I have not written a blog post since Tuesday. Instead I have been commenting and moderating the “Was Hitler evil?” thread. In the post I took the moral reasoning that White Americans apply to their own history and applied it to Hitler and the Holocaust to show how broken it is.
Enter xPraetorius, who on his own blog said:
… Abagond’s premise is that I’m a racist by virtue of the color of my skin. That’s offensive, racist, vile, outrageous, disgusting. At the VERY least it’s rude. When Abagond tried — hard — to equate Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler, he was at the VERY LEAST rude.
To defend the honour of white people on my blog he proceeded to use some of the very same broken moral reasoning. Unironically. Missing the point.
So, while this stuff is still fresh in my mind, some notes:
- He thinks anti-black racism in America is no longer a “big problem”: because he believes in the Bootstrap Myth (his “5 points”), the Black President argument and because, if White Americans were truly racist, they would not allow blacks to qualify for welfare. He sees welfare as a kind of reparations, to the tune of $17 trillion.
- His figure of $17 trillion does not take into account that most welfare does not go to black people nor does it seem to account for the cuts and reforms made to welfare since 1980.
- His best on-topic comment:
this morally broken reasoning is not being taught in schools; preached in churches; broadcast over any radio stations with any reach; published in any newspapers with any circulation; used as a platform by any serious candidates for public office; sung in any popular songs; spread about in any medium of any reach whatsoever anywhere. So, again, even if your statement were true of any significant number of white people anywhere — it’s not, but even if it were — it represents less of a problem than slow drivers on the interstate.
And yet he uses the morally broken reasoning himself! In that very thread. I have noticed that white people will say the same thing, word for word, coast to coast, yet it does not seem to be coming from the public White American culture, as he points out here. That is strange, I admit. I call it the Secret Course on Whiteness.
- He uses the gaslighting, NYPD definition of racism: I am racist only if I say I am. That is why he made such a big deal about me reading the minds of white people: racism is a matter of intention. Since I cannot read minds, I cannot tell if a white person is racist. I can only imagine it.
- He says I am a race baiter. He sees me like how I see Stormfront, skinheads and anti-Semites: dangerously spreading hate and prejudice. I am “toxic”, worse than any residual anti-black racism left in America. I have become what I hate.
See also:
- Was Hitler evil? – the post + 300-some comments
- A Case In Point – The Race Addicts Defend Hitler – xPraetorius’s analysis of my post on his blog, showing that he missed the point.
- The Bootstrap Myth
- The black president argument
- The race baiter argument
- Secret Course on Whiteness
- gaslighting
I actually ventured to his blog to “politely” point out flaws in his own reasoning.
1. He himself attempted to read the minds of all white people. Which in my mind even if one is white is a bit ridiculous.
2. He was more obsessed with bringing you up rather than just addressing his own flaws.
3. He decides that because no one knows that he has proven his point.
4. Oh and how can we forget the 5 points. Even after continuously pointing out the flaws in that (mainly that their is no proof to this supposed success that makes racism not a big problem) he still determined no one debunked them.
5.He keeps claiming he is not trying to win, yet claims victory on his blog. I personally did not feel he proved what he claimed to and others on one of the blogs pointed that out as well.
Even though he is a nice man (or other), I think one of the biggest flaws is that he believes his way to be a certainty. And that Certainty is proved by government programs that don’t help the black community in any real way.
He claimed blacks asked for them, so I am curious to see the blacks that requested these programs.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
This discussion is interesting. Thus a reblog.
LikeLike
For the vast majority of it’s history, Welfare was not given to Blacks and was reserved for struggling White families. The argument was made that Blacks would only squander such means. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Welfare payments really became a staple of poor Black neighborhoods.
LikeLike
I visited xPraetorius’ blog last night for the first time. Depressing stuff. Its approach was intellectually quite similar to what he (she? they?) tried to do in response to “Was Hitler evil?” It attacks its enemies (e.g., “the left”) with juvenile pseudo-arguments, bombast, hyperbole, distortion, and invective, yet repeatedly claims to be intellectually serious and “unusually literate.” The pose of intellectual seriousness seems to be a tactic used to distract readers from the fundamental dishonesty of what the blog is doing. I’m tempted to say I suspect the whole gang there is a bunch of adolescents, but these days so much of the conservative movement has descended into adolescent self-parody that they may well be adults.
Personally I thought the most offensive part xPraetorius’ response to you was his roping in the gospel to support his vision of the endless happy progress of white people’s treatment of poc. I wonder if xPraetorius knows the meaning of blasphemy?
LikeLike
Folks, maybe his website is really a satirical one!
He sees me like how I see Stormfront, skinheads and anti-Semites: dangerously spreading hate and prejudice. I am “toxic”, worse than any residual anti-black racism left in America. I have become what I hate.
Don’t you just love how they flip the script?
LikeLike
Abagond. I am a white male who recognizes my unearned privilege by virtue of the genetic lottery. I’m also a gay man now married to his life partner of 38 years but living in Florida, a state which doesn’t recognize our marriage legally and which is hardly known for its positive race relations. So, I am familiar with both being a member of dominant as well as subordinate groups in society.
I’ve been gone for a month to a graduate program in ethics but I subscribe to your blog and read it regularly. This column I felt compelled to offer a response.
A black woman classmate in seminary once remarked that “In America we breathe racist air.” It has always struck me how wise that observation was. Racism impacts everyone in our culture and almost always in ways we don’t recognize. I find myself constantly examining my own presumptions forged in an era in Florida when I attended segregated schools which desegregated during my junior high days. I find that I often don’t realize my own racism until it is brought to my attention even as I regularly reflect on my own thinking. Frankly a definition that says racism is only racism if I say it is strikes me as self-serving and deep in denial.
I do think America has made some progress on race since the days of my whites-only childhood that even then was crumbling. But I also think that was the easy part. Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it. Structural racism is much harder to spot, insidious. And it’s also much harder to recognize and thus come to grips with it. Such recognitions are inevitably painful. No one wants to see themselves as misanthropes.
Racism did not arise overnight and it will not disappear overnight either, if ever. That doesn’t mean any of us are off the hook for confronting our own and our society’s racism, it just means that our best efforts will be imperfect and limited in effectiveness on a good day. And yet we must continue to struggle with the beast that is racism.
Your blog is one of the many ways I enjoin that struggle. Thank you for your hard work and your willingness to endure the push back that will arise from any human being confronted with their blind spots.
LikeLike
Where to begin, where to begin, where to begin…well: I guess the beginning is best. Gonna have to pick and choose a bit, because there’s a lot here, but not a lot of real substance.
@sharina:
I think we arrived at an understanding. Yes, I believe I’m correct. So does everyone else here. As to the five points, for all that I talked about them, very few people ACTUALLY addressed them. Saying: “they’re wrong” does not constitute addressing them.
@King:
if you re-read, you’ll note that I calculated only from 1980 forward. I’ll leave your last statement unremarked upon.
@Frank M.:
It sure doesn’t seem as though you visited MY blog. And, where did I “rope in the gospel” to support my views? I never mentioned anything resembling “endless happy progress.” The Civil War had nothing whatsoever happy in it, but it WAS evidence of progress that white people have made in the past two centuries. Obviously.
You said: “The pose of intellectual seriousness seems to be a tactic used to distract readers from the fundamental dishonesty of what the blog is doing.”
Yep: I’m just sitting there rubbing my hands together saying, “What can I do to lie to everybody next?!? Bwaa-haa-ha-ha!!!” You guys can’t help yourselves can you? No one can have an honest disagreement with you, they have to be racists, or liars, or dishonest, or pseudo-intellectuals, or whatever. That’s just sad.
@Herneith:
Your record is still perfect. You haven’t yet made a post of any substance whatsoever. Keep setting the inanity bar ever higher!
@Harry Coverston:
Your post was so wrong in so many ways that I can’t address them all, and many were off-topic, so I’ll hit the on-topic ones only.
• You have no genetic, unearned privilege. There’s just no such thing. Sorry.
HC:
A black woman classmate in seminary once remarked that “In America we breathe racist air.” It has always struck me how wise that observation was. Racism impacts everyone in our culture and almost always in ways we don’t recognize.
xPraetorius:
The observation is paranoid and delusional. I can only hope that the woman was engaging in wild exaggeration in order to make a point. By itself, however, the statement is jaw-droppingly stupid.
@HC:
I do think America has made some progress on race since the days of my whites-only childhood that even then was crumbling. But I also think that was the easy part. Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it. Structural racism is much harder to spot, insidious. And it’s also much harder to recognize and thus come to grips with it. Such recognitions are inevitably painful. No one wants to see themselves as misanthropes.
xPraetorius:
Finally a LITTLE bit of sense! You’d be hard-pressed to get ANYONE on this blog to admit to progress…of course, you ARE white, so they’ll say THAT’s why you recognized progress. You then said: “Blatant racism is easy to spot and most of us are quick to condemn it.” Boy! Not if you listen to THIS crowd! Abagond, himself is arguing that white condemnation of white racism proves white racism. This crowd will NOT admit that most are quick to condemn obvious racism.
Then you ruined it all by following up with the “it’s under every rock and around every corner, and It’s MOST prevalent where you don’t see it!” silliness. It’s JUST possible that you don’t see it BECAUSE IT’S NOT THERE! 🙂
There’s STILL just a whole passel of money, fame, prestige and power to be had in “finding” it everywhere you turn. See, eg, Obama, Barack, and Holder, Eric.
I encourage you to continue to “enjoin” the struggle! (Dictionary.com: enjoin: Law. to prohibit or restrain by an injunction.) Sorry, just HAD to have a bit of fun… I DO know what you meant.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Harry Coverston
Very well said!
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
We have an understanding, but I have asked you some questions in regards to the 5 points and they were not addressed.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
For the record, here is what I said about your “5 points” on the other thread, which you ignored and now act like everyone agrees with you:
@ xPraetorius
Right, Hitler did not send any well-heeled Jews to the gas chambers. And Roosevelt did not send any well-heeled Japanese Americans to prison camps, losing everything they could not carry.
Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst.
Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.
Police brutality – just angst.
Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst.
Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst.
Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst.
Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst.
The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst.
Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst.
Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst.
The bamboo ceiling – just angst.
Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst.
Last hired, first fired – just angst.
The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst.
Resegregated schools – just angst.
Racial steering – just angst.
Hate crimes – just angst.
LikeLike
I will make a correction because something about the 5 points was recently addressed. They are a thought process, but then it comes back that if you can not read the mind of people then what does it prove.
LikeLike
But surely the point that you were making was not that Welfare payments had somehow made reparation for the centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow in America?
LikeLike
Hmmm…have to take this kind of out of order.
@Sharina: again, I presented my “five points” as a “thought exercise” to gauge one’s own perceptions as to how this country’s doing.
There’s no “refuting” them, because they, themselves, don’t make a point.
The point is made when someone says to him or herself, “Hmmm…if a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others, and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America today? Hmmm…[think, think, think, cogitate, cogitate, cogitate, ruminate, ruminate, ruminate, noodle, noodle, noodle] Ummmm…YES! Or, Ummmm… NO!”
The answer OUGHT to be “Yes!” Furthermore, and more controversial still, I say that if someone answers, “No!” that person is wrong. Okay, okay, okay…mistaken.
Look: this will be a more in-depth reply than I was planning, so here goes.
A BIG bottom line EFFECT — not the only one, but a big one — of racism in the past was a near total lack of social and financial mobility for black people. This was a REAL effect of white attitudes toward black people. I’m sure you all will agree. It was a crime committed against black people by white people. No white person (whom anyone takes seriously) either denies, downplays, whitewashes, covers over, covers up, excuses or ignores this.
However, nowadays, one simply cannot — honestly, anyway — pretend that blacks lack social or financial mobility. See, eg: Obama, Barack; Winfrey, Oprah; Washington, Denzel; Z, Jay; … I didn’t even mention sports. How about Robinson, Randall? And a thousand more, going all the way back to phenomenally successful blacks in the ’60’s, ’70’s and beyond.
The point: the barriers to financial, social and political mobility have, indeed, come down for ALL people.
Let’s face it, those barriers were FIRMLY in the hands of WHITE MEN (you guys RARELY mention the OTHER whiniest group out there: the feminists who find sexism under every rock and around every corner.) White men did NOT HAVE TO bring down those barriers…they were the powerful majority in America and fully in charge. Did they, one day, (1) just wake up? Or, as I contend, and as is supported by history, have they (2) been engaged in a long process of self-examination, in which they have scrutinized their interactions with every possible grievance group that can be rounded up? I think it’s obvious that the answer is #2. NEARLY without a single shot being fired! Some oppressor! Everyone ought to have an oppressor like that! Sorry…snarky. 🙂
You can see a clear progression of thought chez white people — away from prejudice OF ANY KIND (to expand this a bit beyond racism alone) — for more than 200 years; and culminating, for example, in recent legislation favoring gays, women, Hispanics, blacks, immigrants, even Japanese WWII-era internees. I observe all this without value judgement. Let’s face it, it’s true.
So, now that the walls to social and financial success have largely come down for black people, what’s the problem? Well: the problem is multi-faceted. (1) Any lack of black success at all, risks being seen as the vestiges of racism (this blog and others), (2) blacks legitimately question the sincerity of white “good will” as evidenced in government programs and in other ways. (3) blacks think (<– See? I can do it too!) that whites' faux sincerity makes blacks' recently-gained social and financial mobility potentially temporary. (4) legitimate concerns that residual ill will in both populations from past injustice and malice has a dampening effect on black chances for success. (5) all else.
All these five (Hmmmm…five! Interesting number! Naaaahhh…just a coincidence, I'm sure!) factors in "the problem" represent a NEARLY impregnable fortress — with 15' thick walls and moats and dragons and archers protecting it — in the black mind (<– See? I can do it too! And, guess what, it's legitimate, because I'm doing it on Abagond's blog, where RAMPANT mind-reading occurs.). I, however, have thrown my few little spears against the fortress walls. While each spear did no VISIBLE damage, each one chipped out little bits of the walls. Sharina and B. R. are either grudging (Sharina) or enthusiastic (B. R.) online friends, who have seen and agreed with numerous of my at least secondary points.
However, that fortress — the one in the minds of race addicts everywhere — the one helping to defend against positive relations between races, WILL come down. And a LOT sooner than anyone expects. Instant world-wide communications guarantees that.
More to the point, Abagond's bullet points, above, prove my point nicely. Many of them are merely manifestions of "the fortress." When the fortress falls, the 50-years outdated states of mind, typcical of so many race addicts and other reactionaries, will fall.
I'll address that in the next post.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
King: But surely the point that you were making was not that Welfare payments had somehow made reparation for the centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow in America?
xPraetorius:
Sure. Reparations are PURELY monetary. An unfathomably huge amount of money has been transferred from white Americans to black Americans. It’s perfectly reasonable to view these payments as “reparations.”
These payments FAR exceed any objective estimate of the “dollar amount of the value of the labor stolen from blacks” via slavery.
One cannot, of course, quantify the value of the truly important things stolen from blacks: family, home, and most important: life.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Have you calculated for the money that was made from black Americans with things like slavery, forced labor camps (Southern prison systems) unfair poll taxes. did you also calculate the moneys Black citizens where unfairly excluded from receiving due to color coded employment and educational exclusion, as well as lower compensation for the same work based on race?
Have you also considered that many Whites—actually, a greater total number of Whites—have received the very same Welfare reparation, based on no redress of prior wrongs?
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Counting welfare payments as reparations is pretty shabby – since blacks are taxed to pay them and whites receive them too. It is not “extra” money blacks are getting, nor has it ever been rationalized in the law as reparations.
LikeLike
@ King
Also their being pretty much shut out of the Homestead Act, the GI Bill and FHA loans.
LikeLike
Abagond’s points (I’ve added bullets for greater readability Look for my comments in square brackets. [ ]):
• Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst. [Meaningless without context. Are you SURE there’s no good reason? What makes you say that. Specifics please. Not “Everyone says i…” or, “I know people who’ve experienced…” or the like 🙂 Otherwise, more Fortress Thinking.]
• Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.[meaningless without context. Black crime IS more common than white crime. It’s be weird if there were not more black incarcerations than white. Fortress Thinking.]
• Police brutality – just angst. [Meaningless without context. A simple fact: no one cares about such brutality against white people. Without that knowledge, the concept of “police brutality” is meaningless. More Fortress Thinking.]
• Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst. [Plain false. There is no correlation between greater school funding and quality education. In fact there is VASTLY greater evidence for the exact opposite. “Underfunded schools” is a concept common in Fortress Thinking.]
• Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst. [meaningless without context. Build in ALL variables to get a REAL picture. But, not doing so constitutes, of course, Fortress Thinking.]
• Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst. [Again, meaningless without context. To what extent to black mothers avail themselves of readily available re-natal care, etc. To draw conclusions from this EXTREMELY incomplete factoid is to engage in, you guessed it: Fortress Thinking.]
• Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. They don’t get paid less.]
• The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst. [Meaningless without context. To what extent, really, do black people follow my “five points” that most white people consider a bare minimum? This is an OBJECTIVE fact, and I have SERIOUS credentials in this arena. 🙂 Without that knowledge, to draw conclusions ffrom the black unemployment rate constitutes, yep, Fortress Thinking.]
• Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst. [Meaningless without context. If there is more crime in black neighborhoods, then it would be profoundly irresponsible NOT to police at LEAST more aggressively than elsewhere. Using this means that Abagond is engaging in Fortress Thinking.]
• Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst. [Yes and no. All quotas ought to be abolished in academia. I hope we all agree on this.]
• The bamboo ceiling – just angst. [see previous note.]
• Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. meaningless without context. Did whites ALSO lose half their wealth? I’m a white dude. I lost way MORE than half my wealth in Obama’s recession.]
• Last hired, first fired – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. Meaningless without context. What are the ACTUAL statistics for who got laid off? I can tell you, as a white dude who has spent time in the IT world, that I have been laid off more than a dozen times…I guess that “proves” that corporate America is biased against us white dudes, right? ummm…no. Drawing conclusions from ONLY superficial “Last hired, first fired” statistics is, of course, Fortress Thinking.]
• The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. This didn’t happen.]
• Resegregated schools – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. Most efforts to resegregate come from black people. This is especially true in Americna universities all around the country.]
• Racial steering – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. I’m an expert in this arena. Racial steering is NOT a big problem, ]
• Hate crimes – just angst. [Yep. Just angst. The term “hate crimes” is itself a nonsense term. It implies, of course, that there are less bad motivations for committing crimes. Define for me, if you would please, a “love crime.” (*) This, obviously, grants greater value to some crime victims than to others. Sorry, that’s just morally repugnant. It IS, however, a very fine example of Fortress Thinking.]
Best,
— x
(*) I suspect that SOME of you will ACTUALLY take a hack at this. Let me tell you up front, there is NO such thing as a “love crime.”
LikeLike
Did you also consider that taxes are levied from ALL citizens, not just white citizens, so that welfare is not simply a payment from Whites to Black. Black people pay taxes too, as do hispanics and Asians. So, in reality the portion of any welfare expenditure is only partially taken from White people.
And although Blacks (as citizens) were taxed at the same rate per income bracket as Whites, they were generally excluded from receiving Welfare benefits until the 1960s, so how about all of the money that Blacks put into Welfare via taxes, while being excluded from benefitting from it?
Again, was this included in your calculus or not?
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Good points. Those too should be part of the math
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
I think this is what he is talking about:
Source:
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
Counting welfare payments as reparations is pretty shabby – since blacks are taxed to pay them and whites receive them too. It is not “extra” money blacks are getting, nor has it ever been rationalized in the law as reparations.
xPraetorius:
You’re unintentionally correct here, Abagond. Blacks making an income under $50,000 (approx.) are NOT taxed for that. Income-wise, that is. However blacks ARE taxed every time they buy something, drive somewhere, pay this bill or that.
I take a back seat do NO MAN in advocating to get rid of all the secret and hidden taxes! I hope we can agree on that!
You are wrong, however, in saying that it is not free money. Of course it is. Let’s AT LEAST agree on SOME terms. If someone gives you the money that someone ELSE earned, that is, indeed, free money.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
another unreadable blog sheesh
-v8driver
LikeLike
doesnt that have those supercreepy abbreviations and rank and crap, this ones blog
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
I did not say “free” money, I said “extra”.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“@Frank M.:
It sure doesn’t seem as though you visited MY blog. And, where did I “rope in the gospel” to support my views? I never mentioned anything resembling “endless happy progress.” The Civil War had nothing whatsoever happy in it, but it WAS evidence of progress that white people have made in the past two centuries. Obviously.”
I think this is what he is talking about:
“So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.”
Source:
xPraerorius:
Thanks, Abagond, for finding that… As one can plainly see, I didn’t in any way “rope in the gospel.” However if Frank thinks that Christianity was NOT the main motivator for whites’ re-examination of there won behavior, then he’s saying that we white dudes just one day decided to turn over a new leaf. On behalf of all white people, I appreciate the rather HUGE compliment to my ethnicity and me, but it REALLY is not warranted. No the the noble impulse came from Christianity.
Btw: if I’d “roped in gospel,” I’d have, I suspect, actually quoted some gospel at some point, no?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
I did not say “free” money, I said “extra”.
xPraetorius:
Thanks, Abagond, for the clarification. The money, no matter whether it was extra or not, was free.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@all: Whew! In a previous post, I made some serious typos!
I said: “there won behavior”
I meant to write, of course, “their own behavior.”
I DO plead SOME pressure to keep up with all of you. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
doesnt that have those supercreepy abbreviations and rank and crap, this ones blog
xPraetorius:
Uhhhh…whuuuhhh? Was this post trying to express something? If so, can someone please translate?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Thomas Conlon said:
another unreadable blog sheesh
-v8driver
xPraetorius said:
True. Not for the illiterate. We DO target our blog at a higher education level than most. I gather this post is related to the “v8driver” post a bit later. Equally nonsensical.
Best,
— x
P.S. Abagond… please contact me offline. I have a GREAT idea for a media production that could make you and some serious money.
LikeLike
“yPraetorius: a woman
zPraetorius: a man
aPraetorius: a man” supercreepy
LikeLike
King said:
Did you also consider that taxes are levied from ALL citizens, not just white citizens, so that welfare is not simply a payment from Whites to Black. Black people pay taxes too, as do hispanics and Asians. So, in reality the portion of any welfare expenditure is only partially taken from White people.
And although Blacks (as citizens) were taxed at the same rate per income bracket as Whites, they were generally excluded from receiving Welfare benefits until the 1960s, so how about all of the money that Blacks put into Welfare via taxes, while being excluded from benefitting from it?
Again, was this included in your calculus or not?
xPraetorius:
Thanks, King, for your thoughtful reply. The considerations you mention are the reason I calculated from 1980 forward.
However, I need to correct you — sort of — INCOME taxes have NOT been levied from ALL citizens for DECADES. The steeply “progressive” income tax system leaves nearly HALF of all workers OFF the tax rolls. However, you and I, and everyone else, pay taxes in every product we ever buy. All those who manufacture, transport, wholesale or retail their products pass their tax burden on to … you and me. It’s why I’ve said — over on my blog — that ALL taxes are income taxes on you and me.
Bottom line: All people pay taxes, but those who make less than roughly $50,000 a year pay a LOT less TAX, and no INCOME tax.
I’d be REALLY happy to have you join us in the quest to get RID of the hidden and secret and back-door taxes, in favor of a truly FAIR tax: One that EVERY taxpayer understands in terms of the impact it has on his life.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
1. A federal court earlier this week ruled the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional because it was unreasonable search and unjustifiably fell on blacks and Latinos way more than whites – ie, racist.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html
2. The Supreme Court in June in effect freed the South and other voting districts with a racist past from federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Justice Department can still challenge voting changes, and probably will under Holder, but is unlikely to under any future Republican presidents.
3. Unemployment: even if you look at those with a university education, nearly all of whom would presumably follow your “5 points”, unemployment is STILL higher for blacks and Asians than for whites.
4.”From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households.”
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/
LikeLike
ok dude considering i have a BA in English and one in Latin, thanks man… good to know you have a high opinion of yourself, obviously you need it
LikeLike
v8driver said:
“yPraetorius: a woman
zPraetorius: a man
aPraetorius: a man” supercreepy
xPraetorius:
Whatever. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
and btw professor the unreadable blog was an allusion to the heartiste thread but at least he let it go
LikeLike
Oy Vay,
Abagond and xPraetorius,
You two are twins, you make the same arguments in essence just pointed in different directions but the whole is Hitler Evil blog was one big giant look what is in my hand (Let’s give credit to David Chappelle) and you, xPraetorius feel for it and tried to make moral justifications and try to defend the United States when in argument is BS in the first place.
It is not an apple to apples comparison
You might try was Nazi Germany evil and compare it to the Roosevelt Administration
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to Roosevelt
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to George Washington
Guess what there is white on black racism in America, Second guess what there is black on white racism in America
Corollary
1) White people tend to underestimate racism and 2) Black people tend to overestimate racism — this is a statistical truth with many exceptions on the individual level
While, I believe both Abagond and xPraetorius or both intentioned; I wonder if you live in the world with paisley sky.
LikeLike
From What I can see, there is a tremendous hole in your reparations argument that you have yet to plug.
For decades, since the New deal (1930s) Black taxes have been going into.American social programs. Yet these programs benefits were closed the the vast majority of Blacks. This includes housing assistance,the food stamp program, and many other gov. assistance programs [including the Homestead Act, the GI Bill and FHA loans]. This deficit of taxation without benefit went on for decades, until the programs were finally open to African-Americans.
Let’s be clear. Black people’s taxes were going to support needy Whites Today, White people still make up the majority of Welfare recipients, but Blacks make up a disproportionately high number of the pie… at which point, Whites began complaining “Why should White people’s taxes go to support need Blacks?
There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?
The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.
LikeLike
About Christianity and racism: it’s a gross oversimplification to say that whites became aware of the evil of racism due to their religion. For most of history, Christianity has functioned to reinforce racial and other hierarchies, and this has been done by turning the central gospel message into something it is not. But the basic story of the gospel is that the messiah is a powerless victim of the powerful, yet achieves victory nonetheless. Though usually hidden (but hidden in plain sight), this reality has slowly but increasingly wormed its way into human consciousness, so that we have now reached the point where we can no longer confidently victimize the weak without rationalizing it somehow.
This is why white people no longer express openly racist views in most cases. That’s limited progress, but it doesn’t mean racism is gone or even minimized. As long as there is no commitment from white people to consciously identify with victims, work to ameliorate the suffering they’ve caused, and examine their own consciences to reveal the ways they (i.e., we) hide their racism from themselves, racism will continue to be a serious problem. Essentially, in my view, doing these things means walking the way of the nonviolent Jesus.
What’s even worse for a society that knows nothing of nonviolence is that the more white people think of THEMSELVES as victims of “racist” black people (and other PoC), the more racism will dominate our society. I can see things easily becoming much worse before they get better. So it’s idiotic for white people to congratulate themselves on their moral sensitivity that came about because of their wonderful Christian faith.
This understanding of how the gospel works in this situation has been influenced by the theories of Rene Girard. There’s a very good review essay on the subject by Joseph Bottum that first appeared in the conservative magazine First Things and is now on their website.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
1. A federal court earlier this week ruled the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional because it was unreasonable search and unjustifiably fell on blacks and Latinos way more than whites.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html
2. The Supreme Court in June in effect freed the South and other voting districts with a racist past from federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Justice Department can still challenge voting changes, and probably will under Holder, but is unlikely to under any future Republican presidents.
3. Unemployment: even if you look at those with a university education, nearly all of whom would presumably follow your “5 points”, unemployment is STILL higher for blacks and Asians than for whites.
4.”From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households.”
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/
xPraetorius:
Finally! Some ACTUAL context! Hooray! Thanks, Abagond!
To your point one: this is still under debate. Not sure how I REALLY feel about it. However, if “stop and frisk” is kept to high-crime neighborhoods, I think it may be ok. Get rid of it, and the REAL victims of crime are victimized once again: the people… you and me.
To your point two:
Sorry… there was no gutting of the Voting Rights Act. You PLAINLY are trying to say that everything is the same as it was before, decades ago…this is, of course, not even close to true. Again, no observer — WHOM ANYONE TAKES SERIOUSLY — thinks so. For the Supreme Court to try to pretend that nothing has changed in the past decades would have been to insult your intelligence and mine. All the SCOTUS did was to send the bill back to Congress for re-writing.
To your point three:
Oh? Prove it. I will say to you — and this might be hard for you to hear — that a college graduate with a degree in “African-American Studies” will not necessarily — logically — receive a serious hearing in a job interview — for a REAL job. Hiring managers are trying to find someone who can AT LEAST do the job. Again: LOTS more context needed. You can thank the Democrat Party for all the worthless “African-American Studies” degrees. Join with me, Abagond, to DEMAND that blacks DEMAND a REAL education from American universities.
To your point four:
Yep. Ready for an ancedote? MY income fell more than 80%. I’m a white dude. I KNOW the problem, I — and my kids — FEEL the pain. I’m a highly-educated, well-trained white dude with DECADES of business experience. I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.
My point: You and others waste ergs and ergs and ergs and ergs and ergs of energy on tilting at the windmill of white racism, when you SHOULD be trying to put in place a business-friendly environment across the country. Sorry: a “black-friendly” environment has been in place for decades.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorius
I don’t think praetorius is a proper declension, dude…
but you would know better, right?
LikeLike
yeah and welfare is not taking something away from you personally, the point is people got to this point in life … and what do mean by welfare anyway? SSDI? SSI? state medical assistance and food stamps, are you saying everyone should just lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job?
LikeLike
BadWolf said:
Oy Vay,
Abagond and xPraetorius,
You two are twins, you make the same arguments in essence just pointed in different directions but the whole is Hitler Evil blog was one big giant look what is in my hand (Let’s give credit to David Chappelle) and you, xPraetorius feel for it and tried to make moral justifications and try to defend the United States when in argument is BS in the first place.
It is not an apple to apples comparison
You might try was Nazi Germany evil and compare it to the Roosevelt Administration
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to Roosevelt
You might try was Hitler evil and compare him to George Washington
Guess what there is white on black racism in America, Second guess what there is black on white racism in America
Corollary
1) White people tend to underestimate racism and 2) Black people tend to overestimate racism — this is a statistical truth with many exceptions on the individual level
While, I believe both Abagond and xPraetorius or both intentioned; I wonder if you live in the world with paisley sky.
xPraetorius:
Ummmm…ok. This was completely incoherent. Is there some insider knowledge of which I’m unaware? Can someone translate, please. Otherwise, I’m left with my original impression of (1) English not the first language, or (2) a serious drinking problem.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
King said:
From What I can see, there is a tremendous hole in your reparations argument that you have yet to plug.
For decades, since the New deal (1930s) Black taxes have been going into.American social programs. Yet these programs benefits were closed the the vast majority of Blacks. This includes housing assistance,the food stamp program, and many other gov. assistance programs [including the Homestead Act, the GI Bill and FHA loans]. This deficit of taxation without benefit went on for decades, until the programs were finally open to African-Americans.
Let’s be clear. Black people’s taxes were going to support needy Whites Today, White people still make up the majority of Welfare recipients, but Blacks make up a disproportionately high number of the pie… at which point, Whites began complaining “Why should White people’s taxes go to support need Blacks?
There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?
The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
@King: this is so well said that I’m ALMOST prepared to let it pass completely without comment.
Again, much of what you said is absolutely true. However, as I’m sure you are aware, I’ve focused on the time between 1980 and today. This represents quite a concession on my part.
As regards: “There are many taxes levied besides the progressive income tax. The real question is, what about all the money that Black people payed into the bot without any benefit? If you could add all of that up, from all of those programs, then charge a fair rte of interest, what do you think that number would come to?” –
xPraetorius:
Please see my previous post. Not sure what “bot” means. Can you clarify?
You said: “The truth is xPraetorius, that if you truly calculated only the money costs of the results of all of the prejudice, unfairness, and abuse, it would come to far more that the what is paid in Welfare payments. Most people have just never taken the time to look into it honestly.”
xPraetorius:
I made a point of saying that the $17 trillion represented ONLY welfare…all other programs push that figure to WAY more than twice that amount. I’d have to source that, though, so please don’t consider that completely authoritative.
@King, if you are asking ONLY that white dudes like me do INTANGIBLE things to make things right, then I’m ready to comply right here and now. What do you want? Apologies? Ok. I’m sorry. Really, really, REALLY sorry. Please forgive me! I was wrong!
Do you want love? Ok: I love you. Take a look at MY blog. I asked Sharina to marry me! Please love me!
Do you want my money? Ummm…Ok. I can give you a buck or two, but I don’t have anything more.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
yeah and welfare is not taking something away from you personally, the point is people got to this point in life … and what do mean by welfare anyway? SSDI? SSI? state medical assistance and food stamps, are you saying everyone should just lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job?
xPraetorius:
Welfare = whatever you got for free and didn’t earn yourself. No.. No one should ever just “lie down in a ditch and die by the side of the road unless they have a job.”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
and btw professor the unreadable blog was an allusion to the heartiste thread but at least he let it go
xPraetorius:
Ummm…ok. Whatever.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver:
ok dude considering i have a BA in English and one in Latin, thanks man… good to know you have a high opinion of yourself, obviously you need it
xPraetorius:
Wow! With those credentials, one would think that you’d be better able to express yourself? Did you not do well in school?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
apparently i made myself clear
LikeLike
education, yay i wrote poems for 4 years
LikeLike
@Sharina: I need to apologize to you. I made a deal with you that I would consult with you on how to approach posts with which I disagree. I’m well into it here, and I missed the boat. Can you give me — in retrospect — some insights into how I might have better proceeded here?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver:
education, yay i wrote poems for 4 year
xPraetorius:
Nice! I love good poetry.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
apparently i made myself clear
xPraetorius:
Apparently not.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorius
I don’t think praetorius is a proper declension, dude…
but you would know better, right?
xPraetorius:
What makes you think I’m trying decline properly? If you and I discuss this topic in greater depth, then I’LL tell you why my colleagues and I chose the name.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Like a dog chasing its tail.
LikeLike
“Reverse racism”, for me, brings to mind an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was supposed to pick up Bart after school. After several hours, Homer remembered and went to pick up Bart who was waiting in the rain. Bart got in the car and gave Homer the silent treatment. Homer said, and I’m slightly paraphrasing, “Listen, Bart. I know you’re mad. And I’m kind of mad too. Listen, we could sit here ’till the cows came home trying to figure out who forgot to pick up whom. Let’s just say we’re BOTH wrong and forget about it. Now how about a hug?”
The concept of reverse racism is something I see as a distraction that allows whites to stave off their own sense of guilt and unhappiness about racism and their benefitting fro it.
On the other hand, something else is also going on. The arguments I see on both sides are eerily similar. And I sometimes wonder if I myself am missing something. Finally, the hardest of all is for me not to do this other beings. To take what I learn and make sure that I apply love and respect to others, because that IS in my control. But that’s hard to do.
LikeLike
Anne said:
Like a dog chasing its tail.
xPraetorius:
Deep, Anne…just deep.
However, not a bad image. 😉
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Anon Ymous said:
“Reverse racism”, for me, brings to mind an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was supposed to pick up Bart after school. After several hours, Homer remembered and went to pick up Bart who was waiting in the rain. Bart got in the car and gave Homer the silent treatment. Homer said, and I’m slightly paraphrasing, “Listen, Bart. I know you’re mad. And I’m kind of mad too. Listen, we could sit here ’till the cows came home trying to figure out who forgot to pick up whom. Let’s just say we’re BOTH wrong and forget about it. Now how about a hug?”
The concept of reverse racism is something I see as a distraction that allows whites to stave off their own sense of guilt and unhappiness about racism and their benefitting fro it.
On the other hand, something else is also going on. The arguments I see on both sides are eerily similar. And I sometimes wonder if I myself am missing something. Finally, the hardest of all is for me not to do this other beings. To take what I learn and make sure that I apply love and respect to others, because that IS in my control. But that’s hard to do.
xPraetorius:
That’s why I’ve never heard anyone SERIOUSLY explore the concept of “reverse racism.”
Why? “Reverse racism” is simply “racism.” It’s STILL wrong. However, I DO like your first paragraph. As ANYONE knows — who’s had the fortitude to read ALL of this post and thread, as well as the PREVIOUS post and thread — I’m actually a REALLY nice guy. Abagond can’t help himself. He likes me, but he doesn’t want to admit that in front of all of you! I don’t blame him…if he were to admit his secret affection for me, he might lose a LOT of YOU!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Frank M. said:
About Christianity and racism: it’s a gross oversimplification to say that whites became aware of the evil of racism due to their religion. For most of history, Christianity has functioned to reinforce racial and other hierarchies, and this has been done by turning the central gospel message into something it is not. But the basic story of the gospel is that the messiah is a powerless victim of the powerful, yet achieves victory nonetheless. Though usually hidden (but hidden in plain sight), this reality has slowly but increasingly wormed its way into human consciousness, so that we have now reached the point where we can no longer confidently victimize the weak without rationalizing it somehow.
This is why white people no longer express openly racist views in most cases. That’s limited progress, but it doesn’t mean racism is gone or even minimized. As long as there is no commitment from white people to consciously identify with victims, work to ameliorate the suffering they’ve caused, and examine their own consciences to reveal the ways they (i.e., we) hide their racism from themselves, racism will continue to be a serious problem. Essentially, in my view, doing these things means walking the way of the nonviolent Jesus.
What’s even worse for a society that knows nothing of nonviolence is that the more white people think of THEMSELVES as victims of “racist” black people (and other PoC), the more racism will dominate our society. I can see things easily becoming much worse before they get better. So it’s idiotic for white people to congratulate themselves on their moral sensitivity that came about because of their wonderful Christian faith.
This understanding of how the gospel works in this situation has been influenced by the theories of Rene Girard. There’s a very good review essay on the subject by Joseph Bottum that first appeared in the conservative magazine First Things and is now on their website.
xaPraetorius:
Ummm..whatever. I’ll be happy to have a theological discussion with you somewhere. I suspect that Abagond will not consider it on-topic,though.
With that said, however, Abagond seems to forgive all MANNER of off-topic, irrelevant, cheap shots, scurrilous slams, gratuitous insults and other dreck as long as your viewpoint is congenial to Abagond’s, so I may be mistaken.
