs VIRTUE'S question again:
WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Like I said, there is plenty to be done and your work would be MORE productive there. But I find it strange, since you want to revive your Been Dead - GENERALS Theory new life... I find it rather strange, actually, how you haven't talked about your meeting with that (Other) White General where you two hash some things out. No matter how you count them (the generals = 2 White + 1 Black?), by definition, you have to do exactly as I said... Work That Stuff Out Amongst You and Your Fellow Whites first.

quote:
This is a new question.


And? How did you get under this NEW Impression that I would consider your questions important?

Sorry, I'm not going to hold your hand.
I already told you the answer to your "new question."

Nothing short of a total and complete restructuring of this society.

As such, your restatement of this question shows your lack of genuineness. Which is clearly illustrated here:

quote:
The Constitution is the Law.


And?? Your point?

You got your answer... and you're not that damn dumb or that stupid not to know what this entails. After all, you've been here trying to Preserve White Supremacy through your misdirected angst and sophomoric tactics via this discussion YOU WANT.

No one sought your audience.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Do you think that people like FireFly would be racist if it weren't for the current laws?


whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Eek
geesh... I just logged in briefly from work to read this ish!

Are you trying a divide and conquer tactic with me? I'm a big gurl and I can think for myself thank you very much... I don't need laws to tell me how to behave ... I work it out for myself. Do you have any idea how incredibly rude you are?

Listing atheists first and blacks/asians last was bad enough... Eek Roll Eyes and I'm an atheist! Roll Eyes Maybe you put typed the list in backwards, by mistake, there is no other justification for your stupidity and/or ignorance.

I give up! You've made your bed now lie in it.
Like I said over and over, what does what I think have anything to do with the actual topic of AA and Reparations... which I THOUGHT the topic at hand???
.
The Constitution is the Law.---

I hold my...my...ears as I comment on the constant lie of European America.

And picky-picky, but...

Wrong again.

The constitution is NOT the law, but rather ONLY the rule of law.

The difference?

Violation of the law has consequences typically expressed in terms of time and/or money.

Violation of the constitution carries no penalty except possibly a requirement to be instructed to stop, and/or maybe 'fix it'.

The constitution is violated with impunity everyday.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:

quote:
Me:
"Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?"
"Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it?"
"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?"

All of these questions show a profound lack of understanding of what institutional racism is.


OK, then tell me what institutional racism is.
(And remember, that I said that the government must treat everyone equally regardless of race.)

OK, I gave you a link that would help you understand institutional racism...

quote:
Start with institutional racism. Wikipedia is not my favorite source to use, but it's a start.

But, you said...

quote:
Don't just point to a link unless you're willing to defend every word there as your own.

You're projecting again. Whether or not I'm willing to defend the information there is irrelevent to this conversation. What is relevent is that you are without any information or experience on this subject, and if you going to have conversation or debate about it you need to have something to reference.

That's why this conversation is going in circles. You keep asking what we consider to be ridiculous questions because you have no point of reference.

quote:
quote:
Huh??? I never said anything about White privilege. That's something else entirely.


OK, what is white priviledge?

Maybe we'll get to that when you're finished studying institutional racism.

quote:
quote:
Now what are you talking about? No one said anything about wealth. What are you projecting now?


Ignore that last part for now, we need to agree on the basics first.

Hmmm...

That's an interesting statement. What "basics" do you think require "agreement"?

The basics are these...

White Supremacy is a social/political/economic system that uses slavery, institutional racism, disenfranchisement, discrimination, and White privilege to exploit, oppress, and victimize people who are Non-White for the perceived social/political/economic benefit of people who are White.

This "basic" truth is relatively undisputed in African America. The system of White Supremacy doesn't require your agreement in order to carry on business as usual, and we don't require your agreement to understand our situation.
Last edited {1}
quote:
What is relevent is that you are without any information or experience on this subject, and if you going to have conversation or debate about it you need to have something to reference.

That's why this conversation is going in circles. You keep asking what we consider to be ridiculous questions because you have no point of reference.