🙂
Best
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
How disappointing it is to see you give so much attention to someone who consistently went off topic in your previous post in order to pontificate and contradict his own arguments.
I actually thought you were serious about not allowing xPraetorious to go off topic with comments about himself, and so I stopped replying to him in accordance with your wishes.
Yet here you are with a blog post about his misunderstandings about your topic and off-topic drivel.
He clearly doesn’t know anything about the subject matter of which he speaks, (e.g., saying “Black crime IS more common than white crime. It’s be weird if there were not more black incarcerations than white” despite the fact that 65% of people arrested in the US are classified as white and that blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes).
Yet you keep arguing with him and keep feeding into his ignorance.
Of course you can do whatever you want but it’s VERY surprising and disappointing. SMH.
LikeLike
LOL i’m just not that into you
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“The point is made when someone says to him or herself, “Hmmm…if a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others, and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America today?”—This is what you are not getting. These do not prove that racism is not a big problem. Anyone can say yes or no to that and still make a decision to the contrary.
You still fail because you are still trying to determine a prejudice of a group of people based on a thought process when you can not read a persons mind. Hell people can say and do things in the public eye and do an about face behind doors. Now if you want to play mind reader then by all means do so, but long winded paragraphs will not prove what you are trying to make it prove.
“phenomenally successful blacks in the ’60′s, ’70′s and beyond”—Funny you mention these blacks considering racism was a big problem during those times. hmmm
Lastly, you can approach how you see fit because you have a personal vendetta with Abagond you would not have done so in any other manner. You see yourself as right and it will not matter what is said because you still will see it that way.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius.
This thread is about YOU and your arguments about racism, the two topics you wanted to discuss on the Hitler thread. There they were off topic. Here they are not! So if you want to talk theology with Frank, especially in regard to racism, go for it!
LikeLike
@ resw77
This is where he can beat his dead horses. Elsewhere he and they will remain off topic for the most part.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Right, see, this will not do. Now you are starting to move goalposts. First it was just 5 things. Now you are adding other stuff.
As to the other cases of racism where I added context, you are trying worm out of each one of them in ad hoc or disingenuous ways. You are not arguing honestly and objectively. You are more concerned with SEEMING right than in BEING right. Which means that deep down you do not care about the truth. Which means arguing with you is pointless.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius.
This thread is about YOU and your arguments about racism, the two topics you wanted to discuss on the Hitler thread. There they were off topic. Here they are not! So if you want to talk theology with Frank, especially in regard to racism, go for it!
xPraetorius:
Thanks, Abagond, but I’m just not all that interested in me. I suspect others who frequent your blog might echo that sentiment. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Kiwi said:
I love the Black Knight comparison! How many limbs is xPraetorius down to now? At this point, it feels like he doesn’t even have a torso anymore.
xPraetorius:
Ooooohhh…how clever!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“To your point three:
Oh? Prove it. I will say to you — and this might be hard for you to hear — that a college graduate with a degree in “African-American Studies” will not necessarily — logically — receive a serious hearing in a job interview — for a REAL job. Hiring managers are trying to find someone who can AT LEAST do the job. Again: LOTS more context needed. You can thank the Democrat Party for all the worthless “African-American Studies” degrees. Join with me, Abagond, to DEMAND that blacks DEMAND a REAL education from American universities.”
Right, see, this will not do. Now you are starting to move goalposts. First it was just 5 things. Now you are adding other stuff.
As to the other cases of racism where I added context, you are trying worm out of each one of them in ad hoc or disingenuous ways. You are not arguing honestly and objectively. You are more concerned with SEEMING right than in BEING right. Which means that deep down you do not care about the truth. Which means arguing with you is pointless.
xPraetorius:
Uhhhh…nope. None of that is true.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
LOL i’m just not that into you
xPraetoriusL:
Gotta love those relationships in which both partners are in perfect harmony!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ BadWolf
You are making the same mistake that xPraetorius did: I was not comparing White America to Hitler. I was mocking the way White Americans talk about their own history.
LikeLike
@ Anon Ymous
Wonderful analogy. Thanks.
LikeLike
@ BadWolf
And those arguments are…?
LikeLike
@ BadWolf
“paisley sky”—LOL with people naming their kids all type of things I saw this and thought of it as someones name.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Fact: Black youths arrested for drug possession are 48 times more likely to wind up in prison than white youths arrested for the same crime under the same circumstances.
Source: “Young White Offenders get lighter treatment,” 2000. The Tennessean. April 26: 8A.
Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.
Source: Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.
Fact: White men with a criminal record are more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men with no record, even when their education and experience are the same.
Source: Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology. Volume 108: 5, March: 937-75.
Fact: Students of colour are far less likely to be put in honours courses even after you take test scores and grades into account.
Source: Gordon, Rebecca. 1998. Education and Race. Oakland: Applied Research Center: 48-9; Fischer, Claude S. et al., 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 163; Steinhorn, Leonard and Barabara Diggs-Brown, 1999. By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race. NY: Dutton: 95-6.
Fact: Students of colour are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than whites.
Source: Skiba, Russell J. et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report SRS1, June 2000; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Youth 2003, Online Comprehensive Results, 2004.
LikeLike
Abagond, I don’t know where you get the patience.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.
Source: Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.
Here’s the survey from 2002 (and publsihed in 2005)
Click to access cpp02.pdf
Here’s one for the year 2005 (Published 2007)
Click to access cpp05.pdf
And here’s the latest from 2008 (Published 2011)
Click to access cpp08.pdf
A few things.. the authors state that ” even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs..” but there is no breakdown by race for the discovery of drugs or weapons in any of the surveys above so they are mixing and matching their data. Also the percentage of Latinos and Blacks searched by police jumped around dramatically… with Latinos being searched by police going from over 12% in 2002 to less than 6% in 2008.
FWIW according to the surveys: White, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped at similar rates in 2002, 2005, and 2008. (As opposed to be searched..) So at least according to the DOJ there the phenomenon of DWB is not reflected in the survey.
And this data is coming from the DOJ surveys which have their problems as you discussed here: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/reading-while-white-black-rape-statistics/
So I question these facts.. as you did above in the “Facts” about black rape statistics.
Fact: Students of colour are far less likely to be put in honours courses even after you take test scores and grades into account.
Fact: Students of colour are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than whites.
How do the above statements play out when the majority of the school administration and teaching staff are black, such as in Washington DC?
LikeLike
@ abagond
I don’t feel this poster can be helped.
I think it is foolish and condescending to believe that the unemployment of black college grads is because they have a degree in African American studies.How can anyone know this anyway?
But, as usual, black qualifications are always questioned, leaving racism untouched. I believe attitudes like this is why blacks aren’t employed, because, as demonstrated here, people actually *believe* these things.
Anyway, it does not explain why Asian grads also have an unemployment rate higher than whites. Or why white ex-cons get employed faster than blacks without a record all other things being equal.
*On NY Stop and Frisk–Whites stopped are more likely to have guns and drugs on them. And this is despite the fact that whites were less likely to be targeted by stop and frisk. I don’t think this necessarily means whites are more likely to have guns or drugs, but they were more likely to be stopped because of actual suspicion. POC are stopped because their color itself is suspicion. They should have taken the policy they used for whites and applied it to everyone.
(http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/)
*On Black Unemployment (Notice it is nearly twice as high in every category)
Unemployment rates for African Americans were lowest among those who attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. For instance, Blacks with at least a bachelor’s degree had an unemployment rate of 7.1* percent (compared to 3.9 percent for Whites) whereas Blacks with some college or an associate’s degree had an unemployment rate of 13.1 percent (compared to 7.0 percent for Whites). Unemployment rates are higher for those with fewer years of schooling. Blacks with only a high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent (compared to 8.4 percent for Whites), and Blacks with less than a high school diploma experienced a 24.6 percent unemployment rate (compared to 12.7 percent for Whites with less than a high school diploma).”
http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/
*More on Black unemployment
• Young white high school graduates were about twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers;
• Ex-offenders face serious barriers to employment; a criminal record reduced positive responses from employers by about 35 percent for white applicants and 57 percent for black applicants.
Even without criminal records, however, black applicants had low rates of positive responses, about the same as the response rate for white applicants *with* criminal records. Hispanics also faced discrimination by employers, but were preferred relative to blacks
The bootstrap argument is a nice fantasy. I think it makes people feel nice. Whites wants to believe they ‘earned’ where they are and did not have advantages over others. It helps their self-esteem. Meanwhile, as shown by the African American studies comment, even when blacks are educated, it is always questioned. Of course blacks can’t have a REAL degree.
*This number has moved to 8.4%
I find it funny that whites oppose affirmative action (which benefits mostly WW) for minorities because it ‘targets’ blacks, but are FOR stop and frisk which also targets blacks. Supposedly blacks commit more crime than whites and should be targeted. It could also be said blacks are less likely to be employed than whites, even with a degree and without a criminal record.
But remember kids, programs for blacks are only good if it is negative. If it helps them in some way, we should definitely get rid of it.
It reminds me of that case that went recently to the Supreme Court with that white girl. Come of find out, even if they let no black students in she still wasn’t qualified. She did not meet basic qualifications. Also forty-two under-qualified whites got in ahead of her, but her problem was ONLY with the five black and latino students.
That is something a good amount of whites don’t get. An unqualified white person will get the job ahead of you before any person of color.
The fact is, people aren’t colorblind. How can a black person get in the door of a job, even beyond the first interview, for example, if a white HR person believes stereotypes about blacks? It doesn’t matter if I send my entire life doing the right thing if someone looks at me and decide I’m not a good worker. Or if my natural hair isn’t a ‘normal hair style?’ but straight/wavy, ‘natural’ white hair is perfectly acceptable. If they decide ahead I’m a bad worker, it doesn’t matter how I dress or how well I speak, I’m not getting hired.
I don’t think stop and frisk is bad, but shouldn’t be used without probable cause. I also feel affirmative action should be used among a pool of similarly qualified candidates, which is how is supposed to be used, if it is not being used this way, the fault lies with the employer, *not* black people.
LikeLike
When I went to engage xPraetorius, it didn’t go south, it went in circles. The point he always bring up is that white racism is not a big problem. He thinks that it’s the truth of truths.
Plus, he goes out of his way to defend the white race. He even defended Michele Bachmann’s slavery comment:
She didn’t sign a pledge that said remotely ANYTHING like what you allege…she acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.” Sorry…simply true. The numbers is the numbers. In no way did she EVER say that a black child was BETTER OFF under slavery. Ever. Furthermore, in no way did she EVER use that CORRECT statistic as an excuse to justify slavery. Her point — obviously — was to demonstrate how bad conditions are TODAY for black children. Go look up her REAL biography, and you’ll go and hide your head in shame for what you’ve implied about her today. You should be ashamed. I don’t need to brag for her, her bio does that by itself.
When I said that her comment was reprehensible. He replies:
Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”
At this particular point, I really don’t have to make any more arguments. MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.
Again, the point is that white racism is not a big problem anymore. The end. Now, I should shut up and enjoy the lie.
In the end it was all about what he thinks and says versus what I think and say, and his points are always right because he repeats them over and over and they are not “leftist”.
Abagond, if you haven’t already, you should do a post on how anti-racism is always seen as leftist and therefore are considered ridiculous to those on the right.
LikeLike
abagond
Fact: Black youths arrested for drug possession are 48 times more likely to wind up in prison than white youths arrested for the same crime under the same circumstances.
Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.
Fact: Black and Latino men are three times more likely than white men to be stopped by the police and have their cars searched – even though white men are four times more likely to have weapons or drugs.
A number of such claims have been debunked. There was a major claim concerning the New Jersey turnpike a few years ago. The New Jersey attorney general finally commissioned a study. Researchers took photos of nearly 40,000 cars whose speed was simultaneously measured with a radar gun. A team of three evaluators looked at the photographs and identified the race of the driver. (Evaluators had no information about the speed of the car). When researchers combined driver identifications with the speeding information, they found that black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more.
As for being searched, it should be obvious that if a group is more likely to speed that they’d also be more likely to get pulled over and searched. Moreover, police are more likely to go where the crime is. So people who live in high crime areas are more likely to come in contact with the police. The more contact one has with police the more chances of providing probable cause for them to search your vehicle.
Fact: White men with a criminal record are more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men with no record, even when their education and experience are the same.
Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.
Fact: Students of colour are far less likely to be put in honours courses even after you take test scores and grades into account.
Most people sign up for classes. I remember from my high school days that a number of otherwise good students took less challenging classes to boost their GPA. I thought that rather shiftless.
Fact: Students of colour are more than twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than whites.
I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahahahaha! That’s rich! White people are the biggest junkies in this country… Drug dealers are like grocers or newspaper deliverymen—one on every other corner. The difference is that White people don’t think of White drug dealer as “DEALERS.” It’s just “The guy I get my little stash from.” Most Whites have had a relationship with one drug dealer or another ever since high school or college. They know them by their first names, and always seem to think of them as “real cool” people.
On the other hand, Whites have this image that all Black drug dealers are guys who carry nine millimeter pistols in their waists, pimp women on the side, and kill their rivals in drive-by shootings. Blacks are the REAL drug dealers!!!
LikeLike
To Abagond:
His figure of $17 trillion does not take into account that most welfare does not go to black people nor does it seem to account for the cuts and reforms made to welfare since 1980.
The $17 trillion dollar figure could very well be correct if one adjusts for 2013 dollars, as you noted by no means did Blacks receive all of the welfare from the mid-60s but they have been over represented as a percentage of their population (from about 1970 to now, on average about 36% of welfare spending was for blacks..) As for the welfare reforms in 1980 onward there were slight dips but overall nominal spending is still much higher on welfare now than in 1980. It looks like the big gains were for Medicaid.
http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/310/since-the-war-on-poverty-began-in-1964-welfare-spending-has-skyrocketed
Welfare in the case above includes food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance.
(I realize the graphic comes from the conservative think-tank the Heritage foundation but it seems to mesh with other sources..what’s dramatically escalated is spending on Health for the poor.. (Medicaid..) the site below does not include Health costs as part of welfare as the Heritage institute does)
This site has a breakdown on spending as a percentage of the expenditures over the years:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/statelocal_spending_1965USbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1971USbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1983USbn
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2010USbn
LikeLike
king
Hahahahaha! That’s rich! White people are the biggest junkies in this country…
I’ve never verified the stats but the numbers I’ve seen show blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate.
The difference is that White people don’t think of White drug dealer as “DEALERS.” It’s just “The guy I get my little stash from.”
Nope. Blacks deal drugs at about 5 times the rate whites do.
Most Whites have had a relationship with one drug dealer or another ever since high school or college. They know them by their first names, and always seem to think of them as “real cool” people.
I doubt that. Regardless, someone selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends isn’t in the same category has someone who joins a violent street gang.
On the other hand, Whites have this image that all Black drug dealers are guys who carry nine millimeter pistols in their waists
I doubt that, too. But street gangs exist as part of the drug trade and the number of whites involved in street gangs is negligible.
LikeLike
To King:
I sort of agree with both you and Da Jokah (Although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the difference in drug usage between Blacks and Whites is rather.small..)
Former New York Police Commissioner Lee Brown (Who’s Black..) explained the police concentration in certain neighborhoods and the consequent racial impact as follows:
In most large cities, the police focus their attention on where they see conspicuous drug use-street-corner drug sales-and where they get the most complaints. Conspicuous drug use is generally in your low-income neighborhoods that generally turn out to be your minority neighborhoods . . . . It’s easier for police to make an arrest when you have people selling drugs on the street corner than those who are [selling or buying drugs] in the suburbs or in office buildings. The end result is that more blacks are arrested than whites because of the relative ease in making those arrests.
Haven’t you and Abagond stated that the main reason that the (offender) murder rate for blacks is more 6 times the rate for whites is due to the drug trade..? Shootings and dead bodies tend to attract police attention.
LikeLike
Abagond? Why give xPraetorius a platform? And why allow him/her/it/them to usurp your threads? He/she/it/they have a blog on which to spout their brand of nonsense, so why give them free reign to do it here? And why devote an entire post to them?
Interestingly, judging by a random sampling of blog posts on that site, xPraetorius doesn’t seem to have any sort of audience at all — or even friends and family who care one way or the other about whatever they have to say — if the comment sections are any indication: they’re completely empty. No “cosigns,” no “dittos,” no “I agree,” or even the occasional “you must be out of your mind.” Not even any Facebook likes. That means xPraetorius “readers” feel that blog is irrelevant, unintelligible, or uninspiring, or its “readers” are simply non-existent. I suspect they’re trying to piggyback on your success, glom some readers and blog hits based almost entirely on your articles. I say make them build their own damn audience, and stop worrying about what’s going on over here.
LikeLike
Based on what… by who gets arrested (and therefore recorded)? or the actual volume of dealers that exist?
I rest my case. Most White people, like this Joker here see White dealers as relatively good people who are just “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends,” which isn’t really a big deal. In fact, this illusion is ubiquitous among Whites. They have NO IDEA how much product the friendly White druggie is pushing through the neighborhood—into the colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools. Their assumption is that these guys are small, harmless, have plenty of moral limits and are just trying to earn a little extra bread… it’s not like a real business where people get hurt. But really, how would they know? Do White junkies go around asking their pushers exactly how they run their drug businesses? I doubt it.
White people don’t seem to get it that the Black gang violence is all part of the same supply chain that furnishes them with their precious doobies and occasional white lines. You see, the terrible Blacks are the real problem, not the millions of functional White junkies who buy weed like water.
LikeLike
Agreed, Uncle Milton.
And therefore, if the figures that are calculated upon such an imbalance of enforcement are projected to be nearly even, (between Blacks and Whites) then the reality is sure to be that Whites actually use drugs more drugs than Black people do.
LikeLike
xPratorius said: I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.
One might ask if you were as good a trainer as you seem to be saying, why is it that the people who replaced you couldnt do the job? Also do you think your own personal experience is representative of what happens ALL the time? This is what you seem to be saying.
I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC. They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’. I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
LikeLike
Correction The only people who did not have bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were seen as ‘safe’.
I should also add pliable
LikeLike
“Nope. Blacks deal drugs at about 5 times the rate whites do.”—-Is that so or is that just the number that have been arrested for it?
LikeLike
king
Based on what… by who gets arrested (and therefore recorded)? or the actual volume of dealers that exist?
Are you suggesting police let white dealers off? I find that difficult to believe.
Most White people, like this Joker here see White dealers as relatively good people who are just “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends,” which isn’t really a big deal.
I wouldn’t know because I don’t associate with drug dealers. However, I never said any dealers were “relatively good people.” I said, “someone selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends isn’t in the same category as someone who joins a violent street gang.” I think most people would find that a reasonable statement.
LikeLike
Did you not read what Uncle Milton wrote?
In low income minority neighborhoods, drug sales are more conspicuous. Obvious street-corner drug sales are where they get the most complaints because it is visible. On the other hand, White dealers tend to distribute drugs within office building, schools, friend networks, and institutions which makes it a less obvious and visible form of lawbreaking. Most White dealers are just a tier higher up the food chain than the desperate, minority, who in his own eyes, has less to lose and everything to gain. Therefore, eighteen year old black kids with no money take much bigger risks and get caught much more often. That skews the numbers to make White people believe that, in fact, Whites are not dealing drugs at the same or higher rates than Blacks. They are—they can just afford to take less chances
As I have already said…, you have firmly implanted in your mind the idea that most White dealers are “selling a few ounces of weed to a few friends.” I wonder how many Black dealers you see in this light? To you, Black and Latino dealers are the violent dangerous ones, and most Whites are just doing small deals with friends. It never occurs to you that White dealers are connected to the violence that happens upstream in the distribution. You take it on faith that their demands for more product more quickly have nothing to do with the drug wars in South America and Mexico, nothing to do with the gang wars in Compton, Harlem, and Chicago.
White people’s drugs are grown by attractive and earthy Oregon hippies, and are delivered non-violently, dropped from the sky on woven hemp parachutes. They have nothing to do with these filthy minorities killing each other!!!
LikeLike
Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.
This is bullshit. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use. Abagond is not talking about someone being caught with a spliff or two here. What about the drug distributors? They aren’t the street dealers. There is a hierarchy in the drug dealing world and these petty drug dealers aren’t on top. Many of the people in wealthy communities have their drugs delivered to them much as one would have take-out food; hence they can ingest their drugs in the safety of their homes without fear of apprehension. Plus they have the luxury of top notch lawyers who, more often then not, get them off or into re-hab.
Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.
You are really dense aren’t you? He is not referring to whites and blacks with criminal backgrounds and similar educational, trades, or skill sets. He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?
I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class
That’s all you have are suspicions. Of course white kids do nothing more than get caught with spliffs eh?
LikeLike
@BrothaWolf :
Well…I took a few hours off, and the ol’ in-box has surely pied up! Just a few corrections for some things that you said that are plainly off-base. (Begin SNARK alert –>) ‘Course I could probably make a full-time job out of that if only someone would pay me for it! 🙂 (END Snark alert.)
This is a long passage for you, ’cause you’re my favorite fish in this barrel. (not counting Sharina and B. R., of course. 🙂 )
First: You did NOT “engage” me on my site. You blustered, fulminated, bloviated and made all the same baseless, nonsensical remarks there as you did here and at your site. You simply didn’t call me a racist in every other sentence. However, I haven’t checked your latest salvo over there. Wait a sec…I’ll do that now.
…
Well, you just couldn’t prevent yourself could you? Yep, you checked off your last box. Your style of “engagement” is a caricature.
Now: to some of your “points,” above if such they can be called.
Michele Bachmann OBVIOUSLY made no attempt, either subtle or otherwise, to justify or downplay slavery. I knocked that one back easily, and even provided a thought exercise for you back on my blog. This is the “under every rock” thing you do. It’s at best silly, and at worst paranoid and unhealthy. Please don’t propose “arguments” that wouldn’t pass muster in the third grade. It wastes everybody’s time.
You said: “The point he always bring up is that white racism is not a big problem. He thinks that it’s the truth of truths.”
My reply: Nope. Just the truth. You and your cohort here put yourselves through all the gyrations and contortions that I’ve been pointing out, and you “prove” to yourselves that the rotten, old white man is going to keep you down and never take his boot off your neck. Read this well, BW: if you believe the boot is on your neck — whether or not it ACTUALLY is — you’re going to think, talk, act, speak, write, as if it is.
The only boot on YOUR neck, BW, is your own inability to keep up with the changing times. There’s much of what you write that WOULD have been accurate — 50 years ago or more. By the way, one reason I label you and others “leftists,” is because you’re writing is so incredibly reactionary. “Reactionary” is the single best word to sum up America’s political left-wing. However, your leftism is not a central part of what I’m saying…just a useful classification for your thinking.
Let’s try something else, BW…Play yet another little thought game with me, BW. Let’s just say that I come up to you and say, “BW: I want you to try — sincerely, really, truly try, to jump the moon right now.” You’d respond, “But, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! I can’t jump to the moon!” Then you’d call me a racist for suggesting it. 🙂 But I persist. “No, really,” I say, “give it a try. A real, sincere try.” So you respond, “Fine! I’l try.” So, you close your eyes, and, with a sincere will, you jump straight up. Obviously, you come back down shortly thereafter, and you then say, “See? See?” And I say, “But you didn’t try REALLY sincerely.” You shoot right back, “Yes, I did! I jumped as high as I could!” I reply, “No. You did only what you knew perfectly well would NOT take you to the moon. A SINCERE attempt would have entailed (1) finding out where the moon was, (2) pondering whether just jumping toward it had any chance of success, (3) if so, calculating how far ahead of the moon to jump in order not to miss it, (4) deciding that just to jump from the ground — while technically not physically IMpossible, was certainly an unlikely approach, (5) asking me whether my definition of “jump” included hitching a ride on the next NASA rocket to the moon, so you could fulfill my request, (6) if I say, “Sure thing!” then, (7) doing a quick assessment of what it would take to accomplish THAT, and finally (8) re-assessing whether it was REALLY worth it to accede to my request, and, telling me “Yes,” and going for it, or “No. I won’t be doing that Mr. x.”
THAT would be a SINCERE attempt to jump to the moon. Or a decline of the request.
One more thought game, BW: You and I are talking on the shore of the lake next to my country home that you’re SURE I obtained illegitimately through white privilege. It’s a beautiful lake, and because you love to swim, your ask me whether people swim in my lake. “Oh, no,” I say. You inquire, “But why? Such a beautiful lake!” “Well,” I respond, “That lake’s dangerous! 200 years ago a giant snapping turtle attacked and killed great-great-great-great-great-great uncle Herb!” You’d be PERFECTLY within your rights to fall down laughing and say, “That was TWO HUNDRED YEARS ago, dude!”
Like in my “jump to the moon” hypothetical — where your first reaction was to say “That’s impossible!” — in the REAL question of race relations, you haven’t got past “Whites are all racists, so there’s nothing I can do in this hellhole of a country but sit here and fulminate against them, ’cause it makes me feel better.” I think YOU think that getting past white racism is like jumping to the moon: It’s impossible, so why even try? I further think, you haven’t tried for a very long time. Your HYPER-defensive, irrational, hostile reaction to my vigorous defense of people who are ACTUALLY innocent of your accusations is indicative of this.
And, like in my “lake hypothesis,” times have changed — changed drastically. You pooh-pooh anytime I say “Barack Obama = Most Powerful Man in the World.” Worse you use, as some kind of weird, cloud-cuckoo “proof” of white racism, the OBJECTIVE facts of blacks being in positions of power and authority in every state in the land, a well as in the White House, of powerful, fabulously wealthy, widely admired and recognized black politicians, athletes, artists, commentators, musicians, entertainers of all kinds, and the MOST important OBJECTIVE fact that — even when there are terrible statistics about black employment, and black housing and black families in the land, that despite ALL that — blacks have been an important and powerful voice AT THE TABLE for decades. These things are not debatable.
Bottom line result: The ACTUAL racism you’re fulminating against is, for all intents and purposes, long gone, but you remain so wedded to the EFFECT of it, that — read this well: you make it a self-fulfilling prophecy in your own life. That’s just sad. Abagond appears to be the same way, and so many others as well. Your and Abagond’s echo chambers, so full of commenters whose VERY first reaction to my dissent was “Racist!” and “Liar!” and “I’ve see THIS kind before!” and “Just like all the OTHER white racists,” kind of proves the point. Your reaction to dissenting voices is, after all, a test of your character, and you and most of the others failed miserably. I wasn’t asking them to jump to the moon after all, just to listen to a differing point of view.
By the way, ALL this back and forth is — itself — pretty convincing proof that I’m pretty plainly not a racist. Remember my definition of racism? The one that you agreed with? (Reminder: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”) I OBVIOUSLY don’t believe that your current closed-minded, stubborn, bull-headed obstinacy that keeps you so ignorant is in any way related to the color of your skin. I keep trying, this way and that, to get through your cantankerous skull. I don’t see you as a BLACK man, I see you as a CRANKY old curmudgeon, who’s set in his ways, and is so comfy, cozy with his long outmoded set of beliefs that ANYONE who challenges them meets with the same stream of invective and vituperation you directed at me on YOUR blog, here and on mine. I’m — obviously — not a racist, but it’s entirely possible that you’re just a cranky, old dude, with limited vision, and an inability to challenge your own viewpoints.
Some of your amen chorus here are fond of pointing out this “ceiling” or that, as some kind of indication that blacks or PoC (what a positively IDIOTIC term!) can’t prosper in America. Well, guess what, if people of all colors are doing their best to tear down those ceilings, but you throwbacks are frantically nailing them back in place as fast or faster than they tear ’em down, then the ceilings never really go away, do they?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Misdeeds by young black males are seen in a different light than those by young white males.
Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.
With young white males it is seen as “errors of judgement”, “boys will be boys”, as something they will grow out of.
You saw that even with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: Martin was a “thug” and Zimmerman was the innocent citizen, even though it was Zimmerman who had a record of violence and a loaded gun.
Whites get the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence.
Black males are presumed to be a threat, lacking further information: The purse clutch. White people crossing the street. The police stopping you while you are minding your own business. White flight.
Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if black men are feral animals or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.
LikeLike
@BrothaWolf: When I said: “Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced …” it was in reference to the two REALLY obscure dudes you mentioned. A certain Loy Mauch and some other nitwit. When you are reduced to making things up about a retired Congresswoman, and referring to two other REALLY obscure dudes who have long been drummed out of prominence, you neatly prove my point. The obscure dudes appear to have popped up their heads, and they were promptly sent packing. More important, they were never anything more than REALLY OBSCURE DUDES! Hello, BW! Knock, knock! Anybody home?
@BW: you said:
In the end it was all about what he thinks and says versus what I think and say, and his points are always right because he repeats them over and over and they are not “leftist”.
My reply:
I repeat them because you constantly refuse to address them. Again, for what, the thousandth time? saying, “You’re wrong and you’re a racist,” does NOT constitute addressing them. Oh, and I repeat them because, yes, they are right. I suspect you believe the same about the things YOU say. Duh!
@BW:
Abagond, if you haven’t already, you should do a post on how anti-racism is always seen as leftist and therefore are considered ridiculous to those on the right.
My reply:
Let’s be clear, BW, YOU are most definitely NOT anti-racist…you LOVE your white racism! So much so that you can’t be without it, even though it’s mostly long gone! Without that racism, where would your identity be? Where would your blog be? Where would YOU be? That’s why you have this compulsion to find it under every rock and around every corner.
Real, ACTUAL anti-racism is a right-wing phenomenon in America today. Sorry, it just is.
I think I’m going to coin another term: “ghost racism.” It’s racism that only those few adepts — like Abagond, for example — trained in the arcane arts of communicating with racism that’s long-dead, but still around haunting us all, can see. It’s really EVERYWHERE, you see, but only THEY can see it, and WE untrained, uneducated rubes all need simply to take their word for it, that even though there’s a MOUNTAIN of OBJECTIVE evidence against its existence, it’s REALLY right there and powerful as ever!
Let’s be clear about something else, BW: Despite your bull-headedness, I have the highest regard for your intelligence. It takes a certain genius to keep track of the hundreds of socially-accepted but nonsensical excuses you have to avoid moving forward with the times. To be able to trot them out at a moment’s notice, under the pressure of conflicting viewpoints is not simple, and you do it well, as evidenced by the apparently dozens of members of your and Abagond’s amen chorus. I simply suggest to you that you employ your obviously strong intellectual capabilities in a more constructive, less self-limiting way.
I continue to await your apology for calling me a racist — which is, of course, hate speech, and verging on a hate crime — and I’ll still have a Bass Ale. When are you buying? I’m thirsty. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Even in the 1960s whites had a hard time seeing racism:
Fact: In 1962, 85% of whites thought that black children in their community had just as good a chance of getting a good education as white children.
Source: The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.
Fact: In 1969 nearly half of all whites (45%) believed that blacks had a better chance getting a good-paying job than they did.
Source: Newsweek/Gallup Organization, National Opinion Survey, August 19, 1969.
LikeLike
Hey Praetorius, since this post is about you, may I ask what your favourite meal is?
Kissesxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate.
Uhhh link to that..? Seems like a serious paraphrasing and effectively an inadvertent straw man. As I remember I said the risk of murder was fairly low for most Americans but that typically in areas with high murder rates one is markedly more at risk for common crimes such as assault or robbery. From 2002 to 2010 I knew of 11 victims of violent crime. 7 of the incidents required hospitalization – in case of 8 people these incidents prompted them to move to other cities and in one case back to his home country (India). The common thread between all of these incidents was that all of perpetrators were younger black males. (I can discuss the incidents in detail with anyone via email if you don’t believe me… darabinovich – at – gmail.com ) Also in the same post I pointed out that I had modified my routine to avoid younger white males who were drinking. I used to like to go to rock and roll shows in the 90s in San Francisco but I ran into one too many drunk white guys who wanted to pick a fight with me. I was never assaulted but I don’t tolerate that kind of behavior. Would this mean I am against younger white males or alcohol..? No..but it does make me risk averse and I avoid risk when I can. (Idiotic and/or aggressive behavior on alcohol does seem to be a white thing..)
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ Da Jokah
“I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class.”
Misdeeds by young black males are seen in a different light than those by young white males.
Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.
With young white males it is seen as “errors of judgement”, “boys will be boys”, as something they will grow out of.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Sorry. Just more of your mystical, magical mind-reading. No one whom anyone takes seriously views the infractions differently when committed by one or the other-skinned persons.
Abagond:
You saw that even with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: Martin was a “thug” and Zimmerman was the innocent citizen, even though it was Zimmerman who had a record of violence and a loaded gun.
xPraetorius:
Quick question: if, as it turns out, Trayvon WAS a bit of a thug, and Zuimmerman WAS an overly zealous ordinary dude…what then? The “lean,” the stealing, the drugs, the fighting, the MMA, the need to see some kid “bleed more” does NOT speak well of Martin. Nor, by the way, was it allowed in court. The judge did her level best to make sure that the jurors saw NONE of that. Fine. That may be a decision in conformity with the law. However, the jury — despite NOT seeing ANY of that pro-Zimmerman stuff — acquitted anyway. It must have been REALLY obvious that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Abagond:
Whites get the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. Black males are presumed to be a threat, lacking further information.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Sorry. Just more of your mystical, magical mind-reading. No one whom anyone takes seriously views the infractions differently when committed by one or the other-skinned persons.
Abagond:
Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if black men are feral animals or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.
xPraetorius:
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…EVERYONE knows that you avoid bad neighborhoods… Those who don’t get dead. If you want white people — or anyone, for that matter — to fail to look at life realistically, then you just need to stop asking people to jump to the moon. I’ll re-write your paragraph to be correct:
“Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men because of the higher black murder rate. As if there’s a higher black murder rate or something. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.” (the “feral animals” crack was more mystical, magical mind-reading, so illegitimate.)
Now, with THAT said, Uncle Milton could have said it differently also. Remember, Abagond and others, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING (or nearly everything.) (*)
So, Abagond’s paragraph is REALLY more accurate like this:
“Uncle Milton himself, on another thread, seriously argued that whites are right to be fearful of black men, say in high-crime neighborhoods, because of the higher black murder rate. That is JUST the kind of thinking I am talking about.” And, of course, that thinking is perfectly legitimate…even YOU, Abagond, think like that in high-crime neighborhoods.
Best,
— x
(*) For example: which is better: (1) a black unemployment rate of 6%, or a black unemployment rate of 8%? Easy: there’s not enough information to answer the question. Example: if the black unemployment rate is 6% and SKYROCKETING, then it is worse than if the black unemployment rate is 8% but PLUMMETING. No statistic is static…they are ALL measures of trends moving in directions. You have to understand at LEAST the trend, or you know nothing at all useful. CONTEXT IS (nearly) EVERYTHING.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“I think I’m going to coin another term: “ghost racism.” It’s racism that only those few adepts — like Abagond, for example — trained in the arcane arts of communicating with racism that’s long-dead, but still around haunting us all, can see. It’s really EVERYWHERE, you see, but only THEY can see it, and WE untrained, uneducated rubes all need simply to take their word for it, that even though there’s a MOUNTAIN of OBJECTIVE evidence against its existence, it’s REALLY right there and powerful as ever!”
Even in the 1960s whites had a hard time seeing racism:
Fact: In 1962, 85% of whites thought that black children in their community had just as good a chance of getting a good education as white children.
Source: The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.
Fact: In 1969 nearly half of all whites (45%) believed that blacks had a better chance getting a good-paying job than they did.
Source: Newsweek/Gallup Organization, National Opinion Survey, August 19, 1969.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Thank you for this, Abagond. I needed one that permitted only a short response. You and I are in complete agreement on this. Back in the ’60’s whites had a hard time seeing [white] racism.
I agree completely! Thank goodness that’s no longer the case! And hasn’t BEEN the case SINCE the ’60’s.
At the risk of making this response too long, it’s precisely in the ’60’s when I was receiving an education that was chock full of history bemoaning white misdeeds with respect to black people. So, not ALL white people were afraid to confront white misdeeds.
Again, to pose the rhetorical question. Do you REALLY think that whites just woke up — AS A PEOPLE — one day and said, “Let’s just cut this the heck out. Let’s start making it up to the black people. Let’s start teaching how wrong we’ve been as WELL as the good things we’ve done.” Nope. That kind of people-wide change-of-heart is a long time in the making, as I’ve made clear. It means that, — AS IT’S HAPPENING — there will STILL be crimes, misdeeds and depredations. The point: white racism has been a dying beast for MORE THAN 200 YEARS, and you ought to have the honesty to acknowledge it.(*)
Now, I’m going to toss one more inflammatory log onto this fire. It’s not only white racism that has been dying for 200 years, but white prejudice of ANY kind. See, eg: legislation concerning, blacks, Hispanics, women, Japanese WWII internees, ruthenians, asians, vegetarians, allergics, non-smokers, gays, lgbtqqiaap, etc. Again, anything resembling a “bigoted” or “prejudiced” race — particularly a DOMINANT one! — could not POSSIBLY have promulgated that mountain of legislation.
All this is beyond dispute.
Also: I acknowledge — as some have mentioned before — that the white race will go away. Doesn’t bother me one bit. If “we” go away as a result of assimilation, that will be a GREAT thing. If “we” go away as a result of genocide, that will be a profoundly evil thing, but we WILL disappear. Guess what…world travel, human nature, the way of all things, etc. means that, in one very possible scenario, ALL races will go away, to be succeeded by a white-black-brown-red-yellow amalgamation of all races. Ummmm…Ok. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that, as long as the resulting HUMAN race is one in which MOST humans are good, decent, kind-hearted, open-minded, people, unlike most participants to this blog.
As you might have guessed, I’m a bit of a prognosticator. The point, however, is that I DO — from time-to-time — try to see the larger picture. Abagond, BW, others: if you were any more myopic, you’d be completely blind.
Darn! I promised a short response!
One more quick thing: If I’ve already addressed a topic, or an objection, then from now on, I’ll use the phrase, or a variation thereof, “Already addressed. Re-read.” It’s plain that I’m the only one who has really paid any SERIOUS attention to what the others have said. It’s ALSO plain that others have not read the entire thread, my responses (many have admitted as much) or the previous one.
Some of the more moronic responses — example: the one crowing about the impending disappearance of the white race — DO allow for the surfacing of other interesting concepts, so I might tackle them, despite their moronia.
Best,
— x
(*) I suspect, however, that, BLACK racism is far from dead. I suspect further that there are precious few addressing it. Certainly there are none who hang around on THIS blog!
LikeLike
Herneith:
Hey Praetorius, since this post is about you, may I ask what your favourite meal is?
Kissesxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
xPraetorius:
Yes.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Herneith said:
Almost no one goes to prison for drug possession. People are arrested for drug dealing and plea bargain down to possession. Since most drug dealers are black most of those plea bargaining down to possession are black. But they still get prison. Legitimate possessions usually get a fine and probation.
This is bullshit. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use. Abagond is not talking about someone being caught with a spliff or two here. What about the drug distributors? They aren’t the street dealers. There is a hierarchy in the drug dealing world and these petty drug dealers aren’t on top. Many of the people in wealthy communities have their drugs delivered to them much as one would have take-out food; hence they can ingest their drugs in the safety of their homes without fear of apprehension. Plus they have the luxury of top notch lawyers who, more often then not, get them off or into re-hab.
Black criminals have higher rates of recidivism. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig about criminals no matter what color they are. They shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place.
You are really dense aren’t you? He is not referring to whites and blacks with criminal backgrounds and similar educational, trades, or skill sets. He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?
I suspect the difference comes in the types of offenses rather than the number of offenses. For example. fighting and drugs are more likely to result in suspension than skipping class
That’s all you have are suspicions. Of course white kids do nothing more than get caught with spliffs eh?
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@Herneith: You might achieve better, less confusing dialogue, if you were to address your remarks to someone in particular.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
To Da Jokah:
“Nope. Blacks deal drugs at about 5 times the rate whites do.”
I find that implausible… I have read surveys that blacks deal drugs at rates from around 45% to 200% more than whites but I don’t take surveys about drug dealing seriously. Any serious drug dealer (someone who derives his income solely or predominantly from drug dealing..) would likely never touch a survey. It’s usually the wannabees that respond because they think it’s cool. (As in, hey I bought an once of weed and sold some to friends..I’m a drug dealer…)
By the way, this is coming from a white guy who most definitely was a drug dealer…although on an episodic basis. I grew Marijuana and once sold off 15 lbs in one week. Didn’t do it for long since the laws were changing rapidly (as in getting much more harsh and the police were getting wise and more active..) and drug users and smaller dealers tend to sleazy people. Making fast money has a way of coming back to bite you. (Unless you’re a Goldman Sachs trader..)
This is anecdotal experience (and highly dated..) but from what I saw almost all dealing was interracial. A drug dealer has to engender a bit of trust with their clients. Trust usually means a connection through a friend or acquaintance and most of ones friends in the US tend to be of the same race. By the mid-80s most white drug dealers had become extremely paranoid. I knew one successful dealer who had a Reagan bumper sticker and an American flag on his car and sported a military style haircut. Also he usually kept a bible somewhat in sight in his car. Paid his way through college and then some. He stopped completely after 5 years. By the mid-80s if a dealer wasn’t paranoid he usually ended up getting caught.
A fairly realistic book that comes close to my experiences is this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budding_Prospects
In small to midsize towns there are almost no open air drug markets…there were open air drug markets in parts of San Francisco in the late 80s and early 90s (Likely before but I wasn’t there then…) in the upper Haight you had a bunch of younger white kids allegedly selling LSD. (Never touched the stuff but supposedly over half the time it was regular paper..eg a scam for the tourists) In Dolores Park there were a number of Latino guys who sold weed and heroin. Towards the mid-90s basically these open markets were eliminated or at least reduced enough so I didn’t notice them anymore. Yet the open air markets of Hunter’s Point and West Oakland (Predominantly or heavily black areas..) continue to this day.
LikeLike
Omnipresent said:
xPratorius said: I trained the brown dudes who replaced me, but who couldn’t do the job, but who cost 75% less, so who cares… I DO know this topic. Very, VERY intimately.
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.
One might ask if you were as good a trainer as you seem to be saying, why is it that the people who replaced you couldnt do the job? Also do you think your own personal experience is representative of what happens ALL the time? This is what you seem to be saying.
I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC. They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’. I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
I’ve covered all this before. Actually, I’m an excellent trainer, but in the context of THIS particular story, there’s much more to say. I DO know the topic intimately. However, as Omnipresent points out, my personal anecdote is not relevant to the larger discussion.
I was wrong, and I accept and acknowledge the correction.
O said:
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.
Omnipresent:
I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.
xPraetorius:
Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.
Omnipresent:
They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.
xPraetorius:
Again, magical mind-reading. Not legitimate as argument. Cut it out.
Omnipresent:
The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
xPraetorius:
Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?
O: Context is nearly everything. It’s why I accepted your correction above.
@Omnipresent: your posts have been among the least pathetic in these two threads; don’t blow it now.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
The way that the authorities deal with White drug use, and minority drug use in markedly different .
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/cops-ran-free-doritos-10-minutes-seattle-pot-235900570.html
LikeLike
To King: The way that the authorities deal with White drug use, and minority drug use in markedly different . http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/cops-ran-free-doritos-10-minutes-seattle-pot-235900570.html From the article you linked: Not only delicious, but educational, each bag displayed a sticker of do’s and don’ts of I-502, Washington’s ballot measure that legalized the possession of marijuana in November. EG it’s now legal and is being treated in a manner similar to alcohol which ahs constraints on it’s legal use. Enforcing laws against substances like Marijuana is just stupid in places where alcohol is legal. (Drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin, and Crystal Meth.. are a very different story in my opinion…) And FWIW I’ve seen plenty of People of Color at “smoke-ins” although it is true the majority were white. Also as a white guy there is no f*cking way I’ll be smoking weed in front of a cop in a place like Oklahoma or Alabama. (For the record I haven’t smoked weed in decades.. I am naturally tired and paranoid enough as it is without having to pay for it..)
LikeLike
king
In low income minority neighborhoods, drug sales are more conspicuous. Obvious street-corner drug sales are where they get the most complaints because it is visible.
Yeah. Standing on the street corner selling cocaine is a lot more conspicuous than selling a few ounces of weed to a friend.
Therefore, eighteen year old black kids with no money take much bigger risks and get caught much more often.
I hear that McDonald’s is hiring.
That skews the numbers to make White people believe that, in fact, Whites are not dealing drugs at the same or higher rates than Blacks.
Maybe if drug gangs stopped shooting people they wouldn’t be so conspicuous.
”
herneith
This is bullshlt. The person is charged by the amount of drugs on their person. If it exceeds a particular amount it becomes a trafficking charge regardless if the drugs were intended for their personal use.
Hear ye! Hear ye! Her royal highness Herneith, princess of feces and heir to the duchess of excrement hath pronounced it “bullshlt.”
Yeah. Dealers are charged according to how much they have on them. Then they plea bargain to a lesser charge of “possession” and go to prison. Those with smaller quantities are charged with “possession”, plead guilty to possession and get a fine/probation.
He refers to whites with a criminal background getting call backs whereas the black men with no records and similar qualifications don’t. Capiche racist?
If you don’t break the law in the first place then it’s not a problem. Capiche?
That’s all you have are suspicions.
Abagond provided a source. Why don’t you look it up and show me where my suspicions are mistaken?
”
abagond
Young black males are seen as dangerous, as lacking compassion or morals, as pre-criminals.
I wonder if all those homicides and aggravated assaults have anything to do with it?
LikeLike
grin and bear it said:
Abagond? Why give xPraetorius a platform? And why allow him/her/it/them to usurp your threads? He/she/it/they have a blog on which to spout their brand of nonsense, so why give them free reign to do it here? And why devote an entire post to them?
Interestingly, judging by a random sampling of blog posts on that site, xPraetorius doesn’t seem to have any sort of audience at all — or even friends and family who care one way or the other about whatever they have to say — if the comment sections are any indication: they’re completely empty. No “cosigns,” no “dittos,” no “I agree,” or even the occasional “you must be out of your mind.” Not even any Facebook likes. That means xPraetorius “readers” feel that blog is irrelevant, unintelligible, or uninspiring, or its “readers” are simply non-existent. I suspect they’re trying to piggyback on your success, glom some readers and blog hits based almost entirely on your articles. I say make them build their own damn audience, and stop worrying about what’s going on over here.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Thanks, g-a-b-i. I’m glad you were able to ferret out (1) why we post what we post, (2) what our readers think and how many there are, (Interestingly, you ignore the most important thing: WHO they are — the only thing that REALLY counts) (3) what we track and make public to the likes of you, (4) what the “Facebook likes” widget represents (think about that one for a while), (5) that you were unable to comprehend the content (*). I’m glad you, like so many others around here have that mystical, magical talent of mind-reading! Good for you! Why don’t you put it to constructive use and tell Obama what that dirtbag in Syria is going to do next?
I’ll sum it up for you: we are not really in it for the clicks, or the likes. However, I’ll give you something titillating, just for the fun of it. Neither you, nor Abagond, nor BW, has ANY IDEA where my blog is read, or, most importantly, by whom. If you — and others — did, you all just MIGHT try to write more carefully an dless stupidly.
Our blog is actually a lot more successful than we had ever hoped. There are a bunch of race addicts like Abagond out there…if we need to use them, we will. However, since we have some continuity with Abagond and BW, we continue to work with their content and their audience. But, if you want more hints as to our REAL goals for the blog, you can look in this thread, in Abagond’s Hitler thread, and in an argument we had with BrothaWolf a while back on his blog (about Paula Deen).
No more hints, gabi! Enjoy!
Best
— x
(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You misread what Herneith and I said and pretty much just repeated yourself – with insults added. Carry on.
LikeLike
@ Uncle Milton
I am surprised because I would never take you for a weed smoker (in the past that is or now for that matter).
@xPraetorius
“(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?”—Proving all the more to be a hypocrite.
” You might achieve better, less confusing dialogue, if you were to address your remarks to someone in particular.”—If you would notice the quotes you will see who said it and thus figure who she was walking to.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
You state the following two propositions:
1. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
2. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
The error in your reasoning is that Proposition A is dependent on the truth of Proposition B.
In order to state that blacks can succeed by following your points, you presuppose a hidden premise: that your 5 points, not race, determines success. However, this is clearly question-begging for racism itself is the very issue in dispute.
As a result, your argument actually takes this form:
1. The 5 points determines success, not race. [Hidden Premise]
2. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
3. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
The above is nothing more than a circular argument.
But it gets even worse: in your thesis, these 5 points appear to be an arbitrary number. Why not 10 points? Why not 20 points? How did you arrive at 5 points, and what makes them objective? How do you plausibly know one can succeed if they follow just these 5 arbitrary points?
For the sake of argument, even if we assume your worldview is right in that racism is not a problem, one can still challenge your 5 points on the foregoing grounds alone.
Second, please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.
Unless you are able to identify and evidentially support the criterion used to establish these differences, you are merely stipulating terms with no contextual framework under which these terms make sense.
-TruthSeeker
LikeLike
@ Da Joka in Denial
Yeah, White dealers never sell cocaine. They only sell.. (now wait fir the cliché) …”a few ounces of weed to a friend.”
You’re right… that’s a lot safer and a lot easier way to make extra money than selling a few ounces of weed to a friend. Pass it on to more White people!
True: So see to it. Let me know when the problem is contained.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705257140/Mongol-motorcycle-gang-is-busted.html?pg=all
http://www.wcnc.com/news/crime/Feds-hail-success-of-Hells-Angels-biker-gang-probe-212218261.html
LikeLike
Omipresent said: I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.
xPraetorius: Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.
What, you arent pi$$ed off that someone who YOU trained to do a job replaced you? That you became surplus to requirements? Anyone would be resentful and bitter. Its human nature. I dont have to be a mind reader to gauge that. It resonates from your comments about Affirmative Action.
Omnipresent:I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.
xPraetorius: Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.
Bearing in mind that my ‘anecdote’ was in response to YOUR example I can and will bring this up if I feel necessary.
Omnipresent:They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.
xPraetorius:Again, magical mind-reading. Not legitimate as argument. Cut it out.
Mate, you’re making assumptions. I KNOW because they told me. I wouldnt use it as an example if I didnt know for definate.
Omnipresent:The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
xPraetorius:Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?
I am not talking about everywhere, neither did I imply it, only in THIS particular situation. Sorry if it grieves you but, people are unpleasant at times and do behave in personally motivated ways. If you dont believe this then well, you are in for a really big shock in life. As for your other questions, i’m sure you are the Oracle and are able to answer absolutely and categorically.
xPrae said: Omnipresent: your posts have been among the least pathetic in these two threads; don’t blow it now
Let me finish by saying this. I am having an honest discussion here with you. Dont spoil it by retorting to most everything with sarcasm. It reminds me of dealing with my teenager and it is not something that I come on to this blog for. I afford you a level of respect which I hope you will reciprocate.
LikeLike
Sharina
@ Uncle Milton
I am surprised because I would never take you for a weed smoker (in the past that is or now for that matter).
@xPraetorius
“(*) Again, we write for an audience who, it is assumed, has attained a fairly high education level. You’re likely not there yet. Are you young, or did you not do well in school?”—Proving all the more to be a hypocrite.
xPraetorius:
Oh? How’s that? Our writing IS directed at an educated audience. Believe me, I Hhve plenty of feedback indicating that we do NOT attract or maintain a lot of low-information, or less educated readers. This is by design.
sharina:
” You might achieve better, less confusing dialogue, if you were to address your remarks to someone in particular.”
If you would notice the quotes you will see who said it and thus figure who she was walking to.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time. As you know I can’t respond to everyone. If I have to do extra work to determine to whom I’m responding, or even whether the person is addressing me, then I might end up simply moving on. My suggestion was purely practical. I DO try to make it obvious TO WHOM I’m responding, as a courtesy to allow them maximal convenience in responding back.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Sharina
I know that is not your quote, but AMEN. 😛
LikeLike
xPrae:
Having re-read what I have said I actually do state that I have seen the scenario I described to you played out before when I said this – I hold my hands up, I made an error.
I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
I am still not saying this happens EVERYWHERE I cannot possibly know that of course but, I have been in employment for 20 odd years and I have seen this happen more than I care to. It is not always towards black people but the type of roles I had afforded a certain amount of confidences to be shared and this is how I came to know about these situations.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“Oh? How’s that? “—I was hoping you would not seriously ask this as it is quite obvious. You put a big stink about the fact that you were insulting posts and the content there in, but claimed victory simply because people had resulted to insulting you. Yet here you are insulting someone based on their insult of your blog and the content there in.
“I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time.”–Then the simply answer to this would have been to simply move on. Or use the find feature on your explorer.
LikeLike
Omnipresent said:
I said this to you before but, clearly your managers did not get the brief on what you peeps in the U.S call Affirmative Action. But, poor management and sh*t managers and common the world over. 75% less, so who cares? You do, unsurpisingly but I reckon it has made you bitter and it is only human nature.
xPraetorius(1): Nope. I’m not bitter at all. You may not engage in magical mind-reading. Stop it.
What, you arent pi$$ed off that someone who YOU trained to do a job replaced you? That you became surplus to requirements? Anyone would be resentful and bitter. Its human nature. I dont have to be a mind reader to gauge that. It resonates from your comments about Affirmative Action.
xPraetorius(2):
Nope. I’m not ticked off. Or bitter. Economics is economics is economics is economics.
Omnipresent(1):I too know this topic intimately but in a different context to yours. In this case, it was white people who mismanaged, to the detriment of any PoC.
xPraetorius(1): Ok…but you can’t use personal anecdotes either. I covered this above.
O(2):
Bearing in mind that my ‘anecdote’ was in response to YOUR example I can and will bring this up if I feel necessary.
xPraetorius(2)
Yep. And, you’ll note, I accepted your correction.
Omnipresent(1):
They were resentful of strides to re-dress the balance in positive discrimination and wanted things to ‘stay the way they are’.
xPraetorius(1):
Again, magical mind-reading. Not legitimate as argument. Cut it out.
O(2)Mate, you’re making assumptions. I KNOW because they told me. I wouldnt use it as an example if I didnt know for definate.
xPraetorius(2):
Fine, however, Rule #2 applies as well: This is a personal anecdote, so irrelevant. Scope and context, please.
Omnipresent(1):The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
xPraetorius(1):Really, O? The ONLY ones? Ever? Or just in YOUR experience? Or Just in Montana? Or when? Where? All over the country? All through history? In EVERY company? Is it STILL that way? If so, when? Where? Is there recourse? Have you contacted anyone? Is the trend going up? Down? Sideways? For how long? What is the longer trend? Is there legislation against this? Are people fired when they bring this up? What do women think? Gays? How about the lgbtqqiaap? Is it happening to them? What about whites? Does it happen more, less or about the same to them?
O(2):
I am not talking about everywhere, neither did I imply it, only in THIS particular situation. Sorry if it grieves you but, people are unpleasant at times and do behave in personally motivated ways. If you dont believe this then well, you are in for a really big shock in life. As for your other questions, i’m sure you are the Oracle and are able to answer absolutely and categorically.
xPraetorius(2):
Agreed, but, as discussed above, if these are isolated incidents, then there is no larger problem, as I’ve been stating for a long time. By the way, you’ll notice that for the duration of ALL these threads, I have engaged in ONLY a couple of incidents of absolute and categorical declarations…my infamous “No white people ever say” and “Never has been (a will to empire)” remarks. I apologized for them, corrected and clarified, and didn’t do it again. You can look that up. (*) I think that you’ll agree, I’ve done a PRETTY good job — if not absolutely perfect — job of steering clear of the absolute remarks. In an interesting note: every time I DID engage in the absolute or the categorical, someone else shot back with the isolated and the personal in an attempt to shoot me down. In doing so, they neatly made my point for me. Thanks for the opportunity to point that out.
xPrae(1) said: Omnipresent: your posts have been among the least pathetic in these two threads; don’t blow it now
O(2): Let me start by saying this. I am having an honest discussion here with you. Dont spoil it by retorting to most everything with sarcasm. It reminds me of dealing with my teenager and it is not something that I come on to this blog for. I afford you a level of respect which I hope you will reciprocate.
xPraetorius(2):
Chastisement accepted. You WILL admit, however, that I DO put up with a whole LOT of ummmm…guff around here. Sometimes, it’s tempting to respond in kind. I assume this is your commitment not to engage in the gratuitous mud-slinging that so many use here, and I make that same commitment to you.
Best,
— x
(*) I remain the ONLY only one EVER to have out-and-out admitted to having committed an error in the voluminous content of BOTH threads. It’s interesting that the other commenters here are convinced they have not made one single, solitary, teentsy-weentsy error EVER in all this back and forth. Or none of them is man enough to admit it. One or the other.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@xPraetorius
“Oh? How’s that? “—I was hoping you would not seriously ask this as it is quite obvious. You put a big stink about the fact that you were insulting posts and the content there in, but claimed victory simply because people had resulted to insulting you. Yet here you are insulting someone based on their insult of your blog and the content there in.
“I saw the quotes…providing only the quotes requires the responder to go look back to who made the quote. As the pace around here can be quick, that’s an unnecessary imposition on the time.”–Then the simply answer to this would have been to simply move on. Or use the find feature on your explorer.
xPraetorius:
I addressed this all before.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“I addressed this all before.”—You haven’t but we can pretend we have as there is nothing to address when you do not see the whole irony in this.
LikeLike
Oh and if you had time to respond to her non addressing post, then you had time to find who she was talking to or as I just stated move on.
LikeLike
Yes.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
*No clue if this is off-topic, but it was mentioned (I forgot by who)
Sweet Jesus, how did I miss this??
“She acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”
It was in fact in the original vow, they later removed it.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58631.html
1) I would like to see where on earth she got the numbers from. Given the sparse nature of records during slavery. Slaves had a hard time finding their families after slavery for this very reason. This is basic American history. Not until 1869, when the Radicals assumed control of the legislative process, did black marital and parental rights receive legal justification.
Star Park, conservative activist admits this:
“Now we don’t have clear data getting to your question about what black family life looked like during slavery as what the attacks are now even against people like Michele Bachmann who signed on to a document that said the black family was more intact than it is today. But we do know the reason we don’t have clear data of course is because only *some* data made it through the civil war.”
We have accounts from slaves saying that it was common for children to be separated from their mothers at an early age and most of them never knew their fathers. (Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, etc). It is more likely they had informal arrangements if they had any family structure at all.
It may not even be true that the children lived with the father and mother. A woman/wife may have been owned by one plantation and her man/husband was owned by another plantation and they saw each other when they could but they *didn’t* live together.
2) I need her to define a two parent home. Black slaves were not legally allowed to get married in any American colony or state.
If (not if, she has to be) she is counting unmarried couples (among the slaves) her point means nothing. The 70% statistic cited today is for OOW births, counts couples who live together unmarried with children, and says nothing about the involvement of the father in the lives of the children.
In fact of that 70% statistic, 37% of non-marital black men live with their children and girlfriend. That drops the number to 33%.
Now, I’m more traditional, so this is still disturbing to me. But marriage is becoming less of a trend these days. The family structure is changing across the board.
In fact, studies have shown of the reminder, black fathers who don’t live with the mother of their children, are up to 50% more likely to be involved in the lives of their non-marital children than any other race. And this does not just include child support, but visitation, other/extra monetary support, and watching and monitoring the kids.
I would agree that the marriage rate is a problem, and I do believe that children born in marriage are more stable. But, the 70% statistic does not tell except that these women popped out children unmarried.
Anyway, about the slavery/family life thing, since they admitted they don’t have clear record, they have no way of really knowing. Given the extremely high risk of getting sold off, or having a white father who would never claim you, and being forced into infidelity to produce more slaves, I think it is safe to say this statement is ridiculous.
3) And what about the slave children that were the product of the slave master and a slave? Modern black Americans have about 30% European in them, so a lot of mixing was going on. Maybe because that slave child lived with the master, that counts as a two parent home, lol?
4) The source that they cited is from 1880 to 1910, not during slavery.
LikeLike
king
True: So see to it. Let me know when the problem is contained.
The Mongols are Mexican and there are less than 2500 Hell’s Angels in the whole country. Compare that to 1.4 million active gang members in the US and you look foolish for even mentioning them.
LikeLike
I know most are not a fan of wikepedia, including myself but according to it these are a list of white gangs.
Almighty Saints
American Front (white supremacist0
Aryan Nation (white supremacist)
Chicago Gaylords
Fight For Freedom
Freight Train Riders of America
Friends Stand United
Hammerskins (white supremacist)
Juggalos
Ku Klux Klan (white supremacist)
Nazi Lowriders (white supremacist)
Polish mob
Public Enemy No.1 (white supremacist)
South Side Popes
Volksfront (white supremacist)
Defunct:
311 Boyz
Forty-Two Gang
Jousters
Question though…are you just including white or those that identify (people consider) like Italian, Russian, or Irish?
LikeLike
@ Lonely Voice
Excellent comments! Thanks.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
This is another one of your fantasies that you keep repeating. You are hardly the only one to do this. In my own case I corrected myself twice: the number of copies sold of Madison Grant’s book and that the Tiananmen Square massacre was not “tribalistic” (inter-ethnic).
LikeLike
Lonely Voice said:
*No clue if this is off-topic, but it was mentioned (I forgot by who)
Sweet Jesus, how did I miss this??
“She acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”
It was in fact in the original vow, they later removed it.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58631.html
1) I would like to see where on earth she got the numbers from. Given the sparse nature of records during slavery. Slaves had a hard time finding their families after slavery for this very reason. This is basic American history. Not until 1869, when the Radicals assumed control of the legislative process, did black marital and parental rights receive legal justification.
Star Park, conservative activist admits this:
“Now we don’t have clear data getting to your question about what black family life looked like during slavery as what the attacks are now even against people like Michele Bachmann who signed on to a document that said the black family was more intact than it is today. But we do know the reason we don’t have clear data of course is because only *some* data made it through the civil war.”
We have accounts from slaves saying that it was common for children to be separated from their mothers at an early age and most of them never knew their fathers. (Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, etc). It is more likely they had informal arrangements if they had any family structure at all.
It may not even be true that the children lived with the father and mother. A woman/wife may have been owned by one plantation and her man/husband was owned by another plantation and they saw each other when they could but they *didn’t* live together.
2) I need her to define a two parent home. Black slaves were not legally allowed to get married in any American colony or state.
If (not if, she has to be) she is counting unmarried couples (among the slaves) her point means nothing. The 70% statistic cited today is for OOW births, counts couples who live together unmarried with children, and says nothing about the involvement of the father in the lives of the children.
In fact of that 70% statistic, 37% of non-marital black men live with their children and girlfriend. That drops the number to 33%.
Now, I’m more traditional, so this is still disturbing to me. But marriage is becoming less of a trend these days. The family structure is changing across the board.
In fact, studies have shown of the reminder, black fathers who don’t live with the mother of their children, are up to 50% more likely to be involved in the lives of their non-marital children than any other race. And this does not just include child support, but visitation, other/extra monetary support, and watching and monitoring the kids.
I would agree that the marriage rate is a problem, and I do believe that children born in marriage are more stable. But, the 70% statistic does not tell except that these women popped out children unmarried.
Anyway, about the slavery/family life thing, since they admitted they don’t have clear record, they have no way of really knowing. Given the extremely high risk of getting sold off, or having a white father who would never claim you, and being forced into infidelity to produce more slaves, I think it is safe to say this statement is ridiculous.
3) And what about the slave children that were the product of the slave master and a slave? Modern black Americans have about 30% European in them, so a lot of mixing was going on. Maybe because that slave child lived with the master, that counts as a two parent home, lol?
4) The source that they cited is from 1880 to 1910, not during slavery.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Good points, and valid speculation, prompting greater research and understanding…but, speculation none the less. I believe that I’m STILL the only one to say: “CONTEXT is (nearly) EVERYTHING.”
I DO point out that there remains nothing that indicates that Michele Bachmann has ever tried to justify or downplay or put racism or slavery in a positive light. This is beyond dispute. I also know that Star Parker and Michele Bachmann remain good friends, so apparently, if Michele misspoke, Star is okay with it.
And, again, the various points pertaining to long past history are perfectly irrelevant in the context of THIS debate, which is: the extent to which white racism is a problem today. I remain convinced that white racism is just not a big problem today. These constant references to long ago history kind of bolster my point. After all, if there were convincing examples of white racism TODAY, then YOU all wouldn’t CONSTANTLY be going back into deep, dark, long-gone history. 🙂
BrothaWolf wants so desperately to catch me in a racial epithet he can just taste it! Here’s his exact quote from my blog: “I’ll just await for the day that you will slip up and use a racial epithet and then deny that its racist.”
Ok…but even if he WERE to catch me, what does that mean? He doesn’t know me from Adam. Maybe I’ve donated hundreds of millions of dollars to kids of all races around the world; maybe I’ve gone into deepest, darkest Congo and worked with missionaries installing mosquito netting to prevent malaria; maybe I’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives by personally buying vaccines, then helping to distribute and deliver them to medical personnel in Africa; maybe I’ve gone into inner cities and distributed educational scholarships to deserving black children so they can break the cycle of poverty; maybe I’ve employed thousands of black employees because I figured they could do the job; and maybe I’ve sat here and patiently tried to reason with concrete-headed, cantankerous curmudgeons like BW and Abagond, only to be treated like racist scum. The point: First: BW won’t catch me in a racial epithet — I’ve never used one in more than fifty years of life.
Second: BW just doesn’t know. Like the rest of the race grievance industry, he’s ready to hang his hat on that one glorious, golden, racial epithet that just might INSTANTLY erase the mountains of good, the thousands of lives saved, the jobs, the education, the food, the vaccines, the mosquito netting and the humanity I described above, but that will allow BW to sink back into that well-worn, comfortable Noble Victim mattress, while tucking tuck that ratty, old White Racism quilt up under his chin, as he places his hoary old head on the I’m-Right-‘Cause-I’m-Black pillow, all while the arthritic, mangy, old black cat — IfYouChallengeMeYou’reRacist — settles down next to him. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“(*) I remain the ONLY only one EVER to have out-and-out admitted to having committed an error in the voluminous content of BOTH threads. It’s interesting that the other commenters here are convinced they have not made one single, solitary, teentsy-weentsy error EVER in all this back and forth. Or none of them is man enough to admit it. One or the other.”
This is another one of your fantasies that you keep repeating. You are hardly the only one to do this. In my own case I corrected myself twice: the number of copies sold of Madison Grant’s book and that the Tiananmen Square massacre was not “tribalistic” (inter-ethnic).
xPraetorius:
Thanks, Abagond. You DID correct yourself. I accept your correction.
Your corrections, however, were trivial in the overall picture. Mine, however, forced me to take care as to how I expressed things going forward, being sure to avoid any kind of exaggeration that might be misinterpreted by this, shall we say, “touchy” crowd, who parses every word looking for racism, racism, racism, racism, and more racism. It HAS forced me to consider pretty much every word I’ve sent up.
Your correction said the logical equivalent of: I was wrong; there weren’t 1,000 instances of tribalism, but 999. Not really a correction. As regards the Grant book…I’ve hunted around, there’s nothing to suggest that the wikipedia entry was incorrect as to total sales. Wikipedia said 17,000…you settled on something like 1.5 million. The nearly 1,000 to one discrepancy needs to be resolved. I suspect that 17,000 for such an obscure topic is more likely. 1.5 million book sales are numbers normally reserved for a Tom Clancy fiction bestseller.
Still and all, I accept your correction. You have made some small corrections. My new point: One, and only one person has offered ME any indication at all that he might have been in error. That was Abagond, whose correction was largely meaningless. Really though, Abagond, the loneliness of your one trivial correction (and the non-trivial non-correction correction about the book) kind of bolsters my point even more. I WAS looking for someone to man up and apologize for calling me a racist, which, really is hate speech, if you think about it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
did your list have the umm… Juggalos on it?
LikeLike
Sharina said:
I know most are not a fan of wikepedia, including myself but according to it these are a list of white gangs.
Almighty Saints
American Front (white supremacist0
Aryan Nation (white supremacist)
Chicago Gaylords
Fight For Freedom
Freight Train Riders of America
Friends Stand United
Hammerskins (white supremacist)
Juggalos
Ku Klux Klan (white supremacist)
Nazi Lowriders (white supremacist)
Polish mob
Public Enemy No.1 (white supremacist)
South Side Popes
Volksfront (white supremacist)
Defunct:
311 Boyz
Forty-Two Gang
Jousters
Question though…are you just including white or those that identify (people consider) like Italian, Russian, or Irish?
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: Again these are meaningless without context. If for each of these I can find 100 GoC’s (Gangs of Color 🙂 ), or GoC’s with many times more numbers, then this dozen or so gangs proves my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today.
You STARTED to indicate that you understood that greater context is needed…for some gangs, nationality trumps all other considerations. Can’t really put these in the list. Other questions. Did any of these gangs start up because other gangs were making them miserable due to racism or other considerations? What are the trends? Is their membership going up, down, not moving, etc.? Is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were 100? Or is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were three? You get the drift. The list, as is, is meaningless.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
That is what wikepdia said. Here is the link since I am guessing you believe I made up a list off the top of my amazingly beautiful head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States
Here is a link in regards to the gang itself…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggalos_%28gang%29
LikeLike
Omnipresent
xPrae:
Having re-read what I have said I actually do state that I have seen the scenario I described to you played out before when I said this – I hold my hands up, I made an error.
I have seen this happen A LOT in one way or another. The only people who did not have a bad times were the ones who were willing to become clowns, because they were ‘safe’.
I am still not saying this happens EVERYWHERE I cannot possibly know that of course but, I have been in employment for 20 odd years and I have seen this happen more than I care to. It is not always towards black people but the type of roles I had afforded a certain amount of confidences to be shared and this is how I came to know about these situations.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Da Joka
See lists kindly provided for you above. And that wasn’t really the the point. The point is, what are you doing to stop White gangs from drug dealing? Absolutely Nothing!!!! So, show the way… lead by example! Stop the White gangs! (I’ll wait).
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius:
“@Sharina: Again these are meaningless without context. If for each of these I can find 100 GoC’s (Gangs of Color 🙂 ), or GoC’s with many times more numbers, then this dozen or so gangs proves my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today.
You STARTED to indicate that you understood that greater context is needed…for some gangs, nationality trumps all other considerations. Can’t really put these in the list. Other questions. Did any of these gangs start up because other gangs were making them miserable due to racism or other considerations? What are the trends? Is their membership going up, down, not moving, etc.? Is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were 100? Or is this a list of a dozen, while last year there were three? You get the drift. The list, as is, is meaningless.”—I know your intent is not to make a fool out of yourself, but you jump into things and make them out to be something they are not just like one.
It was not to make any real point for one. It was just to get a fair list of gangs on the table..period point blank. If I wanted to make a point I know clear and well how to elaborate rather than using the old throw it out and let people guess move.
This will be yet another scenario where you jump to tell me what I think mean or believe (as if I don’t have the amazing ability to think for myself).
LikeLike
TruthSeeker said:
@xPraetorius
You state the following two propositions:
1. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
2. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
The error in your reasoning is that Proposition A is dependent on the truth of Proposition B.
In order to state that blacks can succeed by following your points, you presuppose a hidden premise: that your 5 points, not race, determines success. However, this is clearly question-begging for racism itself is the very issue in dispute.
As a result, your argument actually takes this form:
1. The 5 points determines success, not race. [Hidden Premise]
2. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
3. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
The above is nothing more than a circular argument.
xPraetorius:
@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.
BrothaWolf agreed that HIS answer to Proposition A was “yes,” but then said that Proposition B was NOT true; did NOT flow logically from his “yes” response. I dispute that conclusion.
TS:
But it gets even worse: in your thesis, these 5 points appear to be an arbitrary number. Why not 10 points? Why not 20 points? How did you arrive at 5 points, and what makes them objective? How do you plausibly know one can succeed if they follow just these 5 arbitrary points?
xPraetorius:
I figured that I needed only THOSE five points for the thought exercise. It WAS originally four points…I added the fifth point a couple of weeks ago. It might change again, if I decide that further clarification is necessary. The “five points” were born, if you will, on the spur of the moment on Brotha Wolf’s blog in an argument there several weeks ago.
TS:
For the sake of argument, even if we assume your worldview is right in that racism is not a problem, one can still challenge your 5 points on the foregoing grounds alone.
xPraetorius:
If my conclusion that white racism is not a big problem is correct, then I don’t care if anyone challenges the “five points.” At that point, I will have “won the war, but lost the battle,” to paraphrase an oldie but a goodie. I’m okay with that.
TS:
Second, please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.
xPraetorius:
Bravo! First valid, important question in a LOOOOOOONG time!!! To paraphrase TS: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.
One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog.
TS:
Unless you are able to identify and evidentially support the criterion used to establish these differences, you are merely stipulating terms with no contextual framework under which these terms make sense.
xPraetorius:
Can’t deny that! Got me there! However, neither you, nor anyone else here, has asked me what my goals are in hanging in here against a pretty large and unruly crowd. Do you even know what those goals are, and whether or not I’ve achieved them? I HAVE stated it before, and I think if you were to find it, you might agree that this is all working out quite nicely.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Ok. Sorry ’bout that. Guess I jumped the gun. In my defense, I was not expecting people to post here WITHOUT trying to make a point.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
There have been a few so far that has made no point. They were discussing gangs. White gangs at that and I thought it would only be fair if a list was actually provided. Frankly it does not matter the skin color of a gang member as they are dangerous none the less.
Furthermore those list of questions you gave can be ones that can be asked of black or Mexican gang members as well, but I guess there is only a logical explanation and reasoning for white gang members. *end sarcasm*
LikeLike
You said it! Again, my apologies for jumping to conclusions before!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
King
@ Da Joka
See lists kindly provided for you above. And that wasn’t really the the point. The point is, what are you doing to stop White gangs from drug dealing? Absolutely Nothing!!!! So, show the way… lead by example! Stop the White gangs! (I’ll wait).
xPraetorius:
@King:
First question: What exactly are you expecting from DJ here? That he just run out and “stop white gangs from drug dealing?” Where armies have failed before, DJ’s going to take care of it all? Lol…Oooooookaaaayyy…
Second question: How do you know he’s NOT trying to do that?!? I’m guessing you don’t know.
First point: Your point is perfectly counter-balanced by DJ’s ability now to challenge you to do the same as you challenged him to do.
Useless, nonsensical post, there, King!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
So, show the way… lead by example!
Absolutely. I lead by example by not using drugs — including alcohol and tobacco. I lead by example by not listening to rap, going to clubs, having illegitimate kids, breaking the law or tolerating those who do. I lead by example by mowing my yard, maintaining my home and even washing my vehicles. I lead by example by being involved in the community. And last but not least by shunning those who can’t keep their shlt straight.
You might ask what all that has to do with drugs and gangs. Everything. It’s called “draining the swamp”. Blacks do the opposite. It’s all about being cool and not “snitching”. It’s all about blaming others for your problems and then saying “but white e does it too!” It’s all about hating the police and always taking the side of thugs and criminals.
Whites who can’t get it together are looked down on. Blacks who do are called “sell outs”. I suppose whites and blacks both lead by example. Only whites lead with the right example and blacks lead with the wrong one. Perhaps that’s why blacks have astronomical crime rates and whites don’t.
LikeLike
“Blacks do the opposite. It’s all about being cool and not “snitching”. It’s all about blaming others for your problems and then saying “but white e does it too!” It’s all about hating the police and always taking the side of thugs and criminals.”–Interesting sums of stereotypes regarding what you believe blacks do.
I think Uncle Milton actually mentions this once (I was shocked too mind you) that blacks actually call the cops quite often for assistance. Whether they come or not is another story.
I don’t remember the last time I heard a black person blame anyone for their problems. Oh wait their was this one black girl but she was not favored upon. As for whites do it too…..well they do, but then again who cares right?
Again see the first thing I said regarding this hating the police thing.
LikeLike
How rude of me?… I forgot the @ Da Jokah
LikeLike
blacks actually call the cops quite often for assistance.
I’ll give you that one.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfKhWzNXdEw)
LikeLike
blacks actually call the cops quite often for assistance.
I’ll give you that one.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfKhWzNXdEw)
LikeLike
I must live on another planet. These stereotypical black people I keep hearing about that are suppose to encompass the modern day black person I have only seen on movies like boys in the hood or juice.