Well said. And beyond him either not having a clue about the terms and issues central to this conversation HE WANTS or feigning ignorance for other reasons... the fact that he injects the most ignorant of terms "hate", "anger", "resentment" and REDUCES a long history of human events down to those simplistic, narrow and negative (and condescending) terms... Well, like I said: He doesn't have the necessary Language Of Engagement.

His emotions (hence his emotive terms) just get in the way.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Misdirected Angst... Blacks didn't make those laws.


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

quote:
Disingenuous. We're talking about this issue and this issue only. So all of your "angst" over things other than things that fall into your concept of Race Relations are IRRELEVANT.


It's not disingenuos if you take offense to me saying that racism is not my top priority.

quote:
Typical, though... Always running for the COP OUT!


What I am coping out of, in this case?

quote:
MOST OF YOUR ANGST on these things you label as RACE RELATIONS, should be properly directed towards (other) Whites.


Who says it isn't?

quote:
But that begs VIRTUE'S question again:
WHY ARE YOU HERE?


Now I'd settle for an answer to FireFly's referendum question.

quote:
Like I said, there is plenty to be done and your work would be MORE productive there. But I find it strange, since you want to revive your Been Dead - GENERALS Theory new life... I find it rather strange, actually, how you haven't talked about your meeting with that (Other) White General where you two hash some things out. No matter how you count them (the generals = 2 White + 1 Black?), by definition, you have to do exactly as I said... Work That Stuff Out Amongst You and Your Fellow Whites first.


First of all, there's at least 2 black generals and 2 white generals. You're sadly mistaken if you think that you're speaking for all blacks.

In reality, people group more along political lines than race lines.

Anyway, I've spoken to white people much more often than to black. I vote for some politicians, and, effectively, against others.

There will always be white people who oppose me, I think. Does that mean I can't talk to you until there aren't?

quote:
quote:
This is a new question.


And? How did you get under this NEW Impression that I would consider your questions important?

Sorry, I'm not going to hold your hand.


As such, your restatement of this question shows your lack of genuineness. Which is clearly illustrated here:

quote:
The Constitution is the Law.


And?? Your point?

You got your answer... and you're not that damn dumb or that stupid not to know what this entails. After all, you've been here trying to Preserve White Supremacy through your misdirected angst and sophomoric tactics via this discussion YOU WANT.

No one sought your audience.


You're either going to answer my question or you're not. No one's holding a gun to your head.

You said:
"Bye, bye Constitution"

What laws do you want? A law has to be more specific than "End white supremacy".

"I already told you the answer to your "new question."

Nothing short of a total and complete restructuring of this society."

How are you going to restructure it? Give me the specifics.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
The Constitution is the Law.---

I hold my...my...ears as I comment on the constant lie of European America.

And picky-picky, but...

Wrong again.

The constitution is NOT the law, but rather ONLY the rule of law.

The difference?

Violation of the law has consequences typically expressed in terms of time and/or money.

Violation of the constitution carries no penalty except possibly a requirement to be instructed to stop, and/or maybe 'fix it'.

The constitution is violated with impunity everyday.


PEACE

Jim Chester


I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but who's the one being picky here? Nmaginate wants to radically re-structure society to end white supremacy. He wants to get rid of the constition. Surely, some new laws must replace all of this. So that's my question: what should the new laws be?
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Well, like I said: He doesn't have the necessary Language Of Engagement.


Why is it that I don't need anyone to use a special "language of engagement" to talk to me? Why do you need one? What's wrong with English?

I don't think that you're actually going to adress my arguments in any language.

Have you ever had a chat on this board with a white person who disagreed with you about race relations and used the "necessary" Language of Engagement? I'd like to read those posts.

Hell, can you pretend that you're talking to this person and write what they would say?
quote:
Originally posted by FireFly:
quote:
Do you think that people like FireFly would be racist if it weren't for the current laws?


whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Eek
geesh... I just logged in briefly from work to read this ish!

Are you trying a divide and conquer tactic with me? I'm a big gurl and I can think for myself thank you very much... I don't need laws to tell me how to behave ... I work it out for myself. Do you have any idea how incredibly rude you are?