LikeLike
sharina:
I don’t remember the last time I heard a black person blame anyone for their problems. Oh wait their was this one black girl but she was not favored upon. As for whites do it too…..well they do, but then again who cares right?
xPraetorius:
@sharina, @sharina, @sharina…you KNOW I love you don’t you? But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else! They couldn’t write about a METEOR hitting the earth without making it a racial incident! For them, GRAVITY is a freakin’ white conspiracy preventing blacks from flying!
I don’t know the little girl story, and I TRULY don’t recall EVER hearing white people blaming their problems on anyone else. That WOULD be a strange phenomenon indeed! I suspect that any white person who tried to suggest that some other ethnicity was responsible for any global white problems would get laughed off the scene pronto!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Da Jokah
Sharina
did your list have the umm… Juggalos on it?
xPraetorius:
Funny, off-topic story: Among my several hobbies is juggling. I’m an expert juggler, though not world class.
You can find some of my juggling videos on YouTube…look for some with LOTS of views. When I first began to learn to juggle, some friends of mine and I practiced together, and we called ourselves “the Juggolos” (“o” instead of “a” and meant to remind one of “gigolos.” We were young, handsome, and full of ourselves at the time. Now, we’re all just handsome. 🙂 ). Of course this was years before the “Juggalos” arrived on the scene, meaning something very different.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“@sharina, @sharina, @sharina…you KNOW I love you don’t you? But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else! They couldn’t write about a METEOR hitting the earth without making it a racial incident! For them, GRAVITY is a freakin’ white conspiracy preventing blacks from flying!”—-I don’t know Abagond or Brothawolf in real life to tell you if they are black or white or Asian. I was speaking for in my area, but i will be sure to elaborate on that next time to avoid confusion. I thought it was clear with the heard considering I can’t hear the bloggers just read.
“I don’t know the little girl story, and I TRULY don’t recall EVER hearing white people blaming their problems on anyone else. That WOULD be a strange phenomenon indeed! I suspect that any white person who tried to suggest that some other ethnicity was responsible for any global white problems would get laughed off the scene pronto! “—Huh? I am glad you have not heard a white person in your life blame others for problems, but that does not mean it is such a “strange phenomenon” that it has not happened. For example white men who blame their lack of ability to get a job on affirmative action (that used to be a big one at one time). Oh and let’s not forget this one. The i can’t find a job because of Mexicans (when in fact they are just doing what others won’t). Those are off the top of my head but maybe someone can fill in the rest.
LikeLike
Now before you go all wild west and jump the gun I am not saying that their are blacks that don’t do it because that is just about as much bs as whites not doing it, but where I live….those type of statements are cartoonish.
Blacks here shame you to all high h*ll if you don’t have your sh*t together. You get shamed in church, in phone conversation, or anywhere else a person can think of to shame you.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
I will not take credit for something I do believe Uncle Milton research or witnessed himself (not sure as he mentioned it). I just chose to repeat it. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
I think it would actually do you some good to consider researching these things yourself instead making a joke out of every single thing that does not coincide with the stereotypical bs you decided to believe. It is quite sad really.
LikeLike
@ Uncle Milton
I apologize for bringing in your quote, but I do hope you do not mind as it does pertain to something that has been brought up.
“Uncle Milton
To Linda and Jay from Philly:
The police do a stellar job at arresting black perpetrators, especially when they admit they killed someone (like Zimmerman), so that people who like statistics can throw those numbers into black Americans faces and talk about crime because the police are on top of their jobs in the black community and those black criminals get arrested.
In general, arrest rates for reported crime are lower in predominantly Black neighborhoods.. but speaking of statistics.
Jay from Philly mentioned the “no snitching” attitude however the US Department of Justice surveys indicate Blacks actually report crime at a slightly higher rate than Whites, which FWIW jibes with my experience with Black people that I worked with in an informal neighborhood watch.”
LikeLike
Sharina,
I need to say something about this part of the comment xPraetorius gave you:
But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else!
This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.
But it suggests five things:
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.
6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.
It is never about hearing a different point of view, or even hearing the truth. It all comes down to blaming whites and siding with leftists. To them, the truth is racist and comes from the left, turning it into a political thing, and it should be ignored.
LikeLike
Da Jokah,
Are you racist?
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
As you list these things it is amazing how on each blog I have been on I have seen it unfold. #5 and #6 being the biggest ones.
“o them, the truth is racist and comes from the left”—I wonder how they would react if they discovered a black not affiliated with either party.
LikeLike
It’s crazy, if not insulting, that people continue to use that “high black crime rate” argument to justify their racism. It then makes no sense how they would say that it’s not racist.
White people are in no moral position to talk to black people what’s wrong with them. The history of their global conquest that resulted in the annihilation and rape of various non-European and non-American cultures as well as incorporating parts of their culture into their own and calling it “white greatness” is enough for them to stop and take a look at themselves before they play God and judge others. It says nothing of the savagery they’ve committed on themselves then AND NOW.
A lot of what they say about us is mere projection hiding any accountability for the actions of their people whether it’s against POC or other whites. It’s become so dysfunctional that to hint that white people are to blame incites hysteria and anger among white people who go on the offensive and tell black people how violent and criminal they are. It’s all psychotic.
The funny thing is I’ve never heard one black person deny that there is a problem with crime in the black community. Those who live in crime ridden communities acknowledge it. And so far, not one mention of “It’s the white man’s fault” was used, probably because they know it doesn’t fix anything. They are actively trying to stop not only crime, but the causes of crime, and they know that to do that means looking at the source. They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.
When people love to bring out black crime, it’s always about interpersonal violence. The usual argument is that blacks are more violent than whites.
What’s always left out is the institutionalized violence committed by whites who are most of the people in corporate and political offices across first world countries. Sure, they may have not actually assaulted someone in person, but their ideas and policies creates a climate of oppression that often leads to violence while they are safe and sound in their sheltered rich lives.
LikeLike
Sharina,
I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.
To them, black people who speak their piece always side with the left. It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum. We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.
I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?
LikeLike
And before I call it a night I want to recommend that naysayers watch the amazing video Sondis posted on open thread. It shows a young white female who engaged in sexual acts with a 14 yr old female (crime in her state) Interesting thing is instead of her being shunned (as white people were said to do) she has support. Oddly enough I do believe casey Anthony did too.
LikeLike
Sharina,
White privilege strikes again.
LikeLike
@sharina: Ah! Good points, all!
And, actually true. I was a hiring manager once, and denied quite a few white people jobs because they were white. There is no doubt that affirmative action is an actual policy to discriminate against white people.
Truthfully, though, the only white people I’ve ever heard oppose it is because it doesn’t really help the intended beneficiaries. I have heard OF cases where white people have complained about being denied employment, or acceptance at college due to Affirmative Action. So, yes, the white complaints are out there. I guess they’re also justified.
And, illegal immigration, certainly, raises unemployment for all races.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
Sharina,
I need to say something about this part of the comment xPraetorius gave you:
But Abagond, and BrothaWolf, and their ENTIRE entourage are ALL about blaming white people for their problems! It’s ALL due to white racism, remember? Heck, they’re practically about NOTHING else!
This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.
But it suggests five things:
BW:
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.
xPraetorius:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
BW:
It is never about hearing a different point of view, or even hearing the truth. It all comes down to blaming whites and siding with leftists. To them, the truth is racist and comes from the left, turning it into a political thing, and it should be ignored.
xPraetorius:
The above coming from you, BW, is particularly rich.
@BW: You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina:
And before I call it a night I want to recommend that naysayers watch the amazing video Sondis posted on open thread. It shows a young white female who engaged in sexual acts with a 14 yr old female (crime in her state) Interesting thing is instead of her being shunned (as white people were said to do) she has support. Oddly enough I do believe casey Anthony did too.
xPraetorius:
No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said”
@Sharina,
I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.
xPraetorius:
No, that’s what race addicts and race baiters do. Leftists do all MANNER of moronic stuff besides mere race baiting.
BW:
To them, black people who speak their piece always side with the left.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Only leftist black people. Thomas Sowell, Jason Riley, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Tom Scott, Lynn Swann, for example ALWAYS speak their piece, and rarely side with the left.
BW:
It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum.
xPraetorius:
But racism MOSTLY comes from the left, and rarely from the right. And I’m tired of being accused of being a racist, when I’m not. I’m ready for my Bass Ale now.
BW:
We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.
xPraetorius:
Again, there is racism on both sides of the political spectrum, but a boatload more on the left. And, again, your individual experiences are irrelevant as far as drawing conclusions on the larger picture. BW: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever utter the words: “broken record” in your life. You long ago forfeited any right to say them. 🙂
BW:
I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?
xPraetorius:
All things are political, BW…and philosophical and spiritual and existential and connected.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
It’s crazy, if not insulting, that people continue to use that “high black crime rate” argument to justify their racism. It then makes no sense how they would say that it’s not racist.
xPraetorius:
It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW KNock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.
BW:
White people are in no moral position to talk to black people what’s wrong with them.
XPraetorius:
Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.
BW:
The history of their global conquest that resulted in the annihilation and rape of various non-European and non-American cultures as well as incorporating parts of their culture into their own and calling it “white greatness” is enough for them to stop and take a look at themselves before they play God and judge others.
xPraetorius:
#1: Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!
BW:
It says nothing of the savagery they’ve committed on themselves then AND NOW.
xPraetorius:
Ummmm…ok. THAT’s incoherent.
BW:
A lot of what they say about us is mere projection hiding any accountability for the actions of their people whether it’s against POC or other whites. It’s become so dysfunctional that to hint that white people are to blame incites hysteria and anger among white people who go on the offensive and tell black people how violent and criminal they are. It’s all psychotic.
xPraetorius:
I sure sound hysterical and psychotic, don’t I, BW? Especially in light of all the controlled and civil things you’ve said about me and others like me. Do you even READ what you write?
BW:
The funny thing is I’ve never heard one black person deny that there is a problem with crime in the black community.
xPraetorius:
That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.
BW:
Those who live in crime ridden communities acknowledge it.
xPraetorius:
Of course they do! They acknowledge it, and, like you, tell everyone it’s the white guys’ fault! Then, when white people try to talk about it, you tell them to shut up, that’s racist.
BW:
And so far, not one mention of “It’s the white man’s fault” was used,
xPraetorius:
True, not one mention — more like a billion mentions.
BW:
probably because they know it doesn’t fix anything. They are actively trying to stop not only crime, but the causes of crime, and they know that to do that means looking at the source. They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.
xPraetorius:
Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.
BW:
When people love to bring out black crime, it’s always about interpersonal violence. The usual argument is that blacks are more violent than whites.
xPraetorius:
@BW: currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.
BW:
What’s always left out is the institutionalized violence committed by whites who are most of the people in corporate and political offices across first world countries.
xPraetorius:
Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?
BW:
Sure, they may have not actually assaulted someone in person, but their ideas and policies creates a climate of oppression that often leads to violence while they are safe and sound in their sheltered rich lives.
xPraetorius:
More ghosts. There’s a climate of oppression out there — as we sit here and speak our minds so that billions of people can read us — that only BW and others who have the super-double-secret-decoder-ring can see.
Interestingly, the NSA HAS admitted to recording these little back-and-forths we’ve been having. How do you feel about that, BW. The Man’ IS coming for you, and he’s a BLACK man named Barack Obama! 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ Uncle Milton
I apologize for bringing in your quote, but I do hope you do not mind as it does pertain to something that has been brought up.
“Uncle Milton
To Linda and Jay from Philly:
The police do a stellar job at arresting black perpetrators, especially when they admit they killed someone (like Zimmerman), so that people who like statistics can throw those numbers into black Americans faces and talk about crime because the police are on top of their jobs in the black community and those black criminals get arrested.
In general, arrest rates for reported crime are lower in predominantly Black neighborhoods.. but speaking of statistics.
Jay from Philly mentioned the “no snitching” attitude however the US Department of Justice surveys indicate Blacks actually report crime at a slightly higher rate than Whites, which FWIW jibes with my experience with Black people that I worked with in an informal neighborhood watch.”
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Can someone please translate this?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
Now before you go all wild west and jump the gun I am not saying that their are blacks that don’t do it because that is just about as much bs as whites not doing it, but where I live….those type of statements are cartoonish.
Blacks here shame you to all high h*ll if you don’t have your sh*t together. You get shamed in church, in phone conversation, or anywhere else a person can think of to shame you.
— xPraetorius:
Oof! Sounds pretty cruel! These people you describe sound like barbarians!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
This is my list of what people like xPraetorius does.
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.
6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.
xPraetorius response to every note is:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
But here’s the thing. I said that:
This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.
I didn’t address you directly. I was talking about like-minded people who’s thinking varies to individual degrees. Another individual may agree with you on points 1 or 3, but not on 4 or 6. Or you may not even say such things outright, but you’re still in the ballpark.
You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.
Just because you’ve said it a hundred times or more doesn’t mean it’s true. There have been numerous examples presented to you and many more outside this blog that argue against it. Stop-and-frisk, drug laws, hiring preferences, etc. All of that is documented and recorded.
LikeLike
I would imagine that they would not accept that a black person, like myself, doesn’t belong to either end of the political spectrum. They would likely reply that they are because they are “blaming white people” because that’s what leftists do.
xPraetorius:
No, that’s what race addicts and race baiters do. Leftists do all MANNER of moronic stuff besides mere race baiting.
So, what do we all those who blame black people?
BW:
To them, black people who speak their piece always side with the left.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Only leftist black people. Thomas Sowell, Jason Riley, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Tom Scott, Lynn Swann, for example ALWAYS speak their piece, and rarely side with the left.
So the black people on the right speak the truth, eh? And how is that less-political?
BW:
It never crosses their mind that they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the left. They never realize that when we talk about racism, it’s because we are tired and angry of having to deal with it all day, every day. It can come from either side of the spectrum.
xPraetorius:
But racism MOSTLY comes from the left, and rarely from the right. And I’m tired of being accused of being a racist, when I’m not. I’m ready for my Bass Ale now.
Why can’t it just exist? What proof do you have that it’s mostly one and less of the other? And I didn’t accuse you of being racist – yet.
BW:
We deal with liberal and conservative racism on the daily. And while they think only the left is racist (which may be a hint of more projection), some of them deny that the right is racist as well.
xPraetorius:
Again, there is racism on both sides of the political spectrum, but a boatload more on the left. And, again, your individual experiences are irrelevant as far as drawing conclusions on the larger picture. BW: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever utter the words: “broken record” in your life. You long ago forfeited any right to say them. 🙂
Again, where’s your data or info to back it up? And I wasn’t talking about individual experiences by themselves. I’m referring to group experiences whose past events vary depending on the individual, but still have each faced some sort of racism. If millions of blacks have indeed been victims of racism, then you can not say that it is not a huge problem.
BW:
I’m astounded that to them the truth is political, in their case it’s always to the right. Why can’t the truth be just the truth without there being a political label attached to it to make it insignificant?
xPraetorius:
All things are political, BW…and philosophical and spiritual and existential and connected.
My point was that you attaching a political label to it helps make the issue less significant to you. Since you obviously don’t side with the left, and you don’t see white racism as an issue, you placed the label on the issue and considered it unimportant.
LikeLike
It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW KNock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.
I never said that I do not permit the subject being discussed. I said that white people are the last people to lecture us about our problem when they have a boatload of their own.
Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.
And anyone is in a position to respond to that kind of talk the way you go out of your way – almost – to defend the honor of white people.
Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!
In other words the past has no effect on the present. So, there’s no need to talk about it.
That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.
Wow! He’s telling me what I hear or didn’t hear. So far, only you believe that accusations of racism are false. So, I guess that means racism is a widespread figment of our collect imaginations.
Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.
You’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said that it’s not the fault of the actual people committing crimes, especially when some crimes have been committed at the office level.
currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.
Yet, you deny saying or suggesting points 4 and 5 have any resemblance to your conclusion.
Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?
If you can’t understand what my original statement truly meant, I don’t know what else to tell ya.
All I will say is that if you can’t or won’t understand where we’re coming from, people will see you as talking out of your a*s.
I’m tired of this. You really can’t prove racism to white-minded people.
LikeLike
@ Grin
Consider it an experiment. When I was little I collected ants, put them in a jar, fed them and studied them.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
1. How can you tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist?
2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?
3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Is my blog a black Stormfront? Why or why not?
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
Have not done that one yet. I think to them “leftist” is just a slur that means “you do not agree with me”, not a carefully weighed observation. They think we use “racist” the same way.
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
Also, to them “leftist” means anyone left of the Republican Party. These days that would include Eisenhower, who accepted the New Deal and enforced racial desegregation at gunpoint (Little Rock).
LikeLike
abagond
@ Brothawolf
Also, to them “leftist” means anyone left of the Republican Party. These days that would include Eisenhower, who accepted the New Deal and enforced racial desegregation at gunpoint (Little Rock).
xPraetorius:
** sigh ** More mystical, magical mind-reading by Abagond. Again: for, what, the thousandth time? I’LL tell YOU what I mean my “leftist.” NPT the other way around. Ok?
Your assumptions, above, are wrong.
Best,
— x
Good.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ Brothawolf
“Abagond, if you haven’t already, you should do a post on how anti-racism is always seen as leftist and therefore are considered ridiculous to those on the right.”
Have not done that one yet. I think to them “leftist” is just a slur that means “you do not agree with me”, not a carefully weighed observation. They think we use “racist” the same way.
xPraetorius:
No, leftist is NOT a slur, though it ought to be … like “Nazi” or something.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
Is my blog a black Stormfront? Why or why not?
xPraetorius:
I don’t know. I’m not as familiar with StormFront. I saw a page of theirs that was ridiculous and that’s where I left it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Right, ANY mention of slavery is Blacks Bringing Up the Past – even though it was Michele Bachmann who brought up slavery, even though the point of the Bachmann thing is not whether slavery was racist, but whether SHE is racist. Not in 1860 but in 2011 or whenever she made that hideous remark.
Also, you cannot fairly write off Bachmann as a nutcase who does not matter, or whatever your terminology was: she was elected to Congress! She helped to make LAWS that affect the whole country. She represented 759,478 people in suburban St Paul, 95.6% of them white. I think she is a nutcase, but plenty of white people certainly did not. And that is what is frightening.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
1. How can you tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist?
xPraetorius: complex question, but my “five points” could be helpful. Definitive? Coiuld be.
2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?
xPraetorius:
I don’t know.
3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?
xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Oof! Sounds pretty cruel! These people you describe sound like barbarians!”—Nope. It sounds like people that care about how others are percieved.
“Can someone please translate this?”—I will count this as bs on your end.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture. “—Who says it is drawing a picture about the larger? This is what the 5th time you have tried to tell me what I am getting at by a certain statement.
The first 2 times I can chop it up as a mistake, but as of now I am at the poitn of realizing that this is how you seeminging seek to win arguemtns or debates. By trying to tell people what they mean. It is a decietful tactic and one that would work if I was not paying attention to it, but one that you fail miserable at with me. If you can’t debunk reasonably what I am saying then try just shutting up or try keeping up with the conversation as it stands with the individuals involved in it.
The point of it was this idea of what white people do. This proves that you can’t say with certainty what all white people do. It is ridiculous to keep asserting what the minority or the majority white people do when you have no freaking idea. Those are cases that just made the news (thus easy to find).
You are screwing up your own arguments by preceeding to type before thinking or actually getting a clear view of what is or is not being said here. So the next time you proceed to read my mind…DON’T
LikeLike
Everyone please excuse my spelling errors.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
This is my list of what people like xPraetorius does.
BW:
1. We shouldn’t even remotely blame white people even if that is not the intention.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
BW:
2. White people are never to be blamed for basically anything. To do so is racist.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
BW:
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
BW:
4. Black people are their own problems and no one else, especially not white racism which doesn’t exist.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
BW:
5. Black people, for the most part, are screwed up because of their culture and nothing else. And they don’t do anything about it except blaming white people.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. I WOULD be happy to discuss culture, if you’d like.
6. White people know more about black people than black people and blacks should listen to white people who “know better”.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
xPraetorius response to every note is:
I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Stop making things up.
But here’s the thing. I said that:
This is what it comes down to when it comes with like-minded people who appear in anti-racism blogs to argue against the narrative.
xPraetorius:
Let’s be clear: this is in no way an anti-racism blog. I am appearing in a blog full of knee-jerk racists, who — as per my definition of racism — DO believe that: “race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
BW:
I didn’t address you directly. I was talking about like-minded people who’s thinking varies to individual degrees. Another individual may agree with you on points 1 or 3, but not on 4 or 6. Or you may not even say such things outright, but you’re still in the ballpark.
xPraetorius:
Then you’re even MORE off-base. You just have no right to speak for other people…to tell them what they’re thinking, feeling, want or need. You hve no right to do that, yet you do it all the time.
BW:
You’re arguing like this: I’m saying, “The sky is blue,” and you’re shouting back at me, “The sky is NOT orange!” Go back and re-read. I’m not going to tell you again that I’m saying, “White racism is not a big problem anymore.” And, of course, to repeat, I never even hinted at any of the things you listed above.
Just because you’ve said it a hundred times or more doesn’t mean it’s true. There have been numerous examples presented to you and many more outside this blog that argue against it. Stop-and-frisk, drug laws, hiring preferences, etc. All of that is documented and recorded.
xPraetorius:
And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.
Bottom line, BW: You’ve done nothing more than say: “white racism affects me and others now, and it affected my ancestors then, therefore, white racism is a big problem now.” Sorry: your first two points don’t support your conclusion. I SUPPORTED MY conclusion.
Best,
— x
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
Everyone please excuse my spelling errors.
xPraetorius:
Ok. Please excuse mine as well.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“No matter what it shows, it’s anecdotal only, and irrelevant to the larger picture. Again, the single incident cannot be used to draw conclusions about the larger picture. “—Who says it is drawing a picture about the larger? This is what the 5th time you have tried to tell me what I am getting at by a certain statement.
xPraetorius:
What’s the point, then, if not trying to address the topic? I’ve assumed that you’re trying to address the topic. If my assumption is incorrect, then (1) I stand corrected, and (2) why not address the larger topic?
Sharina:
The first 2 times I can chop it up as a mistake, but as of now I am at the poitn of realizing that this is how you seeminging seek to win arguemtns or debates. By trying to tell people what they mean. It is a decietful tactic and one that would work if I was not paying attention to it, but one that you fail miserable at with me. If you can’t debunk reasonably what I am saying then try just shutting up or try keeping up with the conversation as it stands with the individuals involved in it.
xPraetorius:
I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you. If I make occasional mistakes or interpret something incorrectly, I beg your indulgence. Quick image, Sharina: Imagine me standing there. Now imagine Abagond, BW, Omni, King, resw77, you and several others standing around me and tossing barbs and the occasional argument my way. Yes, I can tell you from my perspective, it can get confusing.
Sharina:
The point of it was this idea of what white people do. This proves that you can’t say with certainty what all white people do.
xPraetorius:
Thank you. I agree. White people — like black people — don’t fit nicely and neatly into the nice, tidy, neat little box that Abagond, and especially BW, keep trying to cram them into. I’ve made that point several dozen times.
Sharina:
It is ridiculous to keep asserting what the minority or the majority white people do when you have no freaking idea. Those are cases that just made the news (thus easy to find).
xPraetorius:
But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.
Sharina:
You are screwing up your own arguments by preceeding to type before thinking or actually getting a clear view of what is or is not being said here. So the next time you proceed to read my mind…DON’T.
xPraetorius:
Ok.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you.”—I understand that a lot of people are coming at you, but your problem is that you are putting words in my mouth. Even with all those people coming at you there should not be any excuse for predetermining what a person is going to say and then arguing based on what you think they are saying not what they are actually saying.
“But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.”—As much as you may continue wanting to assert that you can’t. The only reason you continue to is because you have decided to exclude racist whites as a part of this group. Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.
LikeLike
Abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“These constant references to long ago history kind of bolster my point. After all, if there were convincing examples of white racism TODAY, then YOU all wouldn’t CONSTANTLY be going back into deep, dark, long-gone history. 🙂 ”
Right, ANY mention of slavery is Blacks Bringing Up the Past – even though it was Michele Bachmann who brought up slavery, even though the point of the Bachmann thing is not whether slavery was racist, but whether SHE is racist. Not in 1860 but in 2011 or whenever she made that hideous remark.
xPraetorius:
No. But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.
As to Bachmann’s remark. If, indeed, during the era of slavery a black child had a better chance of growing up with his parents than today, then the remark is simply true. Is the remark true, Abagond? Do you even know? If you don’t know, then you have NO CLUE under the sun whether it’s a hideous remark. If The truth CAN be hideous, but let’s never get to a point where we can’t speak it. Black kids nowadays have a greater than 70% chance of NOT growing up with an intact two-parent family. THAT’ sa hideous truth. I wonder if there was ANY time in history where black kids had a worse chance than 70+% of growing up in a two-parent family.
As to whether or not Michele Bachmann is a racist, she plainly is not.
Abagond:
Also, you cannot fairly write off Bachmann as a nutcase who does not matter, or whatever your terminology was: she was elected to Congress! She helped to make LAWS that affect the whole country. She represented 759,478 people in suburban St Paul, 95.6% of them white. I think she is a nutcase, but plenty of white people certainly did not. And that is what is frightening.
xPraetorius:
I’d NEVER write off Michele Bachmann as a fringe nutcase. She is neither fringe nor a nutcase. That you think she IS a nutcase isn’t frightening, but delusional and paranoid. More Fortress Thinking.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“I AM trying to keep up, Sharina…you DO admit, I’m sure, that my task is a tad tougher than that for all of you.”—I understand that a lot of people are coming at you, but your problem is that you are putting words in my mouth.
xPraetorius:
Ok…I said I’m sorry, and would try to stop.
Sharina:
Even with all those people coming at you there should not be any excuse for predetermining what a person is going to say and then arguing based on what you think they are saying not what they are actually saying.
xPraetorius:
Ok.
“But I can tell you what the majority of white people DON’T do: make racial incidents. I maintain that it’s because they have been long engaged in a campaign to remove prejudice of any kind from their thinking and behavior.”
—As much as you may continue wanting to assert that you can’t. The only reason you continue to is because you have decided to exclude racist whites as a part of this group.
xPraetorius:
Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements. Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.
Sharina:
Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.
xPraetorius:
Again, context is necessary. If there are only three such whites, then, as I said, white racism is not a big problem in America. If there are 100,000 such racist whites, then that ALSO proves my point. That ratio is one white racist crank in every 1,800 white people. That one crank IS a problem, yes, just not a big problem. Again, Sharina, even if I admit COMPLETELY the truth of your statement (which I don’t): “Yet you have also decided to ignore whites that spew the most negative stereotypes about blacks and pass it off as a fact of the black community.” without context it’s meaningless as to the larger point. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood and you’re not trying to address the larger point.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
I’ve been following a lot of your replies but I can not see where you have presented your definition of racism here at all. Though the question has been put to you many times and each time I can see you have deliberately ignored it. So why would you state a view that you have already presented this?
Maybe you have and I just missed it but I will give you mine which might help you to better place the context of so many of your ill-informed statements in:
Racism=white supremacy
White supremacy translates as: white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority in thoughts, words actions and behaviour.
This is the foundation and bedrock of American society (in fact Global Western society) today. Global Inequality exists whether you, I or anyone else here on Abagond’s blog believe this to be true or not. America would not exist as a nation today if it wasn’t for this historical FACT. It was built on it…Even you have not denied this.
You are exercising a privilege conferred to you by numerous social, economic, and political advantages to delude and deny to your self that gross inequality (and injustice) does not still continue to exist today. Perhaps its time to trade in those illusory false advantages you believe you’ve honestly acquired to help rescue and save the dying environmental infrastructure of resources (including peoples) on this planet. Which the US is still trying to illegally obtain to bolster its dying economy
Is there enough time left to acknowledge and undo what the dysfunctionally global behaviour of white male psychopathology has created before it becomes too late and destroys the planet and ALL of US on it !!!???
Otherwise…All I do know is there Really would be no one left here (or any where else) for you to argue your case with….
LikeLike
I need to issue a correction to what I said, above.
BrothaWolf was trying to explain what white people do and think, and he put together six points. Part of that exchange went like this:
BW (point #3):
3. White people are, and in some cases have never, never the cause of any of the problems black people face.
(My reply) xPraetorius:
Nope. Never said this. Never even hinted at this. Already addressed this made-up silliness…long ago.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
My reply — done a tad more hastily than I ought to have done was erroneous.
BW is right and wrong at the same time. Where he’s right: That many white people have never been the cause of any problems that blacks face is, indeed, true. Me for instance. I have never caused any black person any problems… not counting, of course, inadvertent problems like stumbling and falling on someone, or the like. Where he’s wrong: However, BW seems to be saying that “white people believe that they have never been the cause of any problems for black people.” The evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Again, the centuries-long effort on the part of white people to expunge prejudice of any kind from their thinking implies that white people found their thinking and actions to be deficient and in need of correction. “White guilt” is a concept the white people as a whole seem to have embraced for a very log time. This seems plain. And, by way of some small corroboration: I’m personally a firm believer in white guilt.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements”—Then that makes it even more absurd, but considering you have made such statments as “I mean: “No whites whom anyone takes seriously.” I presumed it to fit into this situation as well. My bad.
“Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.”—Very few that you know of. Which goes back to you considering something rare when you don’t have a clue how rare or regular it really is. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. And other posters can correct me but each incident happened maybe a mouth apart?
“Again, context is necessary”—Why is context necessary when it comes to someone making the choice to ignore it? It was said and you either take it for what it is or you decide to excuse it…as you are doing now. As the saying goes Don’t make excuses – make good. Stop trying to find every reason under the sun not to look at and address these types of wrongs.
If i said some crazy sh*t about white people you would nearly have a stroke trying to tell me i am wrong. I have to go but when I return I will point out how this larger and smaller context stuff is an excuse.
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
@ xPraetorius
I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.
I’ve been following a lot of your replies but I can not see where you have presented your definition of racism here at all. Though the question has been put to you many times and each time I can see you have deliberately ignored it. So why would you state a view that you have already presented this?
Maybe you have and I just missed it but I will give you mine which might help you to better place the context of so many of your ill-informed statements in:
xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: You just missed it. Roughly 40% down this bunch of posts, I said to BW: Remember my definition of racism? The one that you agreed with? (Reminder: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”)
Your definition, however, is wrong, as I’ll show below.
Kwamla:
Racism=white supremacy
White supremacy translates as: white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority in thoughts, words actions and behaviour.
xPraetorius:
First: your first point — “Racism=white supremacy” — admits of no other forms of racism. For example: the Japanese are a very racist society. They make no bones about it, and don’t consider it wrong. They view all other ethnicities as inferior to theirs. The Chinese view the Vietnamese as inferior nearly completely on racial grounds. Yes, these are WIDE-sweeping statements, but meant only to illustrate the point.
Second: “Ism’s” are doctrines, modes of thought. Therefore, behaviors have nothing to do with them.
No, I think my definition is more accurate, so I’ll go by that one. If you wish to use yours, then you and I will simply not be discussing the same thing, and any exchanges will be fruitless. If you can agree with my definition of racism, then we can continue back-and-forths, otherwise, there’s no point.
Kwamla:
This is the foundation and bedrock of American society (in fact Global Western society) today. Global Inequality exists whether you, I or anyone else here on Abagond’s blog believe this to be true or not. America would not exist as a nation today if it wasn’t for this historical FACT. It was built on it…Even you have not denied this.
xPraetorius:
Nope. It’s an aspect of American society, but not a big one. I haven’t denied that America would not exist without slavery having been in effect, because no one’s brought it up. I deny it now. In no way was slavery a NECESSARY component of America. In fact, I argue that ALL people — whites AND blacks — would have been much better off without it. Furthermore, this is now pretty much accepted as true in academia as well. Put another way, there is no one arguing that slavery was a net positive for ANY race in American history. Your historical “FACT” is nothing more than argumentative supposition. Also, global inequality exists because global equality is impossible. At all times in the past present and future, all races have been, are aand always will be more or less prosperous, accomplished, rich, healthy, tall, obese, artistic, reasonable, silly, athletic, clever, witty — and all possible other human characteristics — than all other races.
Kwamla:
You are exercising a privilege conferred to you by numerous social, economic, and political advantages to delude and deny to your self that gross inequality (and injustice) does not still continue to exist today.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I’m not.
Kwamla:
Perhaps its time to trade in those illusory false advantages you believe you’ve honestly acquired to help rescue and save the dying environmental infrastructure of resources (including peoples) on this planet. Which the US is still trying to illegally obtain to bolster its dying economy.
xPraetorius:
First: If I had any unfair advantages, you can have them all. Good luck ACTUALLY finding them, though. Fabricated ones don’t count. Next: the rest of what you said is a BIG Can o’ Worms, and outside the scope of this discussion anyway. My sole comment: you’re wrong. Except for your last point. I agree: the U.S. economy is dying.
Kwamla:
Is there enough time left to acknowledge and undo what the dysfunctionally global behaviour of white male psychopathology has created before it becomes too late and destroys the planet and ALL of US on it !!!???
xPraetorius:
I don’t know…let’s hope so. It’s certainly been acknowledged! Up one side, down the other, out the back door and around the world — 73 times. 🙂 If you want to argue, along with me, that leftist whites around the world are making a shambles of the place, then we are in complete agreement, and I welcome you to our ranks! However, THAT’s not where you’re coming from.
Kwamla:
Otherwise…All I do know is there Really would be no one left here (or any where else) for you to argue your case with….
xPraetorius:
Ok.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“Now you’re trying to put words in MY mouth. 🙂 I excluded no one from my statements”—Then that makes it even more absurd, but considering you have made such statments as “I mean: “No whites whom anyone takes seriously.” I presumed it to fit into this situation as well. My bad.
xPraetorius:
Ok.
Sharina:
“Also, racial incidents are simply very rare in America, as the Zimmerman-Martin incident made clear. If they’re very rare then, by definition, very few white people are causing any. This is pretty much indisputable.”—Very few that you know of. Which goes back to you considering something rare when you don’t have a clue how rare or regular it really is. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. And other posters can correct me but each incident happened maybe a mouth apart?
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: if there are racial incidents occurring, and the media are covering them up or ignoring them, then those incidents have not made it to my perception, or, presumably, yours. As such, we can only speculate on the scope and extent of them. Presumably there ARE SOME, but again, if opnly very few, then they’re not a big problem. If, however, such incidents ARE frequent, and the media are hiding them, that’s scandalous — I take a back set to no man in my scorn for the American media — and someone ought to investigate and expose. However, the media kind of tipped their hand in the Zimmerman-Martin incident, fabricating a racial incident where there was none.
Sharina:
“Again, context is necessary”—Why is context necessary when it comes to someone making the choice to ignore it? It was said and you either take it for what it is or you decide to excuse it…as you are doing now. As the saying goes Don’t make excuses – make good. Stop trying to find every reason under the sun not to look at and address these types of wrongs.
xPraetorius:
Again, context is ALWAYS necessary. Without it, ALL incidents are isloated incidents that tell us nothing about the larger picture. I’ve been making a “bigger picture” argument here for some time now. I don’t UNacknowledge or downplay or dismiss the smaller incidents, I’m just not interested in them in the context of THIS discussion. Some OTHER discussion, some other time? Sure.
Sharina:
If i said some crazy sh*t about white people you would nearly have a stroke trying to tell me i am wrong. I have to go but when I return I will point out how this larger and smaller context stuff is an excuse.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I don’t think I’d let it stand unchallenged though. Many of your co-commenters HAVE said one whole heckuva LOT of “crazy guano” about me. I had no stroke — why would I care one iota what a bunch of people who don’t know me say about me, good OR bad? — but I challenged it. Usually in a pretty polite way. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Why do you say it was not a racial incident? How did the press make it into one if it was not?
LikeLike
Brothawolf’s post:
I said originally:
It’s crazy that people like you don’t permit open discussion of the fact that black people are DYING out there, and your refusal to address it is killing them. You have the blood of black people TODAY on your hands with your crazy accusations of racism every time someone talks about blacks murdering blacks. Hello, BW Knock, knock! Anybody home? Black people are DYING out there, by ignoring it, YOU are helping to kill them. You can consider me a racist all you want, but YOU, hermano lobo, are a killer.
BW then replied:
I never said that I do not permit the subject being discussed. I said that white people are the last people to lecture us about our problem when they have a boatload of their own.
My reply:
Nope, you never said it, and yet, you DO prevent the discussion of the topic. You immediately trot out the accusation of racism whenever any white person brings it up.
I said originally:
Anyone is in a position to talk to anyone about anyone. You’re certainly not shy about telling me ALL about what’s wrong with white people. You just lost the right ever to use the term “hypocrite” either.
BW replied:
And anyone is in a position to respond to that kind of talk the way you go out of your way – almost – to defend the honor of white people.
My reply:
Nope, but I’ll defend the honor of INNOCENT people. Most white people today are innocent of the charge of racism. I think I’ve put forward some persuasive arguments to that effect.
I snarkily said originally:
Irrelevant to the discussion of the situation today. #2, we’ve been over this before. I accept your GIGANTIC compliment about my people. Apparently one day, we just decided to quit doing all these horrors you describe! Only race EVER to do that! Wow! We ARE cool!
BW replied:
In other words the past has no effect on the present. So, there’s no need to talk about it.
My reply:
Nope. Never said that at all. The past clearly affects the future, ie today. As I might have mentioned, white people’s long-time effort to expunge prejudice of any kind from their thinking — begun long agin in the past — has, I think, made them — ready to pop a blood vessel, BW? — the LEAST racist ethnicity on the planet. Now, I can’t say that definitively, since I’m not an authority on all planet-wide ethnicities. However, I think it’s pretty clear that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America. It’s hard to dispute that.
I said originally and snarkily:
That’s ’cause you’ve never heard any black people TALK about it. If they’re not talking, they’re sure not denying! Ok, that little snark-out was just for fun. The REAL problem is that WHITE people can’t talk about it without false accusations of racism.
BW replied:
Wow! He’s telling me what I hear or didn’t hear. So far, only you believe that accusations of racism are false. So, I guess that means racism is a widespread figment of our collect imaginations.
My reply:
Thank you. Whew! I guess the ONLY way to get you to STOP telling me what others are thinking or have experienced was to tell YOU what YOU’re thinking or have experienced. Now, can you PLEASE dispense with it in the future? As regards my telling you that “you’ve never heard any black people talk about it,” I was out of line, and I VERY gladly apologize and accept your conrrection. 🙂
I said originally:
Ok, whatever. It’s never the fault of the ACTUAL people committing the crimes. It’s always somewhere else.
BW replied:
You’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said that it’s not the fault of the actual people committing crimes, especially when some crimes have been committed at the office level.
My reply:
@BW, @BW, @BW: Your quote was: “They know that the source doesn’t always come from within as if they have some kind of “defect” in their system. They know there’s a serious problem outside their neighborhoods.” How do YOU read that?
I said originally:
currently blacks ARE more violent than whites. You know it and I know it.
BW replied:
Yet, you deny saying or suggesting points 4 and 5 have any resemblance to your conclusion.
My reply:
Let me go look them up. BW: quick note…there’s a lot going on here; if you could actually put the text of the points you’re referring to, it’d help me make my snarky replies to you. 🙂 Looking them up now.
…
Found ’em. Both points four and five are incorrect, so, yes I deny that they have any resemblance to my conclusion, which is correct (otherwise I wouldn’t defend it.).
I said originally:
Yep. Those darned corporations made me rob that package store and shoot that kid! Got any more excuses, BW?
BW replied:
If you can’t understand what my original statement truly meant, I don’t know what else to tell ya.
All I will say is that if you can’t or won’t understand where we’re coming from, people will see you as talking out of your a*s.
My reply:
Ok. I might suggest another way of expressing something. Goodness knows I’VE been doing that! Furthermore, I’m unable to use the orifice you mentioned for anything but its original, well-understood function. 🙂
BW:
I’m tired of this. You really can’t prove racism to white-minded people.
xPraetorius:
Fortunately, there’s no need. White people acknowledged it long ago, and continue to acknowledge it. Heck, for the most part, they won’t shut up about it! Which is itself kind of a problem, because the CONSTANT chatter about it from blacks AND whites truly DOES dilute the overall understanding of either the concept OR the context, and that’s just a shame. It truly IS the Brotha Cryin’ Wolf. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the allusion.)
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
And I called you racist where?
LikeLike
Abagond:
@ xPraetorius
“However, the media kind of tipped their hand in the Zimmerman-Martin incident, fabricating a racial incident where there was none.”
Why do you say it was not a racial incident? How did the press make it into one if it was not?
xPraetorius:
Pretty simple…from all sources of a rather extensive investigation from many different directions, no one was able to make the case that there was any racial component to the incident. The jurors, who knew the details of the incident as well as or better than anyone in America, acquitted. The FBI said there was no racial component, and all that. You will disagree, of course, and that’s fine, but you WILL be going against the preponderance of the evidence. Again, while no one knows what goes on in the heads of anyone, the media made up the racial incident where there was no evidence to support it.
As to HOW they did it, that’s easy. They just said it looked like one, and that was enough to launch the race-baiters like Al Sharpton and other charlatans. There are a whole lot of Americans who accept uncritically what appears in the media. It’s why I consume a VERY wide array of media sources. No one media source gives a complete or accurate picture of anything.
The more important question is: Why did they do it?
I think the answer is: Zimmerman’s last name, combined with the hunger of most of the major media for such incidents, configured as they THOUGHT this one was configured. When it turned out that Zimmerman was Hispanic — another favored group — they were already committed, and had to follow through with the charade.
Again, I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for the American media.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
“I WAS looking for someone to man up and apologize for calling me a racist, which, really is hate speech, if you think about it.”
And I called you racist where?
xPraetorius:
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…do I REALLY have to look through all the text to find that? I think you WILL acknowledge that many, many others have called me a racist, most prominently BrothaWolf, who has done it many times.
Let’s make it easier. I’ll ask you: In YOUR opinion, am I a racist? Any other answer than “No,” means you consider me a racist. Any wiggling answer, means (1) either you think I’m some kind of [fill in modifier, eg: “color-blind”] racist, and I make my point. Or, (2) you don’t want to answer, because, really EITHER answer — yes or no — is, let’s face it uncomfortable for you. In explaining all this, I understand that I’m releasing you from the rhetorical trap that my question represents, but I used the question merely to illustrate.
So, @Abagond…in your opinion, am I a racist?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
It is like trying to explain water to a fish.
LikeLike
Quick correction: The following exchange occurred between Abagond and me. My correction is at bottom.
xPraetorius
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
1. How can you tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist?
xPraetorius: complex question, but my “five points” could be helpful. Definitive? Coiuld be.
2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?
xPraetorius:
I don’t know.
3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?
xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
CORRECTION:
Where I said: “I’m confident that I am though.” I should have said: “I’m confident that I’m not though.” (blind to racism, that is) I regret the confusion.
P.S.: @Abagond: can you please give me a hint as to how I might go about bolding and italicizing in this edit window? I notice that others can do it, and it might be helpful to me in differentiating between sources of text and replies. I DO understand if you don’t want to help me do that, though! 🙂
Best,
x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Tell me where I called you a racist. You are trying to wriggle out of this.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ Brothawolf
“You really can’t prove racism to white-minded people.”
It is like trying to explain water to a fish.
xPraetorius:
Good image…Not applicable, but a good one. Again, it presumes to know what goes on in the minds of entire peoples. It presumes to understand white life, thinking, wants, needs, etc. If anyone were to presume to do such a thing to black people, I think you might be the first to object.
In fact, dear Abagond, everything that you write that uses that invalid tactic is, itself, invalid.
Now, with that said, there IS a way to talk about what black people and white people and any other ethnicity are thinking, want, need, hope for… That’s, of course, to talk about HUMAN needs, desires, thinking, etc. At some point, Abagond, are you EVER going to consider Black people and White people as just people? If you would, I’d be very happy to consider your remarks about people. However, in your current race-obsessed, blinkered mode, you prevent yourself from accessing basic black AND white common humanity. That’s just sad.
Viewed in THAT light, my remarks are, of course, not at all controversial.
Best,
— x
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ xPratetorius
If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
Tell me where I called you a racist. You are trying to wriggle out of this.
xPraetorius:
Two quick things: I didn’t challenge YOU to apologize to me for calling me racist. I said I was waiting for SOMEONE to man up and apologize for calling me racist.
Yes, I wiggled out of your question. You wiggled out of mine. We’re even. 🙂
In fairness you DID ask that I pore through rather a lot of text to try to find what may or may not be there overtly. I declined to do all that extra work. It IS, however, quite plain that MANY have called me a racist. You don’t have to man up and apologize to me, but SOMEONE really ought to. It’s the decent thing to do. Really: BW ought to. He’s the most frequent offender.
Nota bene: I DID make the point, in the Hitler thread, that you unsubtly tried to equate Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. Hitler was an overt racist; ipso facto white people are racists (sorry at LEAST that tone is in your piece), ipso facto, I am a racist, because I’m white. Yes, I recognize that you scoped your piece to cover “many white people who comment on this blog,” However, (1) if you were NOT trying to convey that message, then you need to work on your communications skills, (2) I recognize that the Hitler thread is out of scope for this thread, (3) you and others in THIS thread and in the Hitler thread HAVE tried — repeatedly — to extrapolate the smaller incidents to the the larger picture. It’s a more than fair interpretation of mine. (4) the most obvious fact: many on this thread AND the Hitler thread, AND BW’ blog, overtly, no-bones-about-it, right-out-there, absolutely, no-question-about-it called me a racist.
Play a little thought game with me, Abagond: Pretend that I slipped some truth serum into your coffee this morning. Now I’ve got you sitting at table with me and I ask you: “So, Abagond, in your opinion, am I a racist?” How would your truth serum-drugged self reply?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
So you cannot tell when someone is racist, yet we should take your word that you are not blind to racism.
So you are pretty much just full of hot air.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
So who is that SOMEONE? And where did they say it?
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPratetorius
If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.
xPraetorius:
At no time did I demand that anyone apologize — at least not that I remember 🙂 — and if I DID demand it, I certainly never EXPECTED anyone to.
I’m pretty sure that my words — the words that I’ve stood by — were something to the effect that, “someone ought to man up and apologize to me for calling me a racist.” Hardly constitutes a demand. I HAVE issued some intemperate replies to BW — who is, really, a boor and an oaf — but I apologized to him…you can look it up. BW’s boorishness and oafishness are NOT a justification for me to misbehave.
Oh, btw, I’m not in the least offended by anyone calling me a racist. It’s like someone calling me short. I’m quite tall. And I’m not a racist. However, that doesn’t diminish in the slightest the truth of the following: “Someone ought to man up and apologize for calling me a racist.” It’s more for THAT person’s health, education, welfare and well-being. It would also be a sign of maturity.
I AM still waiting, and I STILL want my Bass Ale from BW.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
You told King of Troulbe on your blog:
Where did I say that?
LikeLike
Nota bene:
abagond said:
@ xPratetorius
If you are offended enough to demand an apology, to drench my blog with novella-length commentary, then certainly you must remember where I called you a racist. A person of high intelligence like yourself.
xPraetorius:
It does seem quite a lot, doesn’t it clearly no white racist would put up with such concrete-headedness on the part of his interlocutors for so long.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
You told King of Troulbe on your blog:
“Abagond’s premise is that I’m a racist by virtue of the color of my skin. That’s offensive, racist, vile, outrageous, disgusting. At the VERY least it’s rude. “
Where did I say that?
xPraetorius:
Obviously, that was an interpretation. You didn’t use those exact words. You’ll note that K of T didn’t dispute the interpretation. If you dispute my interpretation, that’s fine. To use an analogy: it seems like describing water to a fish.
Are you now saying, that “most whites” are not racist? I’d be okay with that declaration. And I think it would comport with reality.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
So what words did I use?
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
“Two quick things: I didn’t challenge YOU to apologize to me for calling me racist. I said I was waiting for SOMEONE to man up and apologize for calling me racist.”
So who is that SOMEONE? And where did they say it?
xPraetorius:
The SOMEONE is anyone with the courage to do it. If you’d like I’ll write what I think is an adequate declaration. You then can, if you’d like, dispute or endorse it, or something in between.
Here’s my first hack at it
“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here (<– scope is important) that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist (<– that one's kind of important). The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable (<– it's important to recognize that), and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. (<– 'Cause no apology's worth anything without some kind of indication that one will stop the offending behavior.) I challenge the other participants in this blog's various discussions to endorse this declaration as well." (<– 'Cause you can't REALLY speak on behalf of everyone until they grant you permission)
That, I think, would suffice. And it would constitute a genuinely graceful and truly "manned up" declaration. I'm kind of pleased with it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
“Obviously, that was an interpretation. You didn’t use those exact words. “
So what words did I use?
xPraetorius:
I covered this in the previous reply. It’s my distillation of your Hitler post.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Toto has pulled back the curtain. You are free to exit the building.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
1. How can you tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist?
xPraetorius: complex question, but my “five points” could be helpful. Definitive? Could be.
2. When did anti-black racism stop becoming a “big problem” in the US? How can you tell?
xPraetorius:
I don’t know.
3. How do you know you are not just as blind to racism as White Americans in the 1960s? What makes you different?
xPraetorius:
Clever question, but nothing more than that. It’s hard to know ANYTHING in that realm. I’m confident that I am though. And I have serious evidence of it…one piece of which is continuing to argue with you. I PLAINLY don’t meet the definition of “racism,” as I presented it to you previously.”
So you cannot tell when someone is racist, yet we should take your word that you are not blind to racism.
So you are pretty much just full of hot air.
– * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * — * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Nope. Life is, among other things, a bunch of probabilities. For example at any moment our near 100% confidence that the sun is still out there shining is nothing but pure faith. If it blew up less than six minutes or so ago, we’d STILL see nothing but a cheerful, yellow ball. But, after six minutes…oops.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal pretty much enshrined the idea that you can’t TRULY know ANYTHING into scientific canon.
With that, you and I are arguing the subjective… even MORE difficult to “know.” I’ve tried to pose OBJECTIVE proofs to lead you to subjective conclusions. It’s kind of like if we were to argue about whether or not you’re a “good person.” You’d trot out as many objective proofs as you could find that you are, because you know that declarations like “I’m nice,” or “I’m generous,” or “I like kids” are all unprovable, unknowable and therefore not meaningful to supporting the subjective conclusion that you’re a good dude.
You, properly so, would challenge, and DO challenge, any SUBJECTIVE things that I’ve said.
I’ve posited many, many OBJECTIVE things to bolster my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today. It’s the best I can do.
Yes, I am confident that I am not blind to racism. Especially since I DO see it around me, and I DO recognize it when I see it, and I DO label it as racism. Now, that racism conforms to my definition of racism. If you’re comfortable with that definition, then we can at least be talking about the same things.
Now, there remain two things outstanding:
(1) How does one bold and italicize in this editing window, and
(2) How would your truth serum-drugged self respond to the question: “Abagond: in your opinion, am I a racist?”
If you evade it anymore, then I will assume that your truth serum-drugged self has responded, “yes, I think xPraetorius is a racist.”
Remember, I’m not asking you to do any extraneous work to answer that, as you asked me to do in answer to your question … 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
Toto has pulled back the curtain. You are free to exit the building.
xPraetorius:
Cute. Meaningless, but cute.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Abagond: So what did you think of my declaration? Reminder:
“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist. The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable, and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. I challenge the other participa
Are you ready to endorse it and ask your co-commenters to endorse it?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
Toto has pulled back the curtain. You are free to exit the building.
xPraetorius:
I gather this is the announcement of YOUR exit from the discussion?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
“Two quick things: I didn’t challenge YOU to apologize to me for calling me racist. I said I was waiting for SOMEONE to man up and apologize for calling me racist.”
So who is that SOMEONE? And where did they say it?
xPraetorius:
Oops, I missed this one.
@Abagond: are you REALLY questioning whether anyone called me a racist? Really?
The term “Philadelphia lawyer” was coined for you. Just search through the various threads for the term “racist.”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the
present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.
This is more fallacious reasoning, a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
If you assert a claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your thesis. Merely asserting your claim and then asking others to refute it does not validate your claim.
It is no different than stating the following:
P1: The tooth fairy exists.
P2: P1 is true until someone refutes it.
Now here is your reasoning :
P3: White racism is not a big problem in America.
P4: No one has refuted P3.
Of course, this is fallacious. Lack of refutation does not make your claim true. In fact, others have demonstrated the inadequacies of your claims, and provided counter-evidence.
Moreover, I demonstrated that your argument was circular:
1. The 5 points determines success, not race. [Hidden Premise]
2. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
3. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
You never rectified this argument. Instead, you undermined your own case by offering an ad-hoc explanation: it was just a thought-experiment. It now seems you are grasping at straws.
Here is what you said in response:
@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.”
However, your thought-experience fails, for it assumes racism is NOT a problem. In theory, your thought experiment may work only if we assume racism is not a problem. But racism is exactly the variable in question.
I see other potential flaws with your model:
1) Too restrictive/simplistic: aside from racism, your model does not consider other variables that may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.
2) Inapplicable to real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your model is ideal only if other variables are relaxed in your thesis.
3) Too subjective: Again, you, yourself, said your model was just “4” points, before you changed it too “5.” You then said it could even change later. This indicates your model is arbitrary.
4) Inconsistent/invalid evidence: you claim your 5 points was more a thought experiment than an actual argument, yet use this very circular thought experiment to assume the truth of your conclusion – that racism is not a “big” problem.
5) Lack of explanatory power: Abagond himself asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it using your model. Your response was, “I don’t know.”
I also asked you the following:
“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”
Yet you never defined “big,” nor did you provide evidence to justify your methodology. You merely professed uncertainty:
what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.
One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog.
In conclusion, despite your repeated assertions, you failed to rehabilitate your argument to avoid the circular reasoning charge. Furthermore, you weakened your case by using an argumentum ad ignorantium. Lastly, your model is deficient as it suffers from the following: it’s too simplistic, inapplicable, overly subjective, inconsistent, and lacks explanatory power.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
A honest statement and question to you. You seem to revel in the challenge given your single handed attempts to take on all commentators on Abagond’s blog. To this degree Abagond has afforded you your own separate post! Quite an achievement I would say! But then maybe he was just returning the compliment as you already did the same thing recently to him on your own blog. 😉
My question to you is what do you purposely hope to achieve by all of this beyond simply stating your, obviously, opposing views for what they are worth?
While you ponder that question here are some of those tips you asked for: (ignore or leave out the round brakets)
(italics), (bold) and (quotes)
I am surprised someone of your obvious blog writing skills and accomplishments would be unaware of these elementary coding techniques. Which may or may not (I think it does!) shed light on your similarly partial understanding of Racism and its affects.
You recently made this statement:
And this is what you also stated to me in your reply to my own comment:
You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…
This BELIEF by my own definition of racism (white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority) I previously shared with you is racist!
Its built on the presumption that ALL peoples naturally wish to be on top or dominant over each other when this is not FACTUALLY, EVIDENTIALLY or HISTORICALLY TRUE!
It is a FACT that only white Western males (those of European extraction and descent) have sought to achieve and establish this type of dominance and inequality globally. Your argument would be that any other cultural group of peoples would also have done the same given the opportunity. But this is WRONG because they have had that opportunity and they did not given the historical evidence. – For example: The Egyptian civilisation lasted far longer than Western culturally civilisation (10,000 years) and was more advanced in many ways than what we take for granted as “modern” civilisation (last 2000 years) today.
So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall! 😦
LikeLike
Sorry about that:
(italics), (bold) and (quotes)
leave out the Q and brackets!!!
LikeLike
xPraetorius: Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!
xPrae: My single example cannot be used to describe the global situation no I also cannot say that the example I gave was a ‘typical’ experience country wide however, I would NOT discount anyone who said they had the same/similar experience either. In humans I have seen the good, the bad and the downright repulsive. Whilst I know that strides have been made to address racism it takes people to engage fully to make it work and then be succesful.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Sharina: if there are racial incidents occurring, and the media are covering them up or ignoring them, then those incidents have not made it to my perception, or, presumably, yours. As such, we can only speculate on the scope and extent of them.”— I will quote to you what I actually said which is : I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. Granted I probably should have better worded it, but this is not sayng the media covered it up or ignored it. It is saying that it did not get the attention the Martin-Zimmerman case did. As in Martin-Zimmerman case was everywhere with a whole page vs a tiny insert in the back.
“Again, context is ALWAYS necessary. Without it, ALL incidents are isloated incidents that tell us nothing about the larger picture. I’ve been making a “bigger picture” argument here for some time now. I don’t UNacknowledge or downplay or dismiss the smaller incidents, I’m just not interested in them in the context of THIS discussion. Some OTHER discussion, some other time? Sure.”—Bingo! YOU have been making an arguement about the bigger picture and in turn trying to make my postion be about the bigger picture as well. In all this not addressing what I am saying but trying to bring everything back around to your bigger picture arguement.
“why would I care one iota what a bunch of people who don’t know me say about me, good OR bad?”—As I have clearly stated, YOU are not white people. YOU are a white person. Unless you are Agent Smith and we are all in the Matrix.
It all goes back to what I said in regards to a leaky roof. If you sit a do nothing about it the leak gets worse. Same can be said with the precieved “small” prejudice or acts of racism. People can sit see an incident and claim “oh this is just one incident.” The harming party could see it as acceptable and continue doing more incidents until these incidents become a repeat and big problem. And all the while this could have simply been resolved had the average citizen taken their head out of their azz and addressed the incident when it first occured. Now before this become a “you think abc” session…all I am saying here is you can not judge what the larger is or is not doing. You can only judge a big or small problem in the scope of your own situations. Meaning what is a small problem to you can be a big problem to me and vise versa.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
My Position of You don’t know has not changed. It is just you that wants to decide what I don’t know applies to based on what you believe.
In your everyday life…it may darn well be true that racism is not a big problem (based on what you choose and choose not to see). But you don’t have the scope to determine that for the whole country over and unless you are going to provide evidence of that (good luck with mind reading). Then I do believe we are done here.
I will hoever continue any polite conversation that does not pertain to the circle arguments we have been enduring.
LikeLike
TruthSeeker said:
But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.
This is more fallacious reasoning, a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
xPraetorius:
Cute. Wrong, but cute.
TS:
If you assert a claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your thesis. Merely asserting your claim and then asking others to refute it does not validate your claim.
xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”
TS:
It is no different than stating the following:
P1: The tooth fairy exists.
P2: P1 is true until someone refutes it.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”
TS:
Now here is your reasoning :
P3: White racism is not a big problem in America.
P4: No one has refuted P3.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Here’s my reasoning:
A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)
TS:
Of course, this is fallacious. Lack of refutation does not make your claim true. In fact, others have demonstrated the inadequacies of your claims, and provided counter-evidence.
xPraetorius:
And it wOULD be fallacious if your premise were correct, which it’s plainly not.
TS:
Moreover, I demonstrated that your argument was circular:
1. The 5 points determines success, not race. [Hidden Premise]
2. If blacks follow your 5 points, they can succeed. [Proposition A]
3. Racism is no longer a “big” problem. [Proposition B]
xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.
TS:
You never rectified this argument. Instead, you undermined your own case by offering an ad-hoc explanation: it was just a thought-experiment. It now seems you are grasping at straws.
xPraetorius:
I’m under no obligation to rectify an argument I’ve never made.
TS:
Here is what you said in response:
@TS: You’re not too far off…Actually it’s a thought exercise, to which, if the answer is “yes,” then: If Proposition A, then Proposition B. If the answer is “no.” then: If not Proposition A, then not Proposition B. You see the difference, right? Again, the “five points” make no assertions. They invite you to ask yourself: “If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) interacts well with others and (5) presents him or herself more or less normally, then can he or she succeed in America?” Again, if your answer to yourself is, “yes.” then Proposition B — “Racism is no longer a “big” problem” — is true. If your answer to yourself is “no,” then in your mind, Proposition B is false.”
However, your thought-experience fails, for it assumes racism is NOT a problem.
xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”
TS:
In theory, your thought experiment may work only if we assume racism is not a problem. But racism is exactly the variable in question.
xPraetorius:
Nope. See the previous note.
TS:
I see other potential flaws with your model:
xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.
TS:
1) Too restrictive/simplistic: aside from racism, your model does not consider other variables that may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.
xPraetorius:
Aside form the fact that there is no model, Ok. cronyism, lack of support system are not “racism.” Credit score bias, looks discrimination are different topics, for another day.
TS:
2) Inapplicable to real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your model is ideal only if other variables are relaxed in your thesis.
xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.
TS:
3) Too subjective: Again, you, yourself, said your model was just “4” points, before you changed it too “5.” You then said it could even change later. This indicates your model is arbitrary.
xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.
TS:
4) Inconsistent/invalid evidence: you claim your 5 points was more a thought experiment than an actual argument, yet use this very circular thought experiment to assume the truth of your conclusion – that racism is not a “big” problem.
xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.
TS:
5) Lack of explanatory power: Abagond himself asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it using your model. Your response was, “I don’t know.”
xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.
TS:
I also asked you the following:
“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”
xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.
TS:
Yet you never defined “big,” nor did you provide evidence to justify your methodology. You merely professed uncertainty:
xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.
Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.” They make the following hypothesis — and I’ll summarize to avoid all the extra verbiage: “If TS’s Proposition A, then white racism is not a big problem in America.” I’m pretty willing to stipulate to just about any definition of “big” that the entire audience for this web site uses… if, that is, they eliminate all the usual insignificant fluff — like personal anecdotes, and context-less statistics. I reserve the right to change that if someone comes up with a definition for “big” that looks a lot to me like “little.” Great question, Ts! Maybe you really ARE a TruthSeeker…I was beginning to wonder.
One more quick thing, TS, we ARE talking about BIG things here. Many commenters have said essentially: “Here’s MY isolated, little thing, with no context or scope, and it proves my BIG thing and DISproves YOUR big thing.” Of course, I’ve used a LOT of words to try patiently to explain to them that the little things can’t be extrapolated across the big things, but few have accepted that. Look, especially, at BrothaWolf’s posts here, and his posts on my blog. Bunch of my text ends.
TS:
In conclusion, despite your repeated assertions, you failed to rehabilitate your argument to avoid the circular reasoning charge. Furthermore, you weakened your case by using an argumentum ad ignorantium. Lastly, your model is deficient as it suffers from the following: it’s too simplistic, inapplicable, overly subjective, inconsistent, and lacks explanatory power.
xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
@ xPraetorius
My Position of You don’t know has not changed. It is just you that wants to decide what I don’t know applies to based on what you believe.
In your everyday life…it may darn well be true that racism is not a big problem (based on what you choose and choose not to see). But you don’t have the scope to determine that for the whole country over and unless you are going to provide evidence of that (good luck with mind reading). Then I do believe we are done here.
I will hoever continue any polite conversation that does not pertain to the circle arguments we have been enduring.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I believe I’ve offered ample evidence in support of my hypothesis. You believe differently. As regards, my everyday life, as you know, I’ve never tried to extrapolate from that to the larger picture, and wouldn’t ever presume to do so.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Omnipresent said:
xPraetorius: Well, said Omnipresent! I appreciate your candor. You do see, I hope, that in correcting yourself, you’ve considerably changed the scope and meaning of your ORIGINAL statement that sought to extend your personal experiences to describe the global situation. I’v e been guilty of it myself, and had to correct myself. One does live and learn!
xPrae: My single example cannot be used to describe the global situation no I also cannot say that the example I gave was a ‘typical’ experience country wide however, I would NOT discount anyone who said they had the same/similar experience either. In humans I have seen the good, the bad and the downright repulsive. Whilst I know that strides have been made to address racism it takes people to engage fully to make it work and then be succesful.
xPraetorius:
You are right. I HAVE had to clarify. I’ve admitted that many times. The crowd here was quick to pounce on any imperfections they perceived. Where they were correct, I immediately admitted as much, clarified, or apologized and accepted the correction. The two statements that — (1) white racism is no longer a big problem in America today, and (2) if a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents himself more or less normally, he or sh can succeed in America today — remain unscathed by all the slings and arrows tossed their way.
Otherwise, I see nothing to object to in your entire statement. Are you sure you want to leave it as is? 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Kwamla
Sorry about that:
(italics), (bold) and (quotes)
leave out the Q and brackets!!!
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Hmmm… What “Q'” and what “brackets?” Still not sure you sure this tells me how! Forgive me for being dumb here! At some point, I’ll tell you a story about web development. Suffice ti to say that I’ve written browsers…it’s REALLY how WordPress implements the display of those types of text ornamentation. I was asking for tips, rather than going to find it out myself. 🙂
Also, I’ll address your long and very thoughtful post after I go pick up my daughter from work. Might be an hour or so before I get back.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Again. What you believe and what is actually happening is 2 different things.
LikeLike
I basically read here daily with an occasional comment.
It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because who else but a white racist would come on this blog and tell people that racism is no longer a problem? There is no point in responding because -x will just become more defensive and fail to listen to a different, alternative experience.
-x never seems to listen. -x writes on and on and on without saying anything of value and never seems to understand anything that is presented except to become an abyss of unchecked defensiveness.
Sadly, -x is asking for an apology? truly pathetic but so common.
I come here to read and there have been times when I have felt the defensiveness myself, overall, I think -x is very representative of white thinking, a closed wall with all points of view other than his own, way, way over his head. A dunce hat is in order..
LikeLike
@Kwamla
As you know, some of us see no value in continually wasting time engaging the terminally deluded. Whenever it’s understood that a poster is a troll, it becomes rather obvious that the TRUTH, regardless of its overwhelming factual support, or presentation, will never be received by persistent and pathetic racists.
All the “support…” in the world can’t/won’t change a defective/cracked soul.
**************
–”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika
Conversations with supposedly nice, well-meaning Caucasians can cause
destructive emotions, anger, boredom, frustration, and stress in African people.
Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy.
Caucasian conversation has no rhythm and relies on words
(fragments) to explain their ideas.
African conversations are chemical and rely on the holistic visualization of the concept (picture) to explain the holistic ideas. Caucasians typically move to prove their ideas with statistics, research, or laws of average.
African people typically are in harmony with nature and themselves, and use direct, honest and open ideas as proof. This is confusing to hear for the linear communication ear of Caucasians.
Words to African people are used in a ritual and ceremonial ethnic fashion and paint pictures. Words for Caucasians are not culturally based, but imagined to be a pure form of logic process. They do not see how Eurocentric their words are. Caucasian words are based on superstitions, self-centeredness, and the collective mental illness of being a psychotic (White Supremacy is a psychosis.)
“let that sink in!”
They tend to focus on a single idea (fragment) and ignore the total ideas as a concept of spiritual and communal rhythmic harmony.
Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) talking to the sane (African.) An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian.
An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.).
Caucasians typically use cliches, socially pleasant sentences, “I
am a nice white person talking to a Negro” tone in their voice; “I am not a racist, but I am white and superior” tone, and the African’s inner self reacts to this toxic verbal energy.
The melanin dominated African holistically feels the toxic energy and they must ignite the immune system to defend them from Caucasian word use.
LikeLike
Trayvon Martin’s coverage by the white press was the exception, not the rule. Here are some other cases I have done posts on:
LikeLike
@ Matari
Wow, that sounds so familiar!
LikeLike
–”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika
Wow – do you believe this Matari and Kwamla?
It sounds plausible, but doesn’t it reinforce the “blacks are emotional thinkers” meme?
I like it – it sounds as if the good doctor believes that Africans have different thought patterns than whites – that they can “feel” insincerity, the way an animal can sense fear. I think it explains a lot, and while it accounts for the mentally ill outliers like Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Condi Rice, Herman Cain and any number of intelligent (in the Caucasian sense), well spoken blacks, they may in fact be such a small group as to be statistically irrelevant. The theory also explains why black and white just can’t seem find common ground. we communicate past each other on different wave lengths.
My favorite part was this excerpt:
Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) talking to the sane (African.) An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian.
An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.).
Ignoring the labels of sanity and illness, it reminds me of a favorite Mark Twain quote: “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” I think we’re finally communicating here.
You’ve got to consider though, in our American community – some 40 million sane blacks just can’t seem to make the other 260 million mentally defective humans understand what truth is. In this case, sanity is relative and you’ll have a hard time convincing the rest of us that your truth is the truth, but good luck with that.
LikeLike
And people wonder why I take so many darn vacations.
LikeLike
Matari said:
@Kwamla
As you know, some of us see no value in continually wasting time engaging the terminally deluded. Whenever it’s understood that a poster is a troll, it becomes rather obvious that the TRUTH, regardless of its overwhelming factual support, or presentation, will never be received by persistent and pathetic racists.
All the “support…” in the world can’t/won’t change a defective/cracked soul.
**************
–”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika
Conversations with supposedly nice, well-meaning Caucasians can cause
destructive emotions, anger, boredom, frustration, and stress in African people. [*** Watch what you say. Are you TRULY saying that black people can’t control their emotions? I don’t think so. I don’t know about Africans, but we’re talking about Americans here. ***]
Since African people are highly melaninated, it causes them to be highly
emotional psychic and spiritually sensitive. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. And…WOW! Just… wow! ***] Therefore, Africans CAN FEEL
Caucasians are deceitfully hiding their insincerity and are dependent on word order or a logical, rational thinking, which relies on word process. In other words, Caucasians feel that if something makes sense to them it must make sense to everyone. This is arrogance. This is part of their religious belief in the myth of White Supremacy. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful. ***]
Caucasian conversation has no rhythm and relies on words
(fragments) to explain their ideas. [*** psuedo-intellectual hooey. It could possibly be that YOU, Matari, are unable to discern the rhythm, but there most certainly is a rhythm to white conversation. It’s pretty easy to discern actually. ***]
African conversations are chemical [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. And nonsensical. ***] and rely on the holistic visualization of the concept (picture) to explain the holistic ideas. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] Caucasians typically move to prove their ideas with statistics, research, or laws of average. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. AND reads Caucasians minds, after saying at some length that neither can understand the other because of these vast differences in how we all use words. Again, can’t have it both ways. ***]
African people typically are in harmony with nature and themselves, and use direct, honest and open ideas as proof. This is confusing to hear for the linear communication ear of Caucasians. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey and really bizarre psycho-babble. AND reads ALL Africans minds. Read away, Matari, we’re STILL talking about Americans here. ***]
Words to African people are used in a ritual and ceremonial ethnic fashion and paint pictures. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. Reads minds. besides, we’re not talking about Africans here, but Americans, so irrelevant. ***] Words for Caucasians are not culturally based, but imagined to be a pure form of logic process. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] They do not see how Eurocentric their words are. [*** False. Actually we do. Most kids learn early on that most words in English come from a German current and a Latin current. ***] Caucasian words are based on superstitions, self-centeredness, and the collective mental illness of being a psychotic (White Supremacy is a psychosis.) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]
“let that sink in!” [*** Welllll…OK! ***]
They tend to focus on a single idea (fragment) and ignore the total ideas as a concept of spiritual and communal rhythmic harmony. [*** meaningless, incoherent nonsense. ***]
Fundamentally, the problem with Caucasian and African communication is the mentally ill (Caucasian) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. Makes a value judgement unsupported by anything except the author’s own conjecture. ***] talking to the sane (African.) [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] An African would have to be “out of his mind” and into the Caucasian mind in order to communicate effectively with a Caucasian. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]
An African “out of his mind” usually has adopted Caucasian thinking processes and does not see the Caucasian as a part of a mentally ill civilization. In any case, Caucasian conversation is nutritionally draining to Africans [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***] because of the built-in psychosis of it, the arrogant insulting tone of it, [*** pseudo-intellectual PARANOID hooey. ***] and the double-talk nature of it (conflicting ideas, right and wrong mixed, important words are long words, etc.). [*** REALLY pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]
Caucasians typically use cliches, socially pleasant sentences, “I
am a nice white person talking to a Negro” tone in their voice; “I am not a racist, but I am white and superior” tone, and the African’s inner self reacts to this toxic verbal energy. [*** Assumes the ability to read white minds, after saying above at some length that whites and blacks can’t communicate with each other due to murky theories of linguistics. Can’t have it both ways. ***]
The melanin dominated African holistically feels the toxic energy and they must ignite the immune system to defend them from Caucasian word use. [*** pseudo-intellectual hooey. ***]
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@Matari: Really? Please, please, please let me use that passage in any creative writing classes in the future! The fever swamps of your imagination are, indeed, fertile places. This is one of the best examples of really bad, incoherent writing I’ve ever seen. I don’t think a GREAT writer could write this incoherently intentionally!
There’s just so much in there that makes so little sense in ANY context whatsoever! To paraphrase Churchill: “never in the course of human debate was so little said by one, using so many words.”
• @Abagond: Howver, I think that in our catalog, we can now say that Matari has called whites, and therefore me, psychotics, and racists (first line.)
As regards your standards, there are none, if you simply allow people to accuse others of being racists.
@Matari: I put in some helpful hints to assist you in your problems with self-expression. Look for them in the [*** brackets with asterisks ***]
Summary: Matari speaks as though Blacks and Whites are entirely different species! I’d been waiting for some commenter to declare that black people are really a superior race, as did Hitler, and I guess Matari finally came through. Leonard Jeffries would be pleased.
All in all, one of the more fun posts. It’s sometimes good to deal with the easy ones. The posts that are NOT entirely nonsensical require more intellectual firepower.
Best.
— x
LikeLike
xPraetorius:
Cute. Wrong, but cute.
This is a non-answer. Saying something is wrong is not a legitimate rebuttal: you must point out how something is wrong. You failed to show how your argument is not an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”
It appears you do not understand what “burden of proof” means. It does not necessarily mean to “prove” your case. It means to provide supporting evidence for a position.
Your problem is that you already begged the question by asserting racism is not a big problem, but then you used a “thought experiment” to arrive at a conclusion that was already presupposed. This is the perfect example of a circular argument.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Here’s my reasoning:
A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)
Exactly! The above is unwittingly an admission: your reasoning presupposes A. Insofar as you presuppose the truth of “A”, you undermine the logic of your own position.
As I mentioned in both of my replies to you, Proposition B (your 5 point thought experiment) is dependent on Proposition A. Therefore, your argument is circular, as detailed in my previous two responses to you.
xPraetorius:
And it wOULD be fallacious if your premise were correct, which it’s plainly not.
You are the one asserting the claim that racism is no longer a big problem. Simply disagreeing with me does not constitute evidence.
xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.
Please direct me, with quotations, where I said your five points “guarantee” success with exactly that adjective. I uncovered a hidden premise, which YOU just admitted takes this form:
“Nope. Here’s my reasoning:
A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
In other words, you presuppose “A” and then set out to confirm what you already assume is already true. So your thought experiment is already logically deficient before it can even get off the ground. Your argument is inescapably circular.
xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”
Your thought experiment asks whether racism is a problem after already assuming racism is not a big problem. Then you conclude that racism is not a big problem. This is illogical. You said this:
“A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
And now you state the following (YOUR OWN QUOTES):
“I conclude that the answer is ‘no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.’”
xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.
Semantic wordplay is a sign that you have little of substance to offer.
xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.
See my previous response.
xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.
Obviously science, philosophy, or sociology is not settled and subject to revision as new evidence is encountered. The problem with your thought experiment, however, is that it already presupposes racism as not a big problem and then sets out an arbitrary number of points to confirm it.
This is NOT how science works. Scientists propose a HYPOTHESIS, not a statement of fact, which is what you erroneously did.
xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.
And I showed how your thought-experiment was flawed in five different ways. Moreover, I showed that your argument was circular. Therefore, your evidence was bias since you were merely trying to support what you already believed. In other words, your evidence serves as confirmation bias.
xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.
This is an incoherent statement. Please clarify.
xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.
If you are going to state that racism is not a “big” problem, then you ought to be able to define exactly what you mean by such a phrase. I asked you twice to do so, as has other commenters, but you persistently duck this issue.
Likewise, Abagond asked you to identify when racism no longer became a big problem according to your thesis. But once again, you evaded the question. In fact, you simply replied, “I don’t know.”
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to define the terms of what you boldly assert (along with the fact that you don’t even know when racism stopped becoming a problem) is a reflection of a lousy argument.
xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.
Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.”
More evasion and ducking the issue. You asserted “big” so you must provide context. Ironically, you ask others to provide context whenever they provide statistics that destroy your claims, yet you yourself refuse to provide context for your own claims.