Listing atheists first and blacks/asians last was bad enough... Eek Roll Eyes and I'm an atheist! Roll Eyes Maybe you put typed the list in backwards, by mistake, there is no other justification for your stupidity and/or ignorance.

I give up! You've made your bed now lie in it.
Like I said over and over, what does what I think have anything to do with the actual topic of AA and Reparations... which I THOUGHT the topic at hand???
.


Just for reference:

If I ask someone: "Do you fly to work?"
I'm not saying "You fly to work."

Likewise: "Do you think ... FireFly ... racist."
I'm not saying "FireFly is racist"

I'm sorry that I've offended you.

P.S.

Is there anything that you care about more than ending racism?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

Misdirected Angst... Blacks didn't make those laws.

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



Okay. Who did?

quote:
It's not disingenuos if you take offense to me saying that racism is not my top priority.


No. It's disingenuous and OFF-TOPIC to say that "only a small porition of your angst" which was when I said it TOPIC SPECIFIC, specific to "Race Relations"... it's disingenuous to talk about any other issues and where and with whom you have an axe to grind on those issues because I was talking about where your Misdirected Angst is ON THIS ISSUE and this issue only.

That you take issue with things relative to the War In Iraq is IRRELEVANT. We have not been talking about Iraq here and you did not make this thread to talk about Iraq. But thanks for admitting how you know that your Angst Is Misdirected.

quote:
What I am coping out of, in this case?


Explaining why you have misplaced and misdirected your the issues you have over laws/legislation when Whites by and large preside over the process to rectify what it is you would like to have overturned.

Do the math.

quote:
MOST OF YOUR ANGST on these things you label as RACE RELATIONS, should be properly directed towards (other) Whites.

Who says it isn't?


Okay. Your links to your internet conversations where you take Whites to task for the state of Race Relations via AA, etc.

Links to where you've told them: "It's gonna hurt your side more." Or some such...

quote:
But that begs VIRTUE'S question again:
WHY ARE YOU HERE?


Like I said... Do The Math and provide the links.

quote:
First of all, there's at least 2 black generals and 2 white generals. You're sadly mistaken if you think that you're speaking for all blacks.


Please... It's your analogy. Not mine. You presented yourself as the representative general for ALL WHITES. That was your pretense.

quote:
In reality, people group more along political lines than race lines.


RELEVANCE?

quote:
Anyway, I've spoken to white people much more often than to black.


Spoken to White people about what? Saying what? Debating what? Proposing that they play their parts in dismantling what?

LINKS

quote:
There will always be white people who oppose me, I think. Does that mean I can't talk to you until there aren't?


I made it clear to you that if this is about a Truce or "Peace" Accord that you have to settle up with them White Folks to and, considering... in the same manner you feel compelled to settle up with us.

So where are the Whites Who Disagree with you? When and where did you settle up with them? Where were they in your Analogy?

Oh... I forgot. You get to represent ALL WHITE PEOPLE when you want to. You know, since that never came up before.

quote:
You're either going to answer my question or you're not. No one's holding a gun to your head.


And what part of *(I'm) NOT* don't you take for an answer?

quote:
How are you going to restructure it?


Wrong question. What was the purpose of the generals meeting, again?

You said you were down. But you keep asking questions that tell a different story. If you were serious then you wouldn't be all reflexive talking about "The Constitution is the law."

What are you holding on to it for?
You said you were down.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

Why is it that I don't need anyone to use a special "language of engagement" to talk to me? ?


Because I, for one, am not attributing the things you say to you being "angry", "resentful", etc.

And "Special"....? It's really a compulsive thing with you, huh?

quote:
Why do you need one? What's wrong with English?


That's exactly what I'm challenging you to speak. Clear, intelligible English and not in some twisted dialect.

quote:
I don't think that you're actually going to adress my arguments in any language.


And I already basically told you I don't care what you think.

quote:
Have you ever had a chat on this board with a white person who disagreed with you about race relations and used the "necessary" Language of Engagement?


I don't really understand your question. But, I don't remember this ever being a problem with anyone else, so it seems you are special after all. LOL!

What the hell... Here's one big ole thread for ya.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1551033683.../r/70070744#70070744
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

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