I will now borrow your own famous phrase: saying racism is not a big problem is “meaningless without context.” 😉
xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping
Yet you also stated this:
“A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
As demonstrated above, you continue to use circular reasoning and argue from ignorance.
LikeLike
vanishing point said:
I basically read here daily with an occasional comment.
It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because who else but a white racist would come on this blog and tell people that racism is no longer a problem? There is no point in responding because -x will just become more defensive and fail to listen to a different, alternative experience.
-x never seems to listen. -x writes on and on and on without saying anything of value and never seems to understand anything that is presented except to become an abyss of unchecked defensiveness.
Sadly, -x is asking for an apology? truly pathetic but so common.
I come here to read and there have been times when I have felt the defensiveness myself, overall, I think -x is very representative of white thinking, a closed wall with all points of view other than his own, way, way over his head. A dunce hat is in order.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
I believe we can add VP to the list of those calling me a racist. Here’s the quote: “It’s so obvious that -x is a racist because…” VP then goes on to misrepresent me for, what, the thousandth time? Of course, I never said racism is not a problem. I never even said WHITE racism is not a problem. A big problem? Nope. A problem? Yep.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.
LikeLike
TruthSeeker
xPraetorius:
Cute. Wrong, but cute.
This is a non-answer. Saying something is wrong is not a legitimate rebuttal: you must point out how something is wrong. You failed to show how your argument is not an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
xPraetorius:
Yep. Good thing I offered a BUNCH of evidence. You are free not to consider it “proof.”
It appears you do not understand what “burden of proof” means. It does not necessarily mean to “prove” your case. It means to provide supporting evidence for a position.
Your problem is that you already begged the question by asserting racism is not a big problem, but then you used a “thought experiment” to arrive at a conclusion that was already presupposed. This is the perfect example of a circular argument.
xPraetorius:
Nope. Here’s my reasoning:
A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)
Exactly! The above is unwittingly an admission: your reasoning presupposes A. Insofar as you presuppose the truth of “A”, you undermine the logic of your own position.
As I mentioned in both of my replies to you, Proposition B (your 5 point thought experiment) is dependent on Proposition A. Therefore, your argument is circular, as detailed in my previous two responses to you.
xPraetorius:
And it wOULD be fallacious if your premise were correct, which it’s plainly not.
You are the one asserting the claim that racism is no longer a big problem. Simply disagreeing with me does not constitute evidence.
xPraetorius:
Nope. You demonstrated what you THOUGHT was my arguement was circular. Your premise was incorrect. Interesting Note: I never said that the five points guarantee success. I simply invited you to play my thought exercise with me. They absolutely, certainly DO — no REAL debate is possible — maximize chances for success. If you’re looking for absolute guarantees, look elsewhere.
Please direct me, with quotations, where I said your five points “guarantee” success with exactly that adjective. I uncovered a hidden premise, which YOU just admitted takes this form:
“Nope. Here’s my reasoning:
A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
In other words, you presuppose “A” and then set out to confirm what you already assume is already true. So your thought experiment is already logically deficient before it can even get off the ground. Your argument is inescapably circular.
xPraetorius:
Nope: it ASKS whether racism is a problem. Or, really a big problem. I conclude that the answer is “no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.”
Your thought experiment asks whether racism is a problem after already assuming racism is not a big problem. Then you conclude that racism is not a big problem. This is illogical. You said this:
“A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
And now you state the following (YOUR OWN QUOTES):
“I conclude that the answer is ‘no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.’”
xPraetorius:
There is no “model.” It’s a simple thought exercise. Don’t overthink it.
Semantic wordplay is a sign that you have little of substance to offer.
xPraetorius:
Still overthinking it, TS…First, there is no model. Second: it’s a thought exercise; it’snot a definitive statement of belief on my part.
See my previous response.
xPraetorius:
Nope. All thinking/analysis/research should constantly be subject to later scrutiny and revision. There’s no such thing as “settled science,” much less “settled philosophy,” or “settled sociology.” The “five points” are nothing more than a thought exercise to serve as a basis for discussion. If you choose not to use them on that basis, that’s ok too, but I won’t pretend that I meant anything more. Bottom line: instead of this near proctological-level analysis of them, why don’t you simply say “Yes,” or “No” to them? That IS, after all, the point.
Obviously science, philosophy, or sociology is not settled and subject to revision as new evidence is encountered. The problem with your thought experiment, however, is that it already presupposes racism as not a big problem and then sets out an arbitrary number of points to confirm it.
This is NOT how science works. Scientists propose a HYPOTHESIS, not a statement of fact, which is what you erroneously did.
xPraetorius:
Nope. They ASK the question. I then gave evidence — a LOOOOOOT of evidence for my “yes” answer to the five points.
And I showed how your thought-experiment was flawed in five different ways. Moreover, I showed that your argument was circular. Therefore, your evidence was bias since you were merely trying to support what you already believed. In other words, your evidence serves as confirmation bias.
xPraetorius:
Ok…I believe that I never told anyone that they represented any definitive statement that stopped all argument.
This is an incoherent statement. Please clarify.
xPraetorius:
And I told you I do not consider myself the arbiter of “big.” (see below) I also said, I believe, that I’d stipulate to what the larger group considers “big,” with the disclaimer, that if it was plainly “small,” I could disagree.
If you are going to state that racism is not a “big” problem, then you ought to be able to define exactly what you mean by such a phrase. I asked you twice to do so, as has other commenters, but you persistently duck this issue.
Likewise, Abagond asked you to identify when racism no longer became a big problem according to your thesis. But once again, you evaded the question. In fact, you simply replied, “I don’t know.”
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to define the terms of what you boldly assert (along with the fact that you don’t even know when racism stopped becoming a problem) is a reflection of a lousy argument.
xPraetorius:
My definition of “big” is not relevant. Let’s use what you think “big” is, ok? If you’re REALLY down to parsing what I mean by “big,” then, really, (1) you’re WAY overthinking it, and (2) If we’re competing, I win.
Bunch of MY text follows: what makes ME the authority on “big”?!? I agree, I am NOT the be all, end all for the definition of “big.” Again, though, the five points aren’t meant to define “big.”
More evasion and ducking the issue. You asserted “big” so you must provide context. Ironically, you ask others to provide context whenever they provide statistics that destroy your claims, yet you yourself refuse to provide context for your own claims.
I will now borrow your own famous phrase: saying racism is not a big problem is “meaningless without context.” 😉
xPraetorius:
(1) there was no circular reasoning, because you mischaracterized the point of the thought exercise, (2) therefore, there was no argumentum ad ignorantium, and (3) I never made any claims that it was definitive or argument-stopping
Yet you also stated this:
“A: White racism is not a big problem in America today.
B: Here’s why: (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)”
As demonstrated above, you continue to use circular reasoning and argue from ignorance.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@TS: I see the problem! First: you’re WAY overthinking it. Second: I said “thought exercise,” not “thought experiment” Third: you interpreted that I said: “The 5 points determines success, not race” Again, there are no guarantees in life for anyone. The five points, surely, IMPROVE chances for success; they don’t DETERMINE success. This shouldn’t be controversial Last: You’ve been coming at it backward. Let’s bring it all the way back to the way I’d distilled it earlier on in BW’s blog — minuse, of course, the 5th point.
The idea is, as my debate with Brotha Wolf brought out: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, interacts well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, then he or she can succeed in America. If you agree with that statement, then you have no choice but to conclude that white racism is no longer a big problem in America today. If you DISagree with that statement, then you indicate that you think white racism is STILL a BIG problem in America. ‘Cause, let’s face it, if there is discrimination in the workplace and socially against black people who meet the description of the five points, that needs to be shouted to the rooftops, as it was more that 50 years ago.
BW agreed with the five points, but said that didn’t indicate that white racism is not a big problem in America. You kind of bolstered MY hypothesis, however, when you mentioned all sorts of other factors: “cronyism, etc.” that, while a problem, are not racism. I would probably agree that some of those OTHER factors ARE big problems in America today.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
solesearch said:
so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.
xPraetorius:
Just another hidebound reactionary. No lack of ’em around here!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
And people wonder why I take so many darn vacations.
xPraetorius:
I’d LOVE to respond the way I REALLY want to respond, but that would be unfair. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Matari: Forgive me, please. I thought those out-in-left-field, really nutty ideas were yours. They belonged to Dr. Llaila Afrika…My apologies for the mistake. However, your passing them off as legitimate thought does NOT speak well for the intellectual rigor you’re bringing to all this.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
Unfair to who? I know you don’t think there is anything you can say that would remotely hurt my feelings.
LikeLike
@Kwamla: My apologies for getting to this one so much later than I intended!
Kwamla said:
@ xPraetorius
A honest statement and question to you. You seem to revel in the challenge given your single handed attempts to take on all commentators on Abagond’s blog. To this degree Abagond has afforded you your own separate post! Quite an achievement I would say! But then maybe he was just returning the compliment as you already did the same thing recently to him on your own blog. 😉
xPraetorius:
I welcome all honest questions. However, just ‘tween you ‘n me, I suspect that Abagond “gave me my own post” so I’d go away and not clutter his OTHER posts with dissent. 🙂
K:
My question to you is what do you purposely hope to achieve by all of this beyond simply stating your, obviously, opposing views for what they are worth?
xPraetoius:
Excellent question! I’m REALLY surprised no one thought to ask it before. As some of you might have guessed, I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources. I arrived at Abagond’s blog via Brotha Wolf’s. Abagond tends to express himself a tad more calmly than BW, but BW has been censoring me for some time, so I can’t hang around there. One can’t get information if one doesn’t immerse oneself in a topic. I’ve studied America and her past — including racism and race relations — for decades. I do this all the time; seeking out people whose viewpoints differ from mine, and I challenge both their ideas and my own. There’s no challenge like putting your ideas out there for those who disagree to attack them! However, I’ve found that it’s only in the realm of race and abortion where, my different ideas get the mostly a flood of hyper-irrational name-calling, vitriol, sneering scorn and ACTUAL hate speech, as I’ve reminded Abagond several times.
I’m conversant in a number of important issues, so I engage my political opponents regularly, on many different topics. I’ve hung around here because even the rage coming at me from this corner — and EVEN despite repeated reminders to Abagond that it’s counter to HIS rules — represents important data. It IS an important data point that many blacks choose not to engage whites in any discussion of race relations except at the most superficial level.
TS: While you ponder that question here are some of those tips you asked for: (ignore or leave out the round brackets)
(italics), (bold) and (quotes)
I am surprised someone of your obvious blog writing skills and accomplishments would be unaware of these elementary coding techniques. Which may or may not (I think it does!) shed light on your similarly partial understanding of Racism and its affects.
xPraetorius:
@K, @K, @K…now YOU know it’s a REAL stretch to leap AAAAAAALLLL the way from the idea that I might not know how WordPress handles the display of text ornamentation on the screen, x doesn’t understand racism and its effects. I DO applaud your courage in making that leap, though.
And, I’m STILL not sure how to do the italics, bolding and quotes.
K:
You recently made this statement: Oh, btw, I’m not in the least offended by anyone calling me a racist. It’s like someone calling me short. I’m quite tall. And I’m not a racist. However, that doesn’t diminish in the slightest the truth of the following: “Someone ought to man up and apologize for calling me a racist.” It’s more for THAT person’s health, education, welfare and well-being. It would also be a sign of maturity.
xPraetorius:
Ok. Granted.
K
And this is what you also stated to me in your reply to my own comment:
Also, global inequality exists because global equality is impossible. At all times in the past present and future, all races have been, are and always will be more or less prosperous, accomplished, rich, healthy, tall, obese, artistic, reasonable, silly, athletic, clever, witty — and all possible other human characteristics — than all other races.
xPraetorius
Yes, that’s what I said.
K:
You probably don’t see it so I need to highlight the most important part of that statement: “…global inequality exists because global equality is impossible…
xPraetorius:
Correct. Look, first of all REAL equality of results or of attributes across all races IS impossible. Inequality is a measure. To assume that all races can EVER be at the same “score” for all measures of social, intellectual, economic, or political success is to pretend that all people are exact clones of each other. Even on a planet of 7 billions EXACT clones, inequalities would exist because of a million different OTHER factors.
K:
This BELIEF by my own definition of racism (white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority) I previously shared with you is racist!
xPraetorius:
As I mentioned: I disagree with your definition of racism. Again, if we’re not talking about the same thing, we can’t have a proper discussion or debate.
K:
Its built on the presumption that ALL peoples naturally wish to be on top or dominant over each other when this is not FACTUALLY, EVIDENTIALLY or HISTORICALLY TRUE!
xPraetorius:
@K: That might have been the case before, but I say — and this has upset most people here — this has demonstrably not been the case for white people in AT LEAST the past 50 years.
K:
It is a FACT that only white Western males (those of European extraction and descent) have sought to achieve and establish this type of dominance and inequality globally. Your argument would be that any other cultural group of peoples would also have done the same given the opportunity. But this is WRONG because they have had that opportunity and they did not given the historical evidence. – For example: The Egyptian civilisation lasted far longer than Western culturally civilisation (10,000 years) and was more advanced in many ways than what we take for granted as “modern” civilisation (last 2000 years) today.
xPraetorius
Even if I stipulate to ALL THAT (and I don’t, by the way), we’re STILL talking about white Americans TODAY. And I say that this has demonstrably not been the case for white people in AT LEAST the past 50 years.
K:
So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall! 😦
xPraetorius:
According to MY definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” I most definitely am NOT a racist. By the way, unless you believe Matari’s friend and we can’t use the same words in the same ways to talk to each other, then MY source is a VERY well-accepted source…by all sorts of people in all walks of life.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
@xPraetorius
Unfair to who? I know you don’t think there is anything you can say that would remotely hurt my feelings.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I truly hope I’ve never hurt your feelings. I’d never do that intentionally.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Sharina: in reference to your vacations point. Now I remember! I was just thinking of your point…a black person “taking so many darn vacations” in the racist hellhole that all the Abagondians seem to think is America. However, I figured that was kind of a cheap shot. I guess it’s out there now, though. And it is, really, meaningless, so I withdraw it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina:
Again. What you believe and what is actually happening is 2 different things.
xPraetorius
Ok.
Best
— x
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Let me just say this and be done with it for now.
And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.
Trying to reduce the issue to individual experiences does not make the issue shrink, especially if – like I said – millions have varying experiences that stem from the same cause.
They did present some relevant examples, and yet, what did you do? You still refuted them.
And yet, when it comes to any comment or blog from POC that addresses racism, you not only disagree, you also go so far as condemn them and end up getting it all wrong as a result. Case in point, this is the first part of what you wrote in the “Was Hitler Evil?” article:
Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.
Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.
I have to admit, it’s an impressive feat to do the wacky intellectual contortions necessary to conclude that white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism only confirms white racism. In the reasoning of the post, whites would be true to themselves ONLY if they embraced Hitler after having decisively defeated him and leveled his country.
What utter nonsense!
Bottom line, BW: You’ve done nothing more than say: “white racism affects me and others now, and it affected my ancestors then, therefore, white racism is a big problem now.” Sorry: your first two points don’t support your conclusion. I SUPPORTED MY conclusion.
So, when a large number of blacks describe an incident where the color of THEIR skin was the excuse, they were all being paranoid? It wasn’t anything racist at all?
And I notice you like to put words in other people’s mouths. Yes, you’re going to tell me what I do the same thing with you. But, you can not deny that you also have a habit of telling people what they said to you.
My point was that black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day in a different, yet more covert form that most people can not see. I used to be one of those people.
I always know what your point is as you’ve said it a million times. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It’s just your opinion.
LikeLike
Also xPraetorius
I would address your other responses to my responses, but it will get neither of us anywhere. Besides, I tire of this. And I really do believe you are trying your hardest in your free time to convince us that white racism is not a huge problem. If it’s not a big problem, why are you spending copious amounts of time and paragraphs to repeat your views ad nauseum, especially if it’s just your opinion?
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
BW:Let me just say this and be done with it for now.
xPraetorius:
And, let ME say that I appreciate the much less obstreperous tone.
BW (quoting me):
And just because you’ve tried a hundred times to rebut a series of points I NEVER MADE, doesn’t prove anything either. Nearly ALL the examples presented to me were individual experiences, not applicable to the larger picture. Abagond, and a couple others took a stab at trying to present some relevant examples, but you haven’t yet, BW…you’ve merely blustered, called me names, read my mind, insulted me, told me of all the horrible things I’ve done even though you couldn’t POSSIBLY know that…BW: You’re not debating…you’re bloviating.
BW’s reply:
Trying to reduce the issue to individual experiences does not make the issue shrink, especially if – like I said – millions have varying experiences that stem from the same cause.
xPraetorius’ reply:
That’s the point! I’ve been trying and trying and trying and trying to bring this OUT of the realm of the personal story, that can’t be extrapolated to the larger country. I’ve pointedly NOT reduced the issue to individual experiences, but rather kept my arguments to a larger scale, applicable to the larger picture.
BW:
They did present some relevant examples, and yet, what did you do? You still refuted them.
xPraetorius:
That was the OTHER point…they constantly came at me with personal anecdotes, unsupported speculation, statements about how bad white people were long ago in history…almost NOTHING at all addressing the situation at a country-wide level TODAY. If you look at my various arguments:
• the famous “five points”
• the $17 trillion
• the long list of black people who have prospered, and in some cases, become fabulously powerful and wealthy.
• The centuries-long quest to eradicate prejudice of any kind from the thinking of white people.
All these things are arguments at the scale of the topic: the state of white racism in America. Not the state of individual white racists around the country. Not the state of YOUR relationship with white people. The state of the whole darned thing. Not Abagond’s and his pals’ desire to keep race hostility alive despite the fact that most white people have long outgrown racism. If you prefer, white people just “got over it.”
BW:
And yet, when it comes to any comment or blog from POC that addresses racism, you not only disagree, you also go so far as condemn them and end up getting it all wrong as a result.
xPraetorius:
Darned right I condemn them! They called me and millions of other innocent people racists! They’re lucky that’s ALL I did to them. Maybe I SHOULD have called a lawyer and sued for libel!
BW:
Case in point, this is the first part of what you wrote in the “Was Hitler Evil?” article:
BW (quoting me):
“Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.
Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.
I have to admit, it’s an impressive feat to do the wacky intellectual contortions necessary to conclude that white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism only confirms white racism. In the reasoning of the post, whites would be true to themselves ONLY if they embraced Hitler after having decisively defeated him and leveled his country.”
What utter nonsense!
xPraetorius:
Yes, that is from my original post.
BW (quoting me again in a later post):
Bottom line, BW: You’ve done nothing more than say: “white racism affects me and others now, and it affected my ancestors then, therefore, white racism is a big problem now.” Sorry: your first two points don’t support your conclusion. I SUPPORTED MY conclusion.
BW’s reply to BOTH quotes:
So, when a large number of blacks describe an incident where the color of THEIR skin was the excuse, they were all being paranoid? It wasn’t anything racist at all?
xPraetorius:
I’m not sure you addressed the two passages of mine that you quoted, so I’ll just address your above paragraph. Let’s clarify: a very SMALL number of blacks — maybe a dozen all told — all of a similar point of view, Abagond’s regulars, described incidents where the color of their skin was a factor. I pointed out that even if there were 100,000 REALLY bad racist white people out there, THAT would represent only one racist per 1,800 white people in America. A TINY percentage. Abagond is trying to extrapolate to millions and millions of white racists committing millions and millions of racist acts per year. His evidence? Things like white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism, and his ability to tell us all what white people are thinking. That’s not evidence, that’s nothing more than wishful thinking. Abagond WISHES it were true, and is reduced to wilder and wilder speculation to make his point.
BW:
And I notice you like to put words in other people’s mouths. Yes, you’re going to tell me what I do the same thing with you. But, you can not deny that you also have a habit of telling people what they said to you.
xPraetorius:
I DO tell people what they say to me. But, I don’t take liberties with that. If someone says “all whites are racists,” why would you think it would be wrong for me to think that the person is calling me — a white guy — a racist. I USUALLY don’t have to interpret. Usually someone is calling me a racist outright.
BW:
My point was that black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day in a different, yet more covert form that most people can not see. I used to be one of those people.
xPraetorius:
I admitted that “black people have been affected by white racism which continues to this day” many, many times. I’m trying to tell YOU that if no one can see the OTHER racism the hidden racism — that you can see only if you’re in the super-double-secret club, have the decoder ring and know the password — then maybe, just maybe, it’s not REALLY there. Or, as I might have mentioned in the past: it’s not a big problem anymore.
BW:
I always know what your point is as you’ve said it a million times.
xPraetorius:
No, my dear brother, no you don’t. You get it wrong ALL the bloomin’ time!
BW:
That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It’s just your opinion.
xPraetorius:
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I do not agree with Dr Afrika’s biological determinism, but this certainly sounds like xPraetorius (and many other white commenters)::
“Toxic verbal energy”. Wow, is that what it’s called?
LikeLike
And he’s right. The assumption that any racial disparity is caused by racism is just that, an assumption. Correlation isn’t causation. What your media passes for as “racism” today is usually just someone being offended. As in, hurt feelings.
Who cares?
This is the fundamental problem with Western thought. Blacks and even whites take love, equality, empathy, etc for granted. Every single thing posted on this blog reeks of this fallacy.
I grew up in a non-Western country where every single individual, ethnic group, and race plugs for their own self-interests. You’re not entitled to any love or sympathy. If someone is even outwardly friendly you, you should be thankful.
I have no intention of being equal to you. My goal in life is to be better than you, and to raise my identity group above our competition, and put down rival groups before they become a threat. Just imagine how ridiculous your whining about inequality or privilege sounds to me. Too mean? Welcome to the real world.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.
True according to who or what? You?
Whether you realize it or not, that’s the whole issue I and Abagond have with you. You’re like an agreement dealer, persuading and playing mind games to get us to feel like what we think and feel are inadequate and you’re trying to sell us a product, that we’ve seen before and (some of us) don’t want.
What makes your view more truthful than any of us with a different view?
LikeLike
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Please witness the arrogance with which xPraetorius continues to display his circular reasoning. “Cause it’s true” – this has been his presumption all along. This means no evidence or facts will dissuade him. It’s just “true”.
He even denied his circular reasoning while unwittingly admitting to it as shown in my last reply to him. This was a red flag to me: it shows he is not remotely interested in a serious intellectual dialogue, but rather to state his talking points ad nauseum until others tire of him and he gets the last word. Then he believes he has “won”.
Moreover, he is on a missionary quest to convert others to see the “truth” of his position, that racism is not a big problem. His commitment to that belief is similar to a religious conviction, and no argument or evidence will shake xPraetorius from it.
Abagond says he is like the Black Knight in Monty Python. To me, xPraetorius reminds me of a Scientologist cult member.
Nothing more to see.
LikeLike
xPraetorius For Dummies:
Just off the top of my head:
his techniques:
his arguments:
his style of moral reasoning:
LikeLike
@ solesearch
Right, I need to give this xPraetorius thing a rest and move on. He will declare victory, call me a coward, of course, just like the Black Knight, but at this point he is not worth much more of my time.
LikeLike
@Tiandi
Who cares? I concluded with your first sentence I was better than you. Mad? Hope not. Lol
LikeLike
Oh and I hope your job was not to prove him not racist or you smart because. …well you failed.
LikeLike
@ Matari
Your posted article: –”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika – was a welcome and enlightening perspective. I am familiar with Dr Llaila Afrika but not this particular article.
One of the things Dr Llaila Afrika has done in his specific African focused research is highlight the effects of dietary habits, the different foods we eat, can have on our physical, psychological and spiritual well being.
The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!
When we simply examine something like food we find different people due to their physical, ethnic and biological make up require different food types to maintain and sustain their body types. Failure to do so promotes can promote bodily as well as psychological illnesses.
There are similarities as well as differences in the basic food needs of all culturally diverse and ethnic peoples which impact their physiological well being. But they do so in very different ways. They should not be overlooked or disregarded but this is precisely what the adoption of a Western cultural standard has done. Now everyone – including white people – are suffering in the form of diseases like: cancer, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart attacks, stress, emotional dysfunction and many more.
The point being we ALL are suffering from this artificially imposed cultural standard – though of course some more than others – simple because of its refusal to acknowledge biological physiological differences. It these bodily differences which are most easily represented by the shared functional component of Melanin which are primarily ignored and overlooked.
So for me there is probably a lot more to what Dr Llaila Afrika has to say in this article than many of us would be prepared to admit…. Because many of us have no really idea (apart from the lies and distortions we’ve heard) of the real significance Melanin plays in our biological make up. Perhaps its time we became more aware of this substance instead of in fear of it…
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
BW (quoting me):You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.
BW replied: True according to who or what? You?
xPraetorius:
Yes, according to me. Plainly. Your viewpoint, on the other hand, is according to you.
BW:
Whether you realize it or not, that’s the whole issue I and Abagond have with you. You’re like an agreement dealer, persuading and playing mind games to get us to feel like what we think and feel are inadequate and you’re trying to sell us a product, that we’ve seen before and (some of us) don’t want.
What makes your view more truthful than any of us with a different view?
xPraetorius:
Well, it’s because I back I back my points up. I point to OBVIOUSLY objective facts like government programs, a black President, LOTS of HUGELY wealthy blacks like Oprah, Randall Robinson, countless entertainers, actors and actresses, musicians, and politicians all across the country. After that, I was unable to obtain a simple declaration from ANYONE here that all that represents “progress.” For resw77, it’s no progress at all, or something — his thinking is too murky to be deciphered. For Abagond, it’s “Magical,” so somehow invalid. And for you, BW, it’s simply beside-the-point. No one else addressed the question.
I backed up what I said, and you greeted me with a chorus of “Racist!” and “Liar!” and the funniest of all: TruthSeeker’s “Bad Debater!” as well as a long parade of irrelevant personal anecdotes, references to the distant past and a sprinkling of nonsense terms like “color-blind racism” and “mental genocide.” Don’t forget the absolutely loony stuff that Matari posted from “Dr. LLaila Afrika.” That was representative of the “off-in-space” crowd. That stuff was just embarrassing. However, the real point is that NONE of it constituted ACTUAL rebuttal to anything I said, and much of it neatly CONFIRMED my conclusions. Each time you guys did one of these cuckoo things, I indicated it to you, and invited you to try a substantive post. Very, VERY few of you took me up on the suggestion.
To his credit, Abagond made a few half-hearted attempts to use ACTUAL arguments, but gave up on each one after a single rebuttal.
I’m not saying I have a monopoly on truth, as you seem to but, yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate, but because I was actually PRESENT in the debate. If you were to strike from what you ALL wrote all the stuff that was irrelevant for the reasons I stated above, you’d have to remove 99% of what you wrote. That’s not you debating or arguing or discussing. That’s just you hearing a viewpoint you don’t like and reacting by lashing out with verbal violence and knee-jerk accusations of, of course, racism.
BW: Life is, among other things, a bunch of probabilities and likelihoods. My viewpoint has one whole HECKUVA lot greater likelihood of being “more truthful than any of yours,” because, obviously, my viewpoint is tested. The crowd in THIS particular blog never got beyond the You-Have-To-Be-A-Member-Of-The-Super-Double-Secret-Club-And-Have-The-Decoder-Ring to see it argument. I tested your viewpoints, and you declined to take the test.
One last thing: Oprah Winfrey. An ordinary-looking, average-seeming black woman takes an idea, some extra-ordinary ambition, a lot of hard work, and now could buy the famous “Swiss Handbag” with the change in her pocket. She’s worth an estimated three billion dollars. Neither she, nor the most powerful man in the world — I don’t REALLY have to name him, do I? 🙂 — nor countless other FABULOUSLY wealthy, influential, respected black people, made their fortunes and success in anything RESEMBLING a country that has any significant racism toward blacks. I DARE you to prove THAT wrong.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
@ Matari
Your posted article: –”Nutricide” (excerpts) by Dr. Llaila Afrika – was a welcome and enlightening perspective. I am familiar with Dr Llaila Afrika but not this particular article.
One of the things Dr Llaila Afrika has done in his specific African focused research is highlight the effects of dietary habits, the different foods we eat, can have on our physical, psychological and spiritual well being.
The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!
When we simply examine something like food we find different people due to their physical, ethnic and biological make up require different food types to maintain and sustain their body types. Failure to do so promotes can promote bodily as well as psychological illnesses.
There are similarities as well as differences in the basic food needs of all culturally diverse and ethnic peoples which impact their physiological well being. But they do so in very different ways. They should not be overlooked or disregarded but this is precisely what the adoption of a Western cultural standard has done. Now everyone – including white people – are suffering in the form of diseases like: cancer, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart attacks, stress, emotional dysfunction and many more.
The point being we ALL are suffering from this artificially imposed cultural standard – though of course some more than others – simple because of its refusal to acknowledge biological physiological differences. It these bodily differences which are most easily represented by the shared functional component of Melanin which are primarily ignored and overlooked.
So for me there is probably a lot more to what Dr Llaila Afrika has to say in this article than many of us would be prepared to admit…. Because many of us have no really idea (apart from the lies and distortions we’ve heard) of the real significance Melanin plays in our biological make up. Perhaps its time we became more aware of this substance instead of in fear of it…
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: To ME, the passage from Dr. Afrika was so full of incomprehensible and nonsensical gobbledy-gook that it was just silly. It did NOT seem to be a serious passage.
However, by means of exploration, I have a quick question for you: In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?
Furthermore, if, as you and Matari seem to be saying, HUGE differences between the races are caused simply by melanin distribution, then one can’t avoid the conclusion that racism is really a REALITY-BASED viewpoint! Remember the definition of racism that I used: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
You and Matari are stating categorically that the first part of my definition — “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities” — is absolutely true! This is absolutely astounding! Are you REALLY saying that melanin distribution — ie race — IS a, or THE, primary determinant of human traits and capacities?
I’m asking the question seriously.
One more follow-up question for you: If your answer is: “Yes, race IS the primary determinant of human traits and capacities,” then can you give me a rough estimate of the prevalence of that viewpoint among blacks and browns?
I appreciate your input.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ solesearch
“so we went a week without posts so you could go back and forth with this…dude. The only thing keeping me from being madly annoyed is that you have a lot of great old posts I’ve never read before.”
Right, I need to give this xPraetorius thing a rest and move on. He will declare victory, call me a coward, of course, just like the Black Knight, but at this point he is not worth much more of my time.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
I gather that YOUR declaration of victory, and taking your ball and leaving is the REAL victory. You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. A!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Praetorius
“yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate”—yet here I am saying you didn’t. Even two individuals on your own blog pointed it out( minus leila who is probably a yes man). Only you believe that and that is what makes this amazingly funny to me.
LikeLike
“I gather that YOUR declaration of victory, and taking your ball and leaving is the REAL victory. You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. A!”–This response here is even more proof of what I mean by you seeing a believe what you want to. He did not claim a victory. He chose to stop the nonsense. Which at this point really all it has become.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius For Dummies:
Just off the top of my head:
his techniques:
his arguments:
his style of moral reasoning:
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Abagond for Dummies:
If you disagree with me, you’re a racist. I’ve built up a whole latticework of ground rules for discussion with me, so that if you ever step out of line, I classify your heresy as some illegitimate thing and dismiss your arguments.
In other words: I WILL not be budged from my 50-years-out-of-date thinking, ’cause, like an old, ratty comforter, it’s comfortable. 🙂
It’s funny…I used to work for a methadone clinic as a database administrator. Some of the clinic’s “clients” — heroin addicts whose addiction was “managed” by replacing the heroin with taxpayer-subsidized methadone — had been with the clinic for DECADES. When I asked someone why they didn’t also try to convince the “clients” to kick the addiction, they said, “Oh, they can’t kick it…it’s changed their very body chemistry!” They were quick to indicate that the “incurability of the heroin/methadone addiction” was settled science, and that no one was even continuing to study it to see whether these poor people could be liberated from their addiction prison. In so saying, of course, they indicated that THEIR functions and THEIR jobs and THEIR organizations would ALWAYS be needed; WHETHER OR NOT the addicts could ACTUALLY be cured.
You guys keep going back to your clinics and drinking your tang. You can’t be cured…(*)
@Abagond: you forgot to do several posts that you REALLY need to write, these:
• https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/sometimes-im-wrong-and-need-to-be-man-enough-to-admit-it/ and
• https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/i-ought-to-be-man-enough-to-apologize-when-i-libel-innocent-people-as-i-often-do/ and
• https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/not-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-wrong/ and
• https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/not-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-racist/ and
• https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/my-classifications-of-others-arguments-as-something-incorrect-and-invalid-are-really-stupid-and-juvenile/ and
… well, several others. I’ll suggest more for you, if you’d like. 🙂
Best,
— x
(*) Actually, I don’t believe that at all…it’s why I persist. I feel kind of like a parent with an obligation to help liberate you kids from the prison of your moldy, long, outdated, comfortable viewpoints, and help you come into reality and the 21st century.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
Praetorius
“yes, a dispassionate observer in re-reading all this content would say that I “won” the debate handily. It’s not because I was TRYING to win the debate”—yet here I am saying you didn’t. Even two individuals on your own blog pointed it out( minus leila who is probably a yes man). Only you believe that and that is what makes this amazingly funny to me.
xPraetorius:
I’m glad you’re amused, Sharina. MUCH better than the spluttering, spittle-flecked rage that the others mostly exhibit. Despite our disagreement, you’ve ALWAYS seemed more mature than the others here. I applaud that.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
“I gather that YOUR declaration of victory, and taking your ball and leaving is the REAL victory. You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. A!”–This response here is even more proof of what I mean by you seeing a believe what you want to. He did not claim a victory. He chose to stop the nonsense. Which at this point really all it has become.
xPraetorius:
Yep. However, it became nonsense nearly from the get-go, when the vast majority of replies to me were simply venom-filled invective. I’ve been trying to drag it out of the realm of the nonsensical the whole time. Most of the posters here appear unwilling to lift themselves OUT of the nonsense. You are one of the rare, positive exceptions.
Oh, and he DID claim victory. It was a “back-door” claim, but a victory claim, nonetheless.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
And then the question becomes “how do you know they are mad or in a fit of rage
LikeLike
xPraetorius
You started the rude nonsense and then expected people to treat you nice. Which in all lack for a better word is bs.
Another delusional attempt at mind reading or projecting of your feelings on to others. What you think he meant and what he meant are 2 different things.
Your reality vs reality
On a side note. The reason I am not responding in hysterics is because I am confident in what I know and have said. I don’t need the extra or the last word. 🙂
LikeLike
Kwamla:
Thank you for your adept summary on the importance of MELANIN (as it relates to white supremacy – – a racist psychosis) and the significance of nutrition within the confines of this deficient “artificially imposed cultural standard.”
Yes, the Western cultural lifestyle doesn’t largely embrace healthy living, in any form. It is anything but. Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control. Little else matters beyond …
LikeLike
TruthSeeker said:
TS(quoting me):
You don’t HAVE to agree with ANYTHING — this is STILL America, after all — but you SHOULD agree with what I’ve been saying…’cause it’s true.
TS:
Ladies and Gentlemen: Please witness the arrogance with which xPraetorius continues to display his circular reasoning. “Cause it’s true” – this has been his presumption all along. This means no evidence or facts will dissuade him. It’s just “true”.
He even denied his circular reasoning while unwittingly admitting to it as shown in my last reply to him. This was a red flag to me: it shows he is not remotely interested in a serious intellectual dialogue, but rather to state his talking points ad nauseum until others tire of him and he gets the last word. Then he believes he has “won”.
Moreover, he is on a missionary quest to convert others to see the “truth” of his position, that racism is not a big problem. His commitment to that belief is similar to a religious conviction, and no argument or evidence will shake xPraetorius from it.
Abagond says he is like the Black Knight in Monty Python. To me, xPraetorius reminds me of a Scientologist cult member.
Nothing more to see.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
@TS: A few things: (1) your constant attempt to classify non-circular reasoning as circular reasoning doesn’t make it circular reasoning. Ok? (2) As to the “missionary” thing, I’LL tell YOU what my intent is. I did that for Kwamla. Presumably you can find that? (3) I gather that the “Scientologist cult member” crack is your signal that you’ve unilaterally abrogated our mutual agreement not to delve into the personal attacks? Ok. You remind me of an spoiled little kid, who’s seized on a silly idea — the nonsensical circular thing — and can’t let it go, while he stomps his feet and screams. Whatever. I suspect that those with whom we disagree vehemently TYPICALLY don’t provoke positive images in our minds. Duh!
I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.
Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?”
Can you, TS, simply answer the question, or are you going to wallow in your rock-headed need to question the method of the question itself. It’s a simple question. According to your moronic “circular reasoning” obsession, no one could ask ANY question, since ALL questions ASSUME a WHOLE passel of things, eg. that (1) you’re both talking about the same doggoned thing, and (2) you both agree to the terms of the question. Duh! And yes, MY question IS calling for a conclusion. Not valid in court, perhaps, but perfectly valid in debate.
Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Matari said:
Kwamla:
Thank you for your adept summary on the importance of MELANIN (as it relates to white supremacy – – a racist psychosis) and the significance of nutrition within the confines of this deficient “artificially imposed cultural standard.”
Yes, the Western cultural lifestyle doesn’t largely embrace healthy living, in any form. It is anything but. Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control. Little else matters beyond …
xPraetorius:
@Matari…serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white? I’m trying to understand this thread of reasoning that I have encountered before, but not in the context of someone trying to make a BIOLOGICAL argument as to cause.
One more quick question. You said: “Now that the veil has been pulled back we see it’s mainly about the pursuit of insatiable power, wealth, profit and control.” My question: How does this permit, say, a black President, or the success of Oprah Winfrey? Surely whites, if they were insatiably pursuing “power, wealth, profit and control,” they would not have permitted such phenomena? If whites were insatiably pursuing “power, wealth and control,” this surrendering of power, wealth and control is a REALLY odd way to go about it.
I’m picturing our secret white meetings as we plot how next to advance out insatiable pursuit of power, wealth and control. “I know,” someone must have said, “Let’s continue our insatiable pursuit of white power, wealth and control by giving whole bunches of power, wealth and control to black people!” “Yeah! Yeah!” must have been the shouted response. “That’ll show ’em!”
@Matari: people like you, who don’t really pay attention to things can be a lot of fun. All it takes is to take the things you say, and just walk them down the path to the ridiculous places they bring you.
🙂
Ok…enough fun. I repeat my serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@all: Is anyone going to answer my question about melanin? I’ll repeat it:
“In MY biology classes, we all learned very early on that everyone has the same amount of melanin, but that for black or brown people, it is more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker. Is that no longer true? If, however, it IS still true, then since everyone has the same amount of melanin, how is the DISTRIBUTION of it an important factor in the differences between the races?”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
Oh and I hope your job was not to prove him not racist or you smart because. …well you failed.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
Nope. To the contrary, I was hoping to find that he and others could add something new and mind-expanding to a discussion of race. Since, the Hitler post — while deeply repugnant — was at least creative, I thought I might have found someone willing to explore differing ideas with an open mind. At this point, though, that hope has not been realized.
I never have the need or desire to “prove” I’m smart. No need and there’s no point. I think that my assertion my ego is strong enough without such validation, should meet with no disagreement. Furthermore, no one here, friend or foe, knows me well enough to provide such an assessment.
As to your second point, I DID walk BW through to the conclusion that he’s a racist. He admitted it several times. I think it’s accurate to conclude also that — at least according to my definition of racism — Abagond IS a racist.
Btw, I explained my goal — my “job” if you prefer — to Kwamla, above.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
So you resort to childish tactics and then proceed to call others a child.
1 thing I always tell people….if you have to beg someone to apologize then you need to question the sincerity if they decide to. You may also want to start question yourself if you infact rely on that to prove anything.
Not to mention people in glass houses. if you had plans on taking the high road you missed it. Just saying
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Its in Abagond’s comment policy here:
Also, just use “b” or “blockquote” instead of “i”. It really is that simple 🙂
Now here is a quote from Dr Llaila Afrika I found highly applicable here:
First, I would agree this is a generalised statement just like the words: African and Caucasian, European, Black, white, Asian, POC are general descriptors too.
However, there is more that can be learned from this observation than simply saying:
“… psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful…”
Which on the face of it shows you to be displaying the very same thing it observes – typical white arrogance!
Lets suppose, for one moment, there could be some generalised truth in such a statement. You are hardly displaying the responses of someone genuinely open to receive it. You simply pronounce it as “…hooey…”
Leaving aside whether or not in your eyes it could be proven to be true or not…It does, if taken at face value, offer you a process for understanding the atmosphere in which your avalanche of comments and responses posted here have been received Do you, by any chance, have an alternative process for understanding you also could offer?.
I was quite taken aback by your response to one of my questions you said:
“… I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources…
If I, or anyone else here, were to really take you seriously about this self description its not truly reflected in your quite often dismissive and close-minded responses. Or as Dr Llaila Afrika would say:
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.
You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.
LikeLike
Now considering my first response to Tiandi was followed by that response I really did not see the need to put @ in it as they were both to him.
LikeLike
tiandi said:
And he’s right. The assumption that any racial disparity is caused by racism is just that, an assumption. Correlation isn’t causation. What your media passes for as “racism” today is usually just someone being offended. As in, hurt feelings.
Who cares?
This is the fundamental problem with Western thought. Blacks and even whites take love, equality, empathy, etc for granted. Every single thing posted on this blog reeks of this fallacy.
I grew up in a non-Western country where every single individual, ethnic group, and race plugs for their own self-interests. You’re not entitled to any love or sympathy. If someone is even outwardly friendly you, you should be thankful.
I have no intention of being equal to you. My goal in life is to be better than you, and to raise my identity group above our competition, and put down rival groups before they become a threat. Just imagine how ridiculous your whining about inequality or privilege sounds to me. Too mean? Welcome to the real world.
– * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * – – * –
xPraetorius:
What tiandi says accords perfectly with what a friend of mine said when returned from Japan. He observed that the Japanese make no bones about their racism, that they view it as a positive thing, and are absolutely open and up-front in their belief that ALL other ethnicities are inferior. He says that THEY say that they view this as a state-of-mind that protects BOTH the Japanese AND Japanese-ness, which they view as intrinsically valuable. yes, that’s my “anecdote,” but my friend’s job entailed his having an in-depth understanding of Japanese culture. He is a credible source.
I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.
The USA appears to be one of the few countries where racism is considered evil. This perception that racism is evil appears to be widespread only in those countries dominated by the european white ethnicity. More to the point: in societies dominated by the WESTERN european white ethnicity.
This nicely supports one of my sub-conclusions: whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet. I think it’s obvious that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
@xPraetorius
So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.
You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: I am not tiandi.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
Thanks, Kwamla! I’m very, VERY leery about using HTML tags in text boxes on others’ blogs, because there can be many repercussions. I try to understand whether I can do it before trying it.
I’ll address your larger post with my newly-obtained text-editing powers. Bwaa-ha-ha-ha!!!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
I will take your word for it, but in that you had no point in really responding for him/her.
“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”—LMFAO. I find it gut twistingly hilarious that you are using this to conclude that “whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet.” Yet was constantly trying to tell others (including myself) that certain situations…how did you put it…did not reflect the larger. ROFL!!
LikeLike
My first post did’nt format correctly…So here is again. Abagond can you delete the first one?
xPraetorius
Its in Abagond’s comment policy here:
Also, just use “b” or “blockquote” instead of “i”. It really is that simple 🙂
Now here is a quote from Dr Llaila Afrika I found highly applicable here:
First, I would agree this is a generalised statement just like the words: African and Caucasian, European, Black, white, Asian, POC are general descriptors too.
However, there is more that can be learned from this observation than simply saying:
“… psuedo-intellectual hooey. Assumes that white people have a widespread belief in White Supremacy, which evidence doesn’t support. Just says things. Anyone can just say things. It’s not meaningful…”
Which on the face of it shows you to be displaying the very same thing it observes – typical white arrogance!
Lets suppose, for one moment, there could be some generalised truth in such a statement. You are hardly displaying the responses of someone genuinely open to receive it. You simply pronounce it as “…hooey…”
Leaving aside whether or not in your eyes it could be proven to be true or not…It does, if taken at face value, offer you a process for understanding the atmosphere in which your avalanche of comments and responses posted here have been received Do you, by any chance, have an alternative process for understanding you also could offer?.
I was quite taken aback by your response to one of my questions you said:
“… I’m a writer, researcher, political commentator, blogger and several other things. I seek out sources of information, states of mind, viewpoints from ALL sorts of different sources…
If I, or anyone else here, were to really take you seriously about this self description its not truly reflected in your quite often dismissive and close-minded responses. Or as Dr Llaila Afrika would say:
Again…Do you have an alternative explanation for your apparently, twisted and conflicting appraisal here? If you are truly open to view points from ALL different sources how are you displaying this in your response to Dr Llaila Afrika?
Perhaps you might, as a ready example, contrast your response with Riverside_Rob here which appears to express more of what you say you perceive yourself to be than what actually say in practise. This is definitely something you should considered in how you might be being perceived in all your “to and fro” discussions here. Which could also be the course of so many of them.
My concept of Equality does not call for people to be EXACTLY the same. This is the impositional notion of the “white universal standard” (Western model) which I made in an earlier comment to Matari. Such an artificial standard, I agree is, impractical, useless and effectively unobtainable, because it ignores valuable and important differences.
So for example: Is it possible for Men and Women to experience Equality even though they may be similar but vastly different in other ways?
– Is it possible for women to be paid the same rate as men for the same work?
– Is it possible for women to hold the same positions of responsibility over men. The same way men do over women?
– Is it possible for women to have as much power over the rules that govern their lives as men?
-Is it possible for women to make as many decisions about where resources should go to assist countries as men do?
-Is it possible for women to have just as much participation in sporting activities as men?
Its possible to acknowledge the differences that separate men and women but still allow both to experience natural Equality. It is in my conception Do you not believe any of these things are possible under yours?
In the same way African-Americans (and any other ethnic groups) could also enjoy Equality in these same areas with white Americans. But the FACT is they DO NOT! Just as in the same way women today in Western society do not…!
Further, those opportunities are BLOCKED or non-existent for them to obtain them. However, none of this really matters because, in your view, REAL equality is unobtainable?
Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?
xPraetorius:
“…According to MY definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” I most definitely am NOT a racist….”
LikeLike
ok ok. Had to see why the usage of the black knight photo. Found video on youtube and was ROFL.
LikeLike
xPraetorius, if you are talking about the average Japanese person then I am not sure you have it right. In most cases it is the politicians that have this attitude and most Japanese people think Shoganai meaning (it can’t be helped). There are some things that foreigners do find as racist but many times for those Americans of European decent have the first taste of people who don’t want to sit next to them, think they are loud, or could be dangerous. Most of the time I hear from Japanese people they don’t want to sit next to a foreigner because they imagine they might have to speak English. (really like every foreigner speaks English).
Now if you are talking about Chinese, Koreans, and Ainu and Okinawa no hito you might have a point. Although they are not supposed to and they know better. In general if you are talking about Japanese it is mainly the Chinese they have a low opinion on. Yet, they know that the tourist bucks are coming from them and we will probably see a change in view in our lifetime. Korea because of historical frames but even that relationship as rocky as it is has improved over the last twenty years.
The Ainu, who finally got recognized as a minority but there culture has pretty much eroded away. They are working on rebuilding it but with so many of their elders dead it is hard.
Lower class, those who use to deal with dead things historically have had a harder lot. They still do because you can tell by last name or the area they live. They too have been gaining a lot more rights and freedom.
Okinawans, who are very political and work hard to move their standing up and get the base off of their land. Japan has its own problems yet they do celebrate many mixed ethnic children on tv.
Those traditional marginalized minorities are pushing out more and gaining more freedoms and rights. Plus it is more of the older grandmas and grandpas that think in this sort of way and they are slowly leaving us. Many of them have changed their minds over time because of societal pressures. Which in Japan the nail that sticks out gets hammer.
Yet never forget that it was Commodore Perry that brought in a lot of bad stereotypes about Americans to Japan. He even brought in Blackface he brought in a lot of our culture during his time period. History just a wonderful tool for understanding the some of the present situations. I don’t want to get into this topic more right now because I don’t have time.
I am shock that you have the time with your own blog to contribute so much to this one. I need to do more with my writings because although I like this blog it does take away from my own writing time.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
This whole victory stuff is all in your head. It just shows that you are here to “win” the argument, not to learn or seek truth. Which means you are not all that serious to being with, confirming my decision to move on.
LikeLike
its a shrubbery
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
And by the way: I agree with v8driver: the declension seems to be wrong.
LikeLike
wow that was a real moment there, not a teaching moment but i sense something in the force there i wasn’t asked but i don’t feel this blog is like stormfront, that pile of sheiss is like a tech support forum with an end or focus to the implicit ‘bliltzkrieg’ of the name, white nationalism, no way dude. i don’t read that, maybe pulled 2 cached articles from there a long time ago, i spent like 4 hours on chimpout maybe and .5 hr on vdare, i can’t stomach that stuff no matter if i am not always politically correct
LikeLike
I’ll answer this as I’ve commented on this topic many times before on this blog.
What you’ve shared here is basically wrong, nonsense and misinformation. Lets start with what is correct first…
Yes…Its true we ALL have Melanin, even Albinos. Its fundamental to all living organisms.
Now for the nonsense: How can Melanin for Black or Brown people be: “…more evenly distributed in the cells, causing the cells themselves to appear darker.?
Surely the opposite would be true! If something “DARK” is more concentrated in one area and you evenly distribute it over a larger area wouldn’t this make it less concentrated and lighter?
How can we ALL have the same amount of Melanin if the concentrations which are present in organs like the skin showed marked differences in colour intensity? This again makes no-sense? 😦 Even a simple painting exercise, mixing colours, could demonstrate this!
Clearly, our concentrations of Melanin are not the same. Another observed phenomenon with lower melanin concentrations is that lighter and white skin (hands) can feel cold to the touch. I have personally shaken many cold hands of this nature. I have since learned it is the presence of sulphur concentrations (in the skin cells) which accounts for this. Higher concentrations of sulphur (in place of Melanin) also account for white skin.
Here are some of my other more detailed comments on this blog:
Even you xPraetorius should be able to deduce that your assumed knowledge of Melanin is woefully inadequate. In fact it is really based on ignorance so you really are in no position to criticise someone like Dr Llaila Afrika…What would you even base this on?
Assumed superiority of knowledge ?
LikeLike
@ Kwamla
Glad you decided to comment on it because I will admit I do not have much or rather any information regarding that to share.
LikeLike
I always find it funny that certain white people believe seriously that calling out injustice is being divisive or spreading injustice. Well, they are correct that it is divisive but only because instead of focusing on acknowledgement of the injustice and/or fighting the injustice certain white people seem invested in denying the injustice! This stance is breathtaking to me and highly infuriating. As far as racism requiring conscious intention, balderdash. Racism has been going on so long and is so much a part of this country’s fabric that it quite literally has a mind of its own. If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas. In fact, this has been empirically proven (e.g., studies showing whites equate blacks with monkeys). You do not have to be donning a Klansman’s hood to be a racist or hold those attitudes. Good white people, even my own husband, have racist beliefs and slip up from time to time with some racist BS.
LikeLike
@Kwamla: First, thanks again for the text ornamentation tips! 🙂
Next, you said (quoting Dr. LA):
Africans can FEEL insincerity? Why take that seriously? Walk it through the thought process. First: Well, I guess that, since the implication is that ALL Caucasians are insincere all the time, this is simply self-fulfilling. If that’s true, then you’re saying that white racists’ “feeling” that blacks are inferior is a valid power of observation.
However, let’s take the “feeling” of others insincerity seriously. Hypothetically an African is in a conversation with a Caucasian. Let’s say the Aftrican “feels” the Caucasian is being insincere and deceitful. What, pray tell, is that feeling that OTHERS, even other blacks can understand? Is it a twinge, a pain somewhere in particular? Is is a tingling? Is it local or throughout the entire body? Is it different for everyone. Most importantly: if the African is accusing the Caucasian of insincerity and deceitfulness, then the African at LEAST disagrees with the white guy, and probably dislikes him. I don’t think you can prove to ANYONE that the African’s “feeling” of the white guy’s insincerity PRECEDED the disagreement or the dislike! In that case, it’s perfectly valid to say that the “feeling” is no more than a result of the African’s dislike or disagreement. Also, how does anyone know that the feeling is identifying insincerity, and not something else? Is the feeling infallible? So, the African accuses the Caucasian of lying (shorthand for: insincerity and deceitfulness) and the white guy denies it. Are you REALLY saying that there is a SCIENTIFIC basis — other than a lie detector, that is — of deciding which of the two is correct, and that SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, the melanin distribution in the African settles it?
LOTS of people — all people — have “feelings” when they are interacting with people they don’t like, or with whom they disagree. In every case, when I have a disagreement with someone, all SORTS of feelings course through me, depending frequently on what the other person says. I FREQUENTLY debated with a white colleague and experienced all sorts of feelings of frustration, triumph, annoyance, eagerness, enthusiasm, energy, dejection and more. I NEVER interpreted these feelings as coming from any source but myself. Since I have as much melanin as you, do I also, a white dude, have the same powers? I’m asking this seriously.
For example, I “feel” your sincerity in your post. I think you’re wrong about nearly everything, but you ARE, I believe, sincere. Does that mean that I have these same “melaninated” powers as you. I DO, after all, have as much melanin as you.
One more thought exercise: If you had approached a person on a European street in, say, 1491, and asked the guy, “Is the world flat?” The person would have answered perfectly sincerely, “Yes.” He’s have been wrong, but he’d have been sincere. I’m not sure how ACTUALLY useful this power of discerning sincerity REALLY is.
You said:
Me:
Yes, I did. Kwamla, in life we ALL have to discriminate. We all have to choose what to assimilate, what to ignore, what to study, to like to love, to accept, to reject. That’s called discrimination. We can’t all study everything. We have to make those choices. I have made the determination that this whole idea of black people having these seemingly magical powers is “hooey.” I admit that I could be wrong, but someone SOMEWHERE is going to have to make a MUCH more plausible argument than the passage fron the good Dr. LA.
I’ll ignore your “typical white arrogance,” in light of the fact that Matari’s post — and your agreement with it — seem to indicate that there is NO possibility of real communication between the races. Therefore you would have no possible way of knowing what’s typical of whites. 🙂
You said:
Me: Ok…then we all agree that since REAL, complete equality is impossible, then we can conclude only that the only disagreement is over the DEGREE of inequality that is acceptable. I think we’ve got to the goal. You, I suspect, disagree. I might suggest that you talk to my friend, the most powerful man in the world. He, at least, agrees with you, but while you’re speaking with him, check out the color of his skin.
You said:
You said:
My reply: In reply to the first paragraph, I don’t know whether men and women and blacks and whites can experience life “equally.” Equally satisfactorily? Equally rewardingly? Equally fulfillingly? Sure. Why not. Surely, all people experience life, however, DIFFERENTLY. Can the DIFFERENT be equal? Not in principal, obviously, but in light of my first sentence it can. So now we’re in semantics.
As to your second paragraph, I might point you again to my buddy the most powerful man in the world, as well as to countless fabulously wealthy black entertainers, actors, businesspeople, athletes, etc., etc., etc.
As to your third paragraph, I think that it’s obvious that there is a LOT of opportunity in this country. Oprah Winfrey should be able to assist in this.
You said :
My reply: You HAVE kind of smoked me out a bit. I don’t REALLY care, but I DID do a kind of a test for Abagond’s readership and for Abagond himself. I challenged them to elevate their discourse, to apologize for their intemperate accusations and to challenge their own plainly locked-in preconceived notions. You are correct: People who don’t know me from Adam can accuse me of any kind of silliness they want to, and it doesn’t affect my self-esteem. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the REALLY ought to man-up and apologize for the slur. It WOULD be a sign of graciousness, humility, and maturity. NOT to do so, obviously, would be a sign of the opposite characteristics.
You WILL note, I assume, that I apologized several times for some intemperate remarks, and admitted immediately to some errors that I had made.
best
— x
LikeLike
@all: I apologize for all the typos in the previous post. I usually try to proofread better.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Back to watching Wilfred.
LikeLike
poetess said:
xPraetorius:
Welcome to the bleating herd, poetess!
I addressed all your nonsensical points many times before. Many, MANY times before; both in this thread and in Abagond’s Hitler thread.
Couple quick corrections: Racism is not a living entity, so can’t, obviously, “quite literally have a mind of its own.” Figuratively, sure, but not “quite literally.” Please think a bit more about what you write.
Furthermore, there is not a study anywhere, that anyone takes seriously, that has ever shown empirically that “If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas.” That is, of course, a nonsense statement.
You call yourself “poetess;” did you maybe do poorly in language studies in school?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
Back to watching Wilfred.
xPraetorius:
Enjoy!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
“You call yourself “poetess;” did you maybe do poorly in language studies in school?”—Another personal attack that he will likely not apologize for but will continue to beg others to apologize to him.
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
First: Obviously no assumed superiority. I simply asked the question, after describing what we had learned early on in bio classes. You can assume, if you’d like to, that this was some sort of eurocentric teaching, but I suspect it’s simply that science has progressed since then, and melanin is better understood now.
Further to the melanin thing, the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin) seems to indicate that there are different types and distributions in different peoples, but that dark-skinned people have more eumelanin. Makes sense. I accept your correction.
However, there were no indications of any magic powers associated with melanin. Just that Parkinson’s disease in lighter-skinned peoples appears to be associated with a lack of a certain type of melanin, and that Vitamin D deficiencies in darker-skinned people are associated with too much melanin.
I am also asking whether you and Matari are suggesting that white people are psychotics and racists merely because of the color of their skin. Can you clarify?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Darn! The dangers of not properly closing out one’s HTML tags! Is there a “preview” feature for these posts?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
@xPraetorius
I will take your word for it, but in that you had no point in really responding for him/her.
“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”
Sharina:
xPraetorius:
I believe I said it “supports” my contention that white people are the least racist ethnicity in the country.
Yes, here’s my quote: “This nicely supports one of my sub-conclusions: whites are REALLY the least racist ethnicity on the planet. I think it’s obvious that whites are the least racist ethnicity in America.”
You’ll note that I plainly used the word “supports,” not “proves.”
I use that and a whole raft of other evidence to CONCLUDE that whites are the least racist, etc.
As I might have mentioned before, I am not competing to win… I just want to know. When I see a blatantly ignorant, wacky post like Abagond’s Hitler one — that plainly contributes to greater ignorance — it’s a good idea to try to counter it. When someone makes the ugly insinuations that Abagond made, yep, I get a bit annoyed. I’m right to.
You chastised me for my tone upon entering into the discussion. Well, the others returned that tone and a whole lot more with their accusations and name-calling and purple-with-rage denunciations. It certainly gave an indication of their character.
However, their tone was of a kind with the post, so I kind of figured it would go that way. I wasn’t surprised.
@Sharina: maybe if you were to spend a little less time poring over what I say in search of gotchas and small inconsistencies, and a little MORE time in researching REAL rebuttals to me, you’d do better.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.
Much of our belief that racism is bad comes from western European culture and Christianity.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
This whole victory stuff is all in your head. It just shows that you are here to “win” the argument, not to learn or seek truth. Which means you are not all that serious to being with, confirming my decision to move on.
xPraetorius:
Ok, you win.
Uhhhh…whuh? Wait a sec… nooooooooooooo…! Don’t hit that “Post Comment” button! N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oooooo…!!!
…
Darn!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
King of Trouble said:
xPraetorius:
@King. Thanks for the additional perspective. I had heard most of these things from my friend, with some small differences, and additional or different analysis. It’s an obvious truth that every civilization views race and racism differently from every other civilization. Some are less passionate about it, others more so. I wouldn’t be surprised if our society were the MOST passionate about it, without being in a civil war.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“I’ve also spoken with others who’ve spent time elsewhere, who report similar states of mind, regardless of whether the majority ethnicity was “white” or not.”—–I don’t care. Please point to where I contended on this matter? Please quote me in regards to this? If you want to bring it up as some type of point then guess what hypocrite. Others have made this same statement in which you proceeded to argue they were wrong based on just this. So tell me what point are you making?
“As I might have mentioned before, I am not competing to win… I just want to know. When I see a blatantly ignorant, wacky post like Abagond’s Hitler one — that plainly contributes to greater ignorance — it’s a good idea to try to counter it. When someone makes the ugly insinuations that Abagond made, yep, I get a bit annoyed. I’m right to. “—Where did I say anything in that post about you looking to win? If you are then hey…if you are not then hey. I am also not saying you do not have a right to, but I am clearing laughing at the fact that in this you have the nerve to critique actions you clearly find little or no problem with using yourself.
“maybe if you were to spend a little less time poring over what I say in search of gotchas and small inconsistencies, and a little MORE time in researching REAL rebuttals to me, you’d do better.”—LMFAO. Small inconsistencies that is rich. Why would one need to research a rebuttal when all I have to do is read your post and find all the material I need. I am better. Which is why while you are constantly repeating circle arguments in hope someone will fold I am here laughing at it all.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.”—-That is great, because I don’t remember holding a belief that other countries were not racist or did not have their own issues, but I do see like most posts that it was a means for you to further put words in my mouth and tell me what I said or think. So nothing really new.
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Maybe you didn’t. If so, and I misunderstood, I apologize.
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Nope. I made quite plain, when I was using something such as a personal anecdote, that it was NOT dispositive, that all it did was support my point of view. I DID use quite a bit that is dispositive: the $17 trillion, etc., etc… The people using personal anecdotes — BW, for example, used ONLY personal anecdotes. Alone, they prove nothing but that you know some personal anecdotes.
Sharina:
xPraetorius:
@Sharina:I’m glad you’re amused. I am too. In the meantime, I repeat my suggestion. 🙂
It’s nice that we’re both happy.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
That was the OTHER point…they constantly came at me with personal anecdotes, unsupported speculation, statements about how bad white people were long ago in history…almost NOTHING at all addressing the situation at a country-wide level TODAY. If you look at my various arguments:
• the famous “five points”
• the $17 trillion
• the long list of black people who have prospered, and in some cases, become fabulously powerful and wealthy.
• The centuries-long quest to eradicate prejudice of any kind from the thinking of white people.
All these things are arguments at the scale of the topic: the state of white racism in America. Not the state of individual white racists around the country. Not the state of YOUR relationship with white people. The state of the whole darned thing. Not Abagond’s and his pals’ desire to keep race hostility alive despite the fact that most white people have long outgrown racism. If you prefer, white people just “got over it.”
Here are a few links that document actual systematic racism in the U.S:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/26-2
http://racismstillexists.tumblr.com/ (This page has many links at the bottom)
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/22/87908/bennett-racism-dead/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_and_ethnic_discrimination_in_the_United_States (since you take Wikipedia as a reliable source)
http://racerelations.about.com/od/understandingrac1/a/WhatIsRacism.htm
http://owni.eu/2011/03/12/racism-in-advertising-50-shocking-examples/
http://race.eserver.org/fight-against-racism-today.html
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1024
http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct99/oct99b.html
http://doctorparthenia.com/articles-2/cultural-racism-in-hollywood-and-the-media/
http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/2005/09/in_new_orleans_.html
http://fair.org/article/racism-and-mainstream-media/
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/05/08/television-racism/
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/05/31/bush-conservatives-help-preserve-racism-in-housing/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-11/business/chi-housing-discrimination-20130611_1_housing-discrimination-hispanic-renters-7-percent
http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights-racial-justice-womens-rights/racial-wealth-accumulation-gap-and-why-aclu-suing
http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/racism-in-schools-unintentional-3821/
http://www.publicschoolrenewal.org/essays/racism2.htm
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174385/lets-call-racist-school-closings-what-they-are-racist#axzz2cXpGO6Hl
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-racial-discrimination
http://anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/welfare/davids.html (about your welfare argument)
I could look for more links to more articles and reports, but I think this is enough.
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“Oh, Sharina: one more thing. As regards tiandi’s post, I thought it was worthwhile point to make: that in other countries, other peoples don’t view racism the same way we do. Some, in fact, view it as a natural, positive aspect of the human condition.”—-That is great, because I don’t remember holding a belief that other countries were not racist or did not have their own issues, but I do see like most posts that it was a means for you to further put words in my mouth and tell me what I said or think. So nothing really new.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: Please re-read. You’ll see that at no time did I try to put words into your mouth pertaining to the tiandi post. I might have inadvertently at other times, but if you’ll recall, if You called me on it, and I agreed, I immediately apologized.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
@xPraetorius
So are you tiandi? I guess you forgot to switch out profiles before you responded. I was not asking you what you are and are not trying to prove because as you can see in this post I know how to put @ the person I choose to respond to.
You make any and everything about YOU, so in the art of serious discussion I really can’t take much of what you say seriously because of continuous delusional episodes. This is not to be mean but to be serious.
xPraetorius:
Nope. It was just mean. I’m plainly not delusional.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
“You call yourself “poetess;” did you maybe do poorly in language studies in school?”—Another personal attack that he will likely not apologize for but will continue to beg others to apologize to him.
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: re-read poetess’ post. You’ll see that I was more than justified in being snarky.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“I’m glad you’re amused. I am too. In the meantime, I repeat my suggestion.”—-Taking your suggestion would require for me to see myself as one in need to do such. I don’t, because you proved for me most if not all of what I was saying. 🙂
LikeLike
abagond said
@ xPraetorius
And by the way: I agree with v8driver: the declension seems to be wrong.
xPraetorius:
This one is too funny! Again, I’ll let you know whether I intended to decline the name, and what declension I — really we — intended, or didn’t intend to use. Until you know our group’s intention, you can’t possibly know whether the declension is correct.
Why respond to this obviously side question? This is a good example of the Abagondian modus operandi(*): (1) Have insufficient information about something, (2) draw conclusion(s) based on the deficient information (3), defend the conclusion forever.
I could prove that the declension is correct — and, after all, my group and I are the only authorities on the meaning or purpose of the name — and the Abagondian will tell me I’m wrong, and that I’m a stupid, racist liar. That is the Abagondian way!
🙂
Best,
— x
(*) Is this the proper declension? Doesn’t matter; “modus operandi” is now in such common use in English that there’s no point declining when using it in English.
LikeLike
“@xPraetorius
“Nope. It was just mean. I’m plainly not delusional.”—At this point I don’t know that to be true. You see things in posts that are just not there. You constantly find yourself putting words in my mouth. So what would you call that? I don’t call that a mistake.
” re-read poetess’ post. You’ll see that I was more than justified in being snarky.”—I read what she said and no you were not justified. You want to feel justified. You think every statement or words are a direct attack at you. You feel that you have the right and that others do not. You feel you are owed an apology and others are owed nothing. I get it. I see it..
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Yes, according to me. Plainly. Your viewpoint, on the other hand, is according to you.
What an egocentric response. I should just agree with you because you say so. Wow.
Well, it’s because I back I back my points up. I point to OBVIOUSLY objective facts like government programs, a black President, LOTS of HUGELY wealthy blacks like Oprah, Randall Robinson, countless entertainers, actors and actresses, musicians, and politicians all across the country. After that, I was unable to obtain a simple declaration from ANYONE here that all that represents “progress.” For resw77, it’s no progress at all, or something — his thinking is too murky to be deciphered. For Abagond, it’s “Magical,” so somehow invalid. And for you, BW, it’s simply beside-the-point. No one else addressed the question.
Hopefully, if my earlier comment passes, I’ll show you some links to back up my statements.
I saw your list of wealthy blacks briefly, but the list you gave was awfully short, especially considering making a list of wealthy whites and comparing the two.
Anywho, there are rich black people who have “made it”, but it still doesn’t prove that racism is no longer a big problem. If I’ve made a few people who are atheists, it doesn’t prove that all people are atheist.
It certainly doesn’t prove that racism is no longer a factor if you are part of the middle and upper classes. It certainly wasn’t the case of Pro. Henry Louis Gates who was arrested outside his home because a woman – a white woman – thought he was trying to burglarize someone’s house. Or as the case with Oprah Winfrey who, when trying to buy that Swiss handbag, was told she couldn’t afford it. And how about ?uestlove who admitted to being profiled numerous times by the NYPD.
I will make this as calmly as possible.
The reason why my tone was was abrasive at the beginning was something you may not likely understand. It was because your initial and following responses were condescending. If you wanted this to be a respectful discussion, you don’t go around claiming that opposing views are ludicrous and insignificant.
It’s obvious that your motive here is not to learn or be taught, or even to exchange ideas. Your purpose seems to be about dominating a topic (Was Hitler Evil). That in itself is a white privilege motive. The post was a for-POC by a POC topic in a space where most of what we get from the mainstream come from the perspective of white people. You coming in to shift the topic was disrespectful no matter what the reason was.
Just because you decide on what racism is doesn’t mean that it’s true, nor does it magically vanish the actual systemic and structural racism that actually does exist. In fact your “It’s true because I say so” is white supremacy talking. Taking over a topic by POC for POC in order to protect or defend white people is a divide and conquer tactic.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
I also believe that you take some kind of crude enjoyment for your remarks. Whether you realize it or not, that is insulting to the rest of us. And whether you want to admit it or not, that is also a sign of white supremacy, getting enjoyment at the expense of POC.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
You may feel that what I’ve said was attacking you, and that we owe you an apology, but how can we apologize for someone who initiated the attack and proceeded with more attacks? Why should we apologize to you, but you shouldn’t have to apologize to us?
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
does that mean I am racist then because I thoroughly got some type of sick enjoyment at his expense.
LikeLike
Hey, Mr X, I see you got a thread dedicated to you…Ive been here:
http://pccavalcanti.blogspot.com.br/2013/08/8-festival-lula-calixto-chega-ao-fim.html
https://pt-br.facebook.com/cocoraizes
this was an unforgetable experiance and put me at the very heart of Afro diasporic culture and everything Ive tried to talk about on this blog…
I cant write long so Ill have to make some quick comments
There are some things you have said that I can agree with , but , other things I dont feel comfortable at all…I cant tell if its Evangelical, maybe because of your stance on kids and string bikinis..and.your contention that racism doesnt exist in a lot of white Americans doesnt sit well for me at all…
You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…
You mention celebrities and stars…there were black American entertainers who were succesful at the hight of Jim Crow and lynchings, hugely succesful…its doesnt mean anything if blocks of black Americans are suffering on the ground leval, and Ive seen this close up…white people play the clique good ole b oy game to the max…
Some of your opinions about liberals are strange and rub me the wrong way…I consider myself liberal, but, I dont like the far left or right equaly…
I dont think you are a racist, I think you are naive about racism
And , you raise some flags in me, but, hey, other commenters on here raise flags in me also, like people who have made scrutinising and negative statements about interracial sex…that disgust me…and, I can agree with those people on other things
or , the things I despise on the “Booty Dancing” thread, which, I have a feeling, you and me wouldnt see eye to eye on…but I agree with those people on other things
and, I have banged my head over here with some people on American foreign policy issues..I live in a country that has a lot of people who are anti American, and Ive learned to do some serious research on where I live and , I found that a lot of anti Americanism was just total bs based on lies and half truths, along with I found out the real dirt we did do which makes any claims of fighting for democracy around the world , a sham,
I think Abagond made a great point about where the average white person’s head was at in the 60’s, and what was accepted then
this relates to the embracing of “whiteness” Brother Wolf talks about…after all, slavery was embracing “whiteness”, Jim Crow was embracing whiteness , barring black Americans from sports was embracing whiteness,
where I do disagree with some posters on here that white people are some devil encarnate, or that whites are the most violent of all history, I totaly see white racism in America alive and well in a lot of whites…I also know a lot of whites were always there for black Americans, and put their lives on the line..maybe the government know they really werent fighting to end slavery, a whole lot of northern whites went to their deaths thinking that is what they were doing, fighting to end slavery and the Confederacy was definitly fighting to keep slavery
but I recently passed through the states and was disgusted to see lots of whites arguing that if black Americans can use the n word why cant they? only a totaly ignorant person cant figure that out, I mean there is a certain portion of white American society that is carrying on the racist position , with new phrases to hide it…I see lots of change that needs to happen still
im on the run and cant type any longer…ill catch up later
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
I personally don’t think anyone in here should take what he says as an insult because he is not one to be really taken seriously. The truth of the matter is people believe what they want to believe and as I stated what one believes and what the truth is are two different things. How often on these blogs have we ran across people who believe one thing, you provide evidence, and they still say “no that is not right?” How often do we meet people who engage in confirmation bias?
@ B.R.
“You should go to a thread on here where it was for black people only, fine with me, and, they spoke of their first experiance with racism…there were many testimonies…some said that a teacher put them down along the way in a racist manner…”—i believe I did mention this to him before.
I have the same concerns as you in regards to some of the claims he is making. The mind reading while telling others not to mind read or other type of hypocrisy. And yes I don’t trust a hypocrite by habit.
LikeLike
sharina
does that mean I am racist then because I thoroughly got some type of sick enjoyment at his expense.
No. It just means what goes around comes around. He should be adult to know that he gets what he dishes out.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
You may feel that what I’ve said was attacking you, and that we owe you an apology, but how can we apologize for someone who initiated the attack and proceeded with more attacks? Why should we apologize to you, but you shouldn’t have to apologize to us?
xPraetorius:
You should apologize for calling me a racist. You’ll note that I attacked on one in my first post, but directed my attention to Abagond’s offensive post. I challenged your ideas; you attacked me.
Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me.
I even apologized to YOU, BW, on my blog. Anyway, you and many others owe me a specific apology for calling me a racist.
Here’s the declaration you should agee to:
“Dear Mr. x: On behalf of the participants in this blog, I’m sincerely sorry that many of us called you a racist. While many of us may disagree with what you say, you have neither said nor done anything here (<– scope is important) that could possibly lead to a conclusion that you are a racist (<– that one's kind of important). The rudeness many of us displayed is always uncalled for, and the accusations we made were toxic and inexcusable (<– it's important to recognize that), and we will do our best to avoid such behavior in the future. (<– 'Cause no apology's worth anything without some kind of indication that one will stop the offending behavior.) I challenge the other participants in this blog's various discussions to endorse this declaration as well." (<– 'Cause you can't REALLY speak on behalf of everyone until they grant you permission)
I proposed it to Abagond, but he ignored it. I suspect that means he doesn't endorse it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
(quoting sharina) sharina
does that mean I am racist then because I thoroughly got some type of sick enjoyment at his expense.
BW’s replies: No. It just means what goes around comes around. He should be adult to know that he gets what he dishes out.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I dished out substance… a LOT of it. I got only vilification back.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
I personally don’t think anyone in here should take what he says as an insult because he is not one to be really taken seriously. The truth of the matter is people believe what they want to believe and as I stated what one believes and what the truth is are two different things. How often on these blogs have we ran across people who believe one thing, you provide evidence, and they still say “no that is not right?” How often do we meet people who engage in confirmation bias?
I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.
LikeLike
Nope. I dished out substance… a LOT of it. I got only vilification back.
I rest my case.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun. And I won’t apologize for something that is obvious.
LikeLike
“Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me”—-Sure you apologized for putting words in my mouth. Don’t really see where I am or have disputed this.
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Why, Sharina, because YOU say so? You STILL focus on whether or not you can find inconsistencies or circular arguments or a typo here or a misused word there. Keep going for the “gotchas” and avoid addressing things with any substance.
Sharina continues:
xPraetorius: This is true of all people and of all people’s beliefs.
Sharina continues:
xPraetorius:
Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.
Sharina continues:
Sharina continues:
xPraetorius:
@Sharina, @Sharina, @Sharina…One thing, I am most definitely NOT is a hypocrite! However, even if I were, it wouldn’t change the the truth or falseness of one word of what I’ve said. 🙂
Nor, are you aware of my “habits.” And, the “mind-reading” charge is just funny. On this blog, you’re DROWNING in people telling you ALL about what white people thing, feel, want and need, and you’re worried about lil’ ol’ me? You’re kidding, right?!?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina
“Oh, and I have apologized to several people on this blog. Some several times. Ask Sharina. If she’s honest, she’ll acknowledge that I have apologized to her, AND that she’s apologized to me”—-Sure you apologized for putting words in my mouth. Don’t really see where I am or have disputed this.
xPraetorius:
You didn’t dispute it; BW did.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ brothawolf
“I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”—I get what you are saying. It can be tiring.
“If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun”—The sincerity leaves the moment the action is continued.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun. And I won’t apologize for something that is obvious.
xPraetorius:
Whatever. I suspect you are the LAST person who could EVER serve to assess my sincerity! 🙂
Furthermore, my sincerity or lack thereof, is perfectly irrelevant. If I’m insincere, then you still accused an innocent, but insincere, man of racism.
Yep. I continue to have fun. You are one of the more fun fish in this particular barrel.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
(quoting xPraetorius) Nope. I dished out substance… a LOT of it. I got only vilification back.
I rest my case.
xPraetorius:
Pretty feeble case, BW…At some point, you should have injected some substance into it. You’re a fraud, and you’ve been exposed.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Why, Sharina, because YOU say so? You STILL focus on whether or not you can find inconsistencies or circular arguments or a typo here or a misused word there. Keep going for the “gotchas” and avoid addressing things with any substance.”—Nope because I already made my point on your blog,so why should I come here and just repeat it. When did I harp on your typos? when did I harp on misused words? What did I say about inconsistencies? The only thing you said here that I actual did (I guess you believe all black people are the same) is your arguments are going in a circle and I don’t believe I said those exact words.
“Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.”—So do point to where I said that one shouldn’t? Point to where i said you should change your mind? What reasoning is that? I see questions being asked to Brothawolf. I see you determining what I mean by them. So I guess once again you can deduce where I am going with this.
“Nor, are you aware of my “habits.” And, the “mind-reading” charge is just funny. On this blog, you’re DROWNING in people telling you ALL about what white people thing, feel, want and need, and you’re worried about lil’ ol’ me? You’re kidding, right?!?”—Considering that I chose to judge people based on the individual…what they say and what I experience will not mean much to me. I just don’t discount their experiences.
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ brothawolf
“I see what you mean, but even if he is not to be taken seriously, that doesn’t make it any less demeaning. We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”—I get what you are saying. It can be tiring.
“If you indeed apologize as you say, it doesn’t seem sincere as you continue in your fun”—The sincerity leaves the moment the action is continued.
xPraetorius:
Time for Abagond to write another post:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/weve-seen-it-all-before-and-it-can-be-tiring/ – in which Abagond would describe how participants in a debate avoid the actual topic using phrase #73: “We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones.”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Sharina: again, the sincerity or not of any apologies I’ve offered is perfectly irrelevant to the point that BW accused an innocent man of racism, and if he were half a man, he’d have the decency to apologize.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Pretty feeble case, BW…At some point, you should have injected some substance into it. You’re a fraud, and you’ve been exposed.
I’ve been nothing but real to you, even in my tone.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“again, the sincerity or not of any apologies I’ve offered is perfectly irrelevant to the point that BW accused an innocent man of racism, and if he were half a man, he’d have the decency to apologize. “—Like I said to you previously. If he is not apologizing then he is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him or trying to coax him into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
I also believe that you take some kind of crude enjoyment for your remarks. Whether you realize it or not, that is insulting to the rest of us. And whether you want to admit it or not, that is also a sign of white supremacy, getting enjoyment at the expense of POC.
xPraetorius:
I have never derived any enjoyment at the expense of anyone else in my life. Furthermore, you called me a racist. Do you really think that you can just whack someone upside the head with the most toxic accusation in America today, and that person shouldn’t respond? Were you brought up in a barn? What kind of manners to you have?!?
Sorry: You opened the door to getting the relatively mild insults I’ve tossed back at you. I hoped you learned a lesson in basic human decency and manners. I suspect not, but I hope so.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Sharina: **sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“**sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.”—Talking to you is like talking to a house plant. I am not talking about other people. Read what I said and not what YOU keep thinking I said.
LikeLike
This is what I said with a little help indicators so it will be clear.
“Like I said to you previously. If he (brothawolf) is not apologizing then he (brothawolf) is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him (brothawolf) or trying to coax him (brothawolf) into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his (brothawolf) own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Whatever. I suspect you are the LAST person who could EVER serve to assess my sincerity! 🙂
Furthermore, my sincerity or lack thereof, is perfectly irrelevant. If I’m insincere, then you still accused an innocent, but insincere, man of racism.
Yep. I continue to have fun. You are one of the more fun fish in this particular barrel.
Let’s get one thing straight. I was not put on this Earth to serve you. And at this point, I do agree that your sincerity, or lack thereof, is irrelevant just like your constant begging for us to give in and apologize.
Are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn’t want to believe what we believe? That we all ought simply to change our minds? Or is it only people who disagree with you who need to change their minds? In your reasoning, the fact that no one here has changed his or her mind to agree with me, simply proves MY point. You’re ALL obviously engaging in “confirmation bias.” Cut it out.
That’s why I shouldn’t apologize for what I think and know to be the truth. And I don’t expect you to apologize for what you think is true or not. What I have a problem with is you trying to make everyone think the same way you do and shame them for refusing to do so.
You may consider this as an attack on your person, but I find that childish. Yes, you consider my tone with you was harsh and I did called you a racist, but I explained why it was so. I didn’t reply with a ‘just cause’ response, nor did I admit getting some jollies out of it because I don’t. I even provided links to some reports and articles that you will see if my comment passes the moderation, one of which I took a page from your book and used Wikipedia seeing as how you credit that as a viable source.
You seriously can’t or won’t grasp the hypocrisy in your last statement. You accuse us of confirmation biases, but you’re proving one yourself. You seriously don’t see the irony in that?
LikeLike
xPraetorius
I have never derived any enjoyment at the expense of anyone else in my life. Furthermore, you called me a racist. Do you really think that you can just whack someone upside the head with the most toxic accusation in America today, and that person shouldn’t respond? Were you brought up in a barn? What kind of manners to you have?!?
Sorry: You opened the door to getting the relatively mild insults I’ve tossed back at you. I hoped you learned a lesson in basic human decency and manners. I suspect not, but I hope so.
Your hypocrisy and victim peddling seems to know no bounds. You continue to blame me for hurting you calling you a racist. Yet, you take no responsibility for your end of condemnation.
The moment you posted the first comment in the other article was the moment this back-and-forth started. I responded to that response. And you can’t tell me that you didn’t expect one or that one was harsh in its tone.
LikeLike
So, go ahead xPraetorius. Cry victim as long as you want. It doesn’t mean that you are. It just means that your white privilege mindset is hurt and wants to be coddled.
LikeLike
By the way, xPraetorius, I was raised in a home with two loving parents. What’s your excuse?
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.
Sharina continued:
Sharina continued:
xPraetorius:
Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf
By the way, xPraetorius, I was raised in a home with two loving parents. What’s your excuse?
xPraetorius:
Then your rudeness is doubly inexcusable. You should be ashamed.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius:
I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.
And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Like I asked, what’s your excuse for YOUR arrogance and rudeness, xPraetorius, or you don’t think you are because you said so and not due to your actions?
LikeLike
sharina said:
This is what I said with a little help indicators so it will be clear.
“Like I said to you previously. If he (brothawolf) is not apologizing then he (brothawolf) is not sorry for it. At this point you asking him (brothawolf) or trying to coax him (brothawolf) into doing it, then it will not be sincere nor will it be of his (brothawolf) own doing. It would be a half azz apology to shut you up.
xPraetorius said:
Whatever. @Sharina: you should stop spluttering. It’s undignified.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina
@xPraetorius
“**sigh** It’s like talking to a child. Ready? My sincerity in other apologies to other people is perfectly irrelevant to BW’s need to clear his conscience and apologize to me. End of the sincerity topic.”—Talking to you is like talking to a house plant. I am not talking about other people. Read what I said and not what YOU keep thinking I said.
xPraetorius:
“House plant.” Good one.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf
xPraetorius
Pretty feeble case, BW…At some point, you should have injected some substance into it. You’re a fraud, and you’ve been exposed.
I’ve been nothing but real to you, even in my tone.
xPraetorius:
BW: If I were you, I wouldn’t admit that the nitwittery and the fraudulent accusations that you’ve tossed around are “real.” I gave you an out with the “fraud” accusation.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
So, go ahead xPraetorius. Cry victim as long as you want. It doesn’t mean that you are. It just means that your white privilege mindset is hurt and wants to be coddled.
xPraetorius:
Well, thank goodness I never claimed that I was! Whew! That was a close one.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.”—So then you have no problem quoting where I have done this. I admitted to what I have done, but you are now accusing me of something I haven’t. Again I made my point on your blog and oddly enough you proved it without knowing. So i am good. 🙂
“Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.”—Deflection. Check.
“Whatever. @Sharina: you should stop spluttering. It’s undignified.”—More Deflection. Check
““House plant.” Good one.”—I know right. 🙂
LikeLike
xPraetorius
I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.
And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.
You DID say I attacked you and that you wanted me so to stop calling you a racist and apologize for it. You sounded rather upset in your responses.
And xPrae, the instant you make a response to anyone’s post, you invite those who visit to respond to your comment. It was out in the open, and it was seen by a lot of people who voiced their thoughts.
If you wanted it to be private, you should’ve sent an email. So, you really have no excuse to play the innocent victim.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Well, thank goodness I never claimed that I was! Whew! That was a close one.
I see. Just because you never actually said it outright, means you’re not. I see how you argue.
LikeLike
B. R. said:
xPraetorius:
And finally to one of the few substantive replies in this entire thread!
Well said, B. R. I don’t think I find much if anything to dispute here. I would like to summarize a bit: race relations are very complex.Way more complex than the “white-people-bad — POC-good” state of mind here at this blog.
I’ll be very interested to read the results of the studies you spoke of! And I took a look at your first link. Love it! Had to wade through the portuguese a bit, because it’s not one of my languages. However, I speak several other languages close to it, so was able to get a lot of it. Looks like beautiful exuberant, fun, energetic stuff! Again, I hope you have a wildly successful trip!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said
xPraetorius
I never said you hurt me. I did say you should clear your conscience. I invite you to do so again.
And, again, for what the thousandth time? My tone was harsh. It was directed at Abagond’s post that equated Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler. My original post was, actually, insufficiently harsh.
You DID say I attacked you and that you wanted me so to stop calling you a racist and apologize for it. You sounded rather upset in your responses.
And xPrae, the instant you make a response to anyone’s post, you invite those who visit to respond to your comment. It was out in the open, and it was seen by a lot of people who voiced their thoughts.
If you wanted it to be private, you should’ve sent an email. So, you really have no excuse to play the innocent victim.
Praetorius:
You attacked me; you didn’t hurt me. I did invite others to respond. To respond to the content I posted, not to call me a racist and all the other garbage they flung. BW: do you pay attention to words, or are you intentionally misrepresenting everything I say?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina
@ xPraetorius
“the harping on misused words, etc is ALL you do. Please feel free to present a substantive argument.”—So then you have no problem quoting where I have done this. [My reply: Correct. I have no problem doing that.] I admitted to what I have done, but you are now accusing me of something I haven’t. Again I made my point on your blog and oddly enough you proved it without knowing. So i am good. 🙂 [My reply: No you didn’t make any point that I then proved, but you are good.]
“Whatever: you said I read minds, and that was just funny.”—Deflection. Check.
“Whatever. @Sharina: you should stop spluttering. It’s undignified.”—More Deflection. Check
““House plant.” Good one.”—I know right. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
Well, thank goodness I never claimed that I was! Whew! That was a close one.
I see. Just because you never actually said it outright, means you’re not. I see how you argue.
xPraetorius:
Whatever, BW, whatever…
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Kwamla: To ME, the passage from Dr. Afrika was so full of incomprehensible and nonsensical gobbledy-gook that it was just silly. It did NOT seem to be a serious passage.
If so, he is in good company, you.
Ok…enough fun. I repeat my serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white?
No, they are psychotic because the contain members such as yourself!
@all: Is anyone going to answer my question about melanin? I’ll repeat it:
I’ll take a stab at it. What was the question?
Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?
Oh no, he is not a racist, rather, he is the great white bwana.
Seriously, hilarity aside, why respond to this loon? Don’t bother answer, I feel an attack of gas coming on just reading this loon! I will be indisposed for the next 45 minutes catching up on the latest edition of the National Inquirer!
For praetorius:
http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/12/alfred-e-neumans-words-of-wisdom-for-august-12th-2013
LikeLike
Herneith said:
@Kwamla: To ME, the passage from Dr. Afrika was so full of incomprehensible and nonsensical gobbledy-gook that it was just silly. It did NOT seem to be a serious passage.
If so, he is in good company, you. [Ooooohhh…]
Ok…enough fun. I repeat my serious question: this psychosis you mention..is it really totally determined by race? In other words are whites psychotics BECAUSE they’re white?
No, they are psychotic because the contain members such as yourself! [Ooooohhh…well, I guess that fully answers it. :)]
@all: Is anyone going to answer my question about melanin? I’ll repeat it:
I’ll take a stab at it. What was the question?
Something which sort of puzzles me though is your expressed desire not to be considered racist. Why would that matter so much to you?
Oh no, he is not a racist, rather, he is the great white bwana. [Ooooohhh…]
Seriously, hilarity aside, why respond to this loon? Don’t bother answer, I feel an attack of gas coming on just reading this loon! I will be indisposed for the next 45 minutes catching up on the latest edition of the National Inquirer! [Ooooohhh…]
For praetorius:
http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/12/alfred-e-neumans-words-of-wisdom-for-august-12th-2013 [This does, I have to admit, seem just about your speed. You keep getting your pearls of wisdom from Mad Magazine, Herneith, and you keep pretending you’re have something to say…:) ]
xPraetorius:
Enjoy the magazine. You’ve apparently been intellectually indisposed for some time now. Have you sought professional help either for your delusions, the voices in your head, or your lack of IQ?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
xPraetorius
You attacked me; you didn’t hurt me. I did invite others to respond. To respond to the content I posted, not to call me a racist and all the other garbage they flung. BW: do you pay attention to words, or are you intentionally misrepresenting everything I say?
Yeah. Sure I didn’t.
I know what you’re saying. For the thousandth time, I told you that I familiar with the responses you gave because they are scripted and predictable. You also are apparently the type that doesn’t know when to quit, unless one or all of us cave in and say, “Praetorius, you were right. We were wrong, and we apologize deeply for our tones, misinformation and overall race baiting.”
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Also, did you get a chance to check out my response with the links posted?
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius:
You didn’t. You don’t know me…How on earth could your opinion of me hurt me?
BW said:
xPraetorius:
Yes? Yes?
BW said, with deep humility and sincerity:
xPraetorius:
I accept your apology.
There, now that wasn’t really all that difficult, now was it? And, don’t you feel a lot better?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf
xPraetorius
Also, did you get a chance to check out my response with the links posted?
xPraetorius:
Not quite yet, but I will check them out tomorrow afternoon after a morning appointment.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
BrothaWolf
“We’ve seen those like him before, and each time is frustrating to hear the same broken arguments from different drones. Even though we’ve seen it all before, it’s still tiring that it continues to persist unabated with more and more people with the same mentality.”
***********
Which is why I pretty much ignore these idiot/long-winded racists. After cutting off their heads and sending them on their way, two or more always pop up in their place.
There are literally MILLIONS of new/fresh folks armed with their White Racial Frame standing by in the wings waiting to make the same tired/refuted arguments. That’s demonic… because it is meant to drain your energy and exhaust your life force!
Think about how exhausting it is to argue the same exact argument time after time, after time. Hence the invention of the Broken Record Department …
It’s really a never ending battle here with willfully racist (SUPERIOR WHITES) showing up regularly to roundly dismiss whatever truth, facts and evidence that’s presented to them. They’re not here to receive anything enlightening. They come to fulfill their need for attention and to pontificate (spew their BS) endlessly,
Do they deserve this level of attention?
How does it help us?
(Me, I’d much rather wrestle with a Jorbia than deal with clueless whites like …)
They are only useful (IMO) for educational and amusement purposes. Nothing more.
LikeLike
your constant attempt to classify non-circular reasoning as circular reasoning doesn’t make it circular reasoning.
There was no attempt: your entire argument was circular. It took one of two forms:
1. Racism is not a big problem.
2. 5 Points
3. Therefore, I conclude racism is not a big problem.
Indeed, here is what you actually said:
Using your own words, we have established the first two premises of your argument:
1. White racism is not a big problem in America today
2. (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)
You then proceeded to conclude from this basis that racism is not a big problem. In doing so, your argument was circular, for you assumed (1) in your argument.
I now direct you to your conclusion, in your own words:
As a result, we now have your two premises, and your conclusion:
1. White racism is not a big problem in America today
2. (Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … x)
3. “I conclude that the answer is ‘no, white racism is not a big problem in America today.’”
The above is the most fundamental example of a circular argument I have ever seen. In fact, I have saved your very example for future use should I come across them.
Of course, you can try to take back your words or deny what you wrote, but your own words betray your true reasoning.
I gather that the “Scientologist cult member” crack is your signal that you’ve unilaterally abrogated our mutual agreement not to delve into the personal attacks?
No, it’s a signal of your debate tactics. When presented with counter-evidence and shown that your argument is fallacious, you deny it and instead restate your claims ad nauseum as if they were fact.
In this regard, I stand by my statement: you remind me of a Scientist cult member. You have an almost religious devotion to your belief, which you assume is actually knowledge.
I’ll try something else for your plainly limited intellect.
This is an ad hominem attack and an example of your own hypocrisy. Let me get this straight: xPraetorius hurls an insult, yet suggests I was delving into “personal attacks”? Pure hypocrisy at its finest.
Pretend you’re in court observing. A lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand. He says to the witness, “Mr. Smith, answer me this: If a black person gets an education, speaks well, works hard, gets along well with others, and presents him or herself more or less normally, can he or she succeed in America?
I will play along. You need to define exactly what you mean by “success”. To borrow your phrase, the phrase is meaningless without context.
While a black person could obtain economic success, he or she could still face other forms of racism, such as profiling (followed in clothing stores, pulled over by the police, etc.) or many of the other myriad examples of discrimination others have raised.
On the other hand, I already pointed out the problems with your “5 points”:
1) It’s simplistic: other variables may impact success, such as cronyism, lack of strong social network, credit score bias, discrimination based on looks, etc.
2) It’s inapplicable to the real world/ too utopian: see #1. Your presumption is ideal only if people really are colorblind.
3) It’s too subjective: one may need a lot more than your 5 points to succeed. Also, it depends on one’s own definition of “success”.
4) It lacks explanatory power: as I said before, Abagond asked you to identify when racism stopped becoming a “big” problem, but you couldn’t answer it. Your response was, “I don’t know.”
Furthermore, I also asked you this, which you dodged:
“Please provide the criterion to distinguish a “big” problem from not a “big” problem in your model. Furthermore, please cite evidence to support the validity of this criterion.”
In response, you said you were “not the arbiter of ‘big’”. I then showed that the burden is on you to define it since you are the one making the case. You
failed to do so.
Apart from this, you have something bigger at stake: let us assume your “5 points” are correct. How does that DISPROVE RACISM? Please explain.
Again, TS, you were one of the few who could, I thought, be counted on to provide a not-completely-moronic reply without personal attacks. I see I was wrong in that assessment. I withdraw the positive assessment.
You failed your own standard when you said this:
I have strong reason to suspect why you continue to defend your circular reasoning: you simply confuse belief with knowledge. Those two are not the same. Your belief is not a statement of fact, yet you assume it is.
LikeLike
*An emendation: by “Scientist” cult member, I mean a Scientologist.
LikeLike
No he didn’t. No xPraetorius didn’t try to remodel my response as if I actually apologized to him. Just when you thought he couldn’t be anymore of a prick…
LikeLike
Compare:
Brothawolf said this:
xPraetorius edited that to say:
LikeLike
Comment by tiandi moderated and deleted for use of Mock Ebonics.
LikeLike
@BW: Say it ain’t so! You’re not retracting your apology, are you?!?
But, but, but…I felt your sincerity! All the way in my melanin! You can’t</i? argue with the melanin!
…
Calm down, BW…no need to blow a gasket. I knew you weren’t man enough to apologize. The post was a funny…and it was funny, you have to admit that.
Best
— x
LikeLike
@brotherwolf, yes he did. Like I’ve said before. Don’t feed the stray dog and it will eventually go away. Are you still leaving scraps out for it?
LikeLike
@jefe
“Just when you thought he couldn’t be anymore of a prick…”
Well, at least he’s good at something…
@ Anne
“Are you still leaving scraps out for it?”
I’m guilty of that too. But I knew that sooner or later he would turn this from a discussion on the relevant issues to a juvenile kerfuffle.
LikeLike
Awww….I was hoping to take the opportunity to use translate google. See how good it really is.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Do you think you are racist? Why or why not?
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
Well….i am still waiting for him to produce these post where I harped on his typos, misuse of words, inconsistencies, etc.
LikeLike
sharina
@ Brothawolf
Well….i am still waiting for him to produce these post where I harped on his typos, misuse of words, inconsistencies, etc.
xPraetorius:
@sharina: I’m not your secretary; you go look ’em up. You and I both know you spent an entire stretch doing only that. You can find it, I’m sure. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond
@ xPraetorius
Do you think you are racist? Why or why not?
xPraetorius:
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond — Hello! Knock, knock! Anybody home? Not even a clever evasion. I expect better.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77
@jefe
“Just when you thought he couldn’t be anymore of a prick…”
Well, at least he’s good at something…
@ Anne
“Are you still leaving scraps out for it?”
I’m guilty of that too. But I knew that sooner or later he would turn this from a discussion on the relevant issues to a juvenile kerfuffle.
xPraetorius:
That’s rich, that last… coming from the crowd whose best and most powerful argument is: “You’re a racist!” And, “You’re a liar!”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77
@jefe
“Just when you thought he couldn’t be anymore of a prick…”
Well, at least he’s good at something…
xPraetorius:
What a shame that no one else here is good at anything. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
testtest
LikeLike
Just to do Anne, and you all, a favor, I’ll use a text ornamentation to indicate where she has said something that is either (1) stupid, (2) irrelevant, (3) nonsensical, (4) gratuitous insult, (5) racial slur, (6) tries too hard to be clever, (7) I covered it bunch of times before, (8) responds to a post containing these things, or others as I identify them. That’ll help those of you who are unable to string a coherent thought together, and feel the needs to resort to those previous indications of a lazy or poorly stocked mind.
Here’s Anne’s post:
Here’s Anne’s post, edited to remove the text that serves no purpose, or is really stupid:
There! Much better…actually says something and contains no extraneous garbage.
Here are the corrections to Anne’s post: Reasons #1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the list.
If you’d like, I’ll help the rest of you out as you continue to post nonsensical, irrelevant, posts…
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I’ve foiund a few more…as I update the list, I’ll let you know.
So: below is the list of things that you ought to avoid when posting, to save yourself and me time:
(1) stupid
(2) irrelevant
(3) nonsensical
(4) gratuitous insult
(5) racial slur
(6) tries too hard to be clever
(7) I covered it bunch of times before
(8) responds to a post containing these things
(9) wrong on the face of it
(10) statement is unknowable by the one making it. (Important Note: this has several reasons, but one that is extremely common on this blog is: mind reading. Those of you who start a sentence or a phrase, for example, with “White people …” should hear alarm bells going off. You are probably about to say something you can’t possibly know. Since mind reading is a staple of this crowd, I’ll give it its own entry.)
(11) mind reading
(12) pseudo-intellectual poppycock
(13) personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent, meant to prove a point across entire peoples. (This one is much beloved by this crowd too!)
(14) misstates something I said, then draws some conclusion from the erroneous statement. (This one is a big favorite of this crowd too!)
That’s all for now. I suspect I’ll encounter several more as I read and re-read.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Here’s an editing of a post by Matari to take out any substanceless blather that contributes nothing:
Matari said:
There! Now her passage is cleaned up. As a result, it has become identical to Anne’s fixed post.
Here are the corrections to Matari’s post: Reasons #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12.
I’ve helpfully pointed out each one in her text.
See how much time Matari could have saved if she’d actually tried for a coherent post?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
I could, but considering I did not make the claim that I did such thing (and well those posts you imagine I made would speak for themselves) it is not on me to look them up.
Then again you are good at seeing things that are not there. 🙂
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“That’s rich, that last… coming from the crowd whose best and most powerful argument is: ‘You’re a racist!’ And, ‘You’re a liar!'”
I’ve never called you either of those names, but I did catch you in a lie on the “Was Hitler Evil” post.
LikeLike
@ Everyone
Isn’t that nice xpraetorius made a list of all the things he has done on this thread (not sure about the racial slurs though unless I missed something). 🙂
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
It is hardly an evasion to ask whether you are racist: a) Look at the title of this post and b) YOU are the one who is making a big deal of people calling you racist. You know, maybe they are calling you racist because you are. In that case it is not slander but mere observation. Maybe you should take a hint. On the other hand, I do not remember anyone ACTUALLY calling you the R-word. They mostly fault your cluelessness and dishonesty. In my case you misread what I wrote and got your nose twisted out of shape.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
So, are you racist? Why or why not? You still have not answered my question.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
Alright! A not entirely nonsensical post!
First: of course it was an evasion. I asked YOU the same question first. Your evasion consists in reacting to my asking you a question by asking me the same question. However, ok…I’ll bite. Nope; I’m not a racist.
@Abagond, @Abagond, @Abagond…if you really can allow the phrase to come from you, then it’s obvious why you are not moderating this blog in any sense of the word.
Here’s the latest, from Matari: “It’s really a never ending battle here with willfully racist (SUPERIOR WHITES) showing up regularly to roundly dismiss whatever truth, facts and evidence that’s presented to them.”
Here’s a tidbit from Kwamla: “So yes in your own explanations and words you are imbued with the dominant racist beliefs of this Western society and continuing to play your own ignorant part in contributing to its destruction and downfall!”
Ok…you and I both know that there are plenty of other comments filled with the same kind of nitwittery. If, for example, I were to say to you: “Because Bokassa and Amin ate children, then all blacks eat children, then you’d be perfectly accurate to say that I had called you a cannibal — even though you’re not Bokassa or Amin — and you’d be justified in calling me names. However
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ Everyone
Isn’t that nice xpraetorius made a list of all the things he has done on this thread (not sure about the racial slurs though unless I missed something). 🙂
xPraetorius:
Congratulations, Sharina! You have added Reason #15 to edit posts: I know you are but what am I? This is a particular favorite of yours!
So, here’s your post, properly edited for quality control purposes:
Correction reason: #15
There. Your post should have read: “@ Everyone 🙂 ” That would have been a good post.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Why do you say you are not racist?
LikeLike
A little assistance for resw77, who is in need of serious remediation. 🙂
resw77 said:
Correction reasons: #10, 11, 14.
Reason #14 is because I said that the crowd used those nonsensical arguments, not every last individual member of the crowd. Yes, there are individuals who have not called me a racist. The “lie” remark presumes that resw77, can read my intent in saying something. A “lie” is an intentional falsehood. I have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
No, my post read what I wanted it to say, but it is quite disheartening that you are at a grasp at straws point. *smh* 🙂
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
No, my post read what I wanted it to say, but it is quite disheartening that you are at a grasp at straws point. *smh*🙂xPraetorius:
Correction reason: #2
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“This is a particular favorite of yours!”—I have come to realize (quite early on mind you) That what you say I am saying or doing or meaning is usually quite the opposite of what I am saying or doing or meaning.
You accuse me of so much yet have so little proof to show for it. 😦
Anyway Kudos. 🙂
LikeLike
xPraetorius:
Correction reason: #2
You can make all the corrections in the world but it still won’t change facts. Hey maybe before the night is over you will make it to 100. This should be fun. LOL!!! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s like arguing with a teenage who thinks by using sophisticated words make him intelligent. The more xPraetorius comments, the more immature he responds.
Okay. So, xPraetorius doesn’t think he’s a racist. How about we just conclude that he’s a bigot instead. That’s not calling him a racist right? 🙂
LikeLike
I see I missed some text ornamentation in a previous post where I was trying to assist sharina. Here’s the original post:
xPraetorius
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Congratulations, Sharina! You have added Reason #15 to edit posts: I know you are but what am I? This is a particular favorite of yours!
So, here’s your post, truly properly edited for quality control purposes:
Correction reason: #15
There. Your post should have read: “@ Everyone 🙂 ” That would have been a good post.
Best,
– x
My apologies for the confusion. Still new at using the text ornamentation toy. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
A Teenager would be more mature. This is more like the little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and goes “LaLaLaLaLa….I’m not listening.” LOL
I mean I come here for amusement but can’t get any better
LikeLike
And xPraetorius still hasn’t commented on the links to the information I presented. Something tells me he will insert the word ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ in it somewhere. Though after reading this, he may not use those words and just call them stupid, irrelevant, etc. Then again, he may just reject it altogether without his usual arrogance and abrasiveness.
LikeLike
Oh and isn’t that nice. He believes he is trying to help me. ROFL!!!
brb. This needs to go on facebook
LikeLike
Sharina,
I stand corrected. The teenagers I know are way more mature than xPraetorius.
LikeLike
On of my friends is a psychologist so I wanted to get her input on this type of behavior.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
It’s like arguing with a teenage who thinks by using sophisticated words make him intelligent. The more xPraetorius comments, the more immature he responds.
Okay. So, xPraetorius doesn’t think he’s a racist. How about we just conclude that he’s a bigot instead. That’s not calling him a racist right? 🙂
BW’s Corrected Post:
It’s like arguing with a teenage who thinks by using sophisticated words make him intelligent. The more xPraetorius comments, the more immature he responds.(#1,4,6,9)Okay. So, xPraetorius doesn’t think he’s a racist. How about we just conclude that he’s a bigot instead. That’s not calling him a racist right? 🙂(#1,4,5,6,9,10,11,12)Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina
On of my friends is a psychologist so I wanted to get her input on this type of behavior.
Corrected Post:
On of my friends is a psychologist so I wanted to get her input on this type of behavior.(#1,2,4,6)Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
In my view any white person who adheres, without question, to this “standard” way of thinking is imbued with the type of racism I described:
You may not agree with my description but it at least provides you with an identifiable context with which to deduce who I would assume to be racist. You can now judge for yourself whether your own words and behaviour (on this blog) actually fit this context or not.
Could you actually be guilt of standard racism and not know it?
For a definition on “whiteness” listen to Tim Wise explain it very well…
(http://youtu.be/J3Xe1kX7Wsc)
Again, you don’t have to agree with it but it provides you with a much needed context missing from many of your postings. A bit more substantial than much of what you offered so far…
LikeLike
Brotherwolf,
I think it is a severe form of aspergers. In some cases the person cannot relate to other human beings. They also tend to get angry for no reason because they have trouble forming bonds with people. It’s a lack of empathy.
On another note, would you like me to give you pointers on how to get rid of that stray that keeps following you? I think it is getting tired and desperate by now.
Hugs and kisses,
a
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ Brothawolf
A Teenager would be more mature. This is more like the little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and goes “LaLaLaLaLa….I’m not listening.” LOL
I mean I come here for amusement but can’t get any better
Corrected Post:
A Teenager would be more mature. This is more like the little kid that puts his fingers in his ears and goes “LaLaLaLaLa….I’m not listening.” LOLI mean I come here for amusement but can’t get any better (#1,2,3,4,6,8,9)
By the way, to understand her corrections, sharina would say, “The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”
I hope this is helpful.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”—I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL
“I hope this is helpful.”—I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care. 🙂
LikeLike
Anne said:
Her Corrected post:
Brothawolf (spelling corrected)
I think it is a severe form of aspergers. In some cases the person cannot relate to other human beings. They also tend to get angry for no reason because they have trouble forming bonds with people. It’s a lack of empathy.On another note, would you like me to give you pointers on how to get rid of that stray that keeps following you? I think it is getting tired and desperate by now. (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,12)
Hugs and kisses,
a
To understand her corrections, Anne would say to herself, “The post needed to be corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries way too hard to be clever, responds to a stupid post, is wrong on the face of it, contains mind reading and pseudo-intellectual poppycock.
So, Anne’s post properly should have read:
Brothawolf
Hugs and kisses,
a
There…isn’t that a lot better?
Best
— x
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
I have corrected Kwamla’s post to remove the unneeded or the plainly false. Here is the corrected post:
xPraetorius:
First, I’d like to congratulate you on one of the more substantive posts.
Second, it did need some correction, and I have provided it.
Third: Here’s how your corrected post should read:
My reply:
Kwamla: I accept that you believe your first assertion. However there is no such thing, really, as a “standard” way of thinking in any context anywhere. Normally, I’d have edited that out for reason #9, but the rest of yoru post needed context.
Couple quick things. Kwamla and Matari have been offering some stuff that at its worst is pseudo-intellectual hooey (the Dr. Llaila Afrika stuff)…at its best is highly esoteric and did not strike me as anything resembling science, history or real analysis. Matari’s passage from the good Dr. Afrika, frankly, sounded like snake-oil to me. It still does. If it is some highly esoteric (known by few) stuff that is accepted science, then I do indeed plead ignorance. For example: This idea that melanin confers some mystical power to “feel” insincerity and deceitfulness struck me as quite a stretch, and certainly not meaningful as to my contention that “white racism is no a big problem in America anymore.”
Kwamla post has suggested one more editing reason for the posts of these two commenters: #16: resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.
Also, I’ll be happy to view your youtube video. I’ll reserve comment until after having viewed it. I also will have to research Tim Wise before knowing whether he’s a valid source. Dr. Afrika has seemed kind of “out there.” If Mr. Wise is as well, then I will have to suggest that your entire post “resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf
And xPraetorius still hasn’t commented on the links to the information I presented. Something tells me he will insert the word ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ in it somewhere. Though after reading this, he may not use those words and just call them stupid, irrelevant, etc. Then again, he may just reject it altogether without his usual arrogance and abrasiveness.
xPraetorius:
@BW: I have been kind of busy batting back the inanity. I tried to develop a shorthand method for you all to know when you’ve posted something particularly dumb, so that you could know not to do it anymore. Don’t forget I have to wade through a whole passel of muck before I can find the rare nugget of substance.
In other words, I work one whole heckuva lot harder than you in this conversation! 🙂
Please remember: for all the links that you suggest to me, I can suggest others that support my point of view. At that point, you’ll tell me that my source is no good and I’ll say the same to you, and we won’t get anywhere…Dueling videos or links are rarely useful.
However, I will view your links.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Anne,
If you want to. Though, trapping this sociopath is easier said than done apparently.
LikeLike
Brotherwolf,
Not trying to trap anything. Just a matter of watching it implode after getting frustrated. In order for a comment to hurt someone has to bother reading it. If you pay attention, the less the focus is on it, the more the dramatic and insulting the comments. It is grasping for a response. Like shadow boxing.
Also, why the name brotherwolf? Do you actually like dogs?
LikeLike
@Anne
I must say that is very wise.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
Corrected post:
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina’s original post:
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”—I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL
“I hope this is helpful.”—I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care. 🙂
sharina’s Corrected Post:
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”
I see someone can dish but not take. 😦 awww so sad. LOL(#2,6,7,10, )“I hope this is helpful.”
I hope it has come to your attention that I don’t care.(#1,2,6) 🙂The Way sharina’s Post Really Should Have Read:
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.”
“I hope this is helpful.” 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Yawn. Next.
@ Abagond
This is what happens when you allow people to believe what they say is more important that what it is.
LikeLike
correctin than8
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.” “—According to you? Delusional. 🙂
Go ahead correct it. I like it when you try to feel important. 🙂
LikeLike
sharina
@xPraetorius
“The post was corrected because it was stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, contains a gratuitous insult, tries to hard to be clever, responds to another stupid post, and is wrong on the face of it.” “—According to you? Delusional. 🙂
Go ahead correct it. I like it when you try to feel important. 🙂
xPraetorius:
Why? You’re starting to get the point. Your bluster is starting to become less inane.
And, yes, the answer is “According to me. And, of course, according to you if I were to do the same to you.” 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“Why? You’re starting to get the point. Your bluster is starting to become less inane.”—Is that what you have concluded? In most cases the opposite of what you conclude has a better chance of being true. 🙂
I’ll let you in on a little secret…..while you may hurl back insults. I am not one to get upset by them. 🙂 They are just words with no real substantial evidence other than the opinion of a man that does not know me. 🙂
Now do carry on with the 1, 2, whatever. 🙂
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“A ‘lie’ is an intentional falsehood. I have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.”
Perhaps you also have a short memory, or are lying again. Here’s our exchange from the “Was Hitler Evil?” post:
xPraetorius: “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”
resw77: “‘No one tells anyone in any American school “how evil white people were and still are.’ Some kids simply look at the facts and come to their own conclusions…”
xPraetorius: “I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.”
resw77: “Which school is teaching kids that whites are evil? Just one example will suffice.”
xPraetorius: “Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college — all public schools…”
…
xPraetorius: “I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a ‘BALANCED’ treatment.”
resw77: “Let’s not play games here. You clearly said, and I quote, ‘Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly UNBALANCED fashion just how evil white people were and still are.’”
LikeLike
And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been. 🙂
LikeLike
@ resw77
It is more him playing on words. Lie has other definitions and while he is using one to assert what he is saying as true. There are others that would fit into what he is doing.
LikeLike
I sincerely envy you, xPraetorius. You most certainly have a lot of free time on your hands. 😉
LikeLike
@sharina
Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.
Actually he lied twice:
(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and
(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).
LikeLike
@resw77
Then fair enough.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
@resw77: your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between a lie and an error that I admitted along with its correction, do not speak well either for your intellect or your education.
Again, I’ve never once — not once — lied in any of these exchanges. Why don’t you address the issues, instead of trying to read minds.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@sharina
Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.
Actually he lied twice:
(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and
(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).
xPraetorius:
LikeLike
xPraetorius
resw77 said:
@sharina
Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.
Actually he lied twice:
(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and
(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).
xPraetorius:
(sorry, I inadvertently pushed the “Post Comment” button early in the last post.) Since, now you know that I didn’t lie in that exchange, I trust you can drop this particular irrelevant sub-topic, in which you were mistaken.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between a lie and an error…I admitted along with its correction…”
LOL. So you argued with me in error, then made up a story about your school in error? No one buys your BS.
You were caught in your lie and admitted you were wrong. Move on.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@sharina
Using the definition he provided (with which I agree), it is indeed a lie.
Actually he lied twice:
(1) intentionally saying American schools teach an “unbalanced” view (and arguing with me about it) and then denying he ever said it; and
(2) telling me he was taught an unbalanced view in school (which must’ve been a lie since he now says that schools don’t teach an “unbalanced” view).
xPraetorius:
One more thing is true: Since American schools do teach a balanced view of whites — including both the good and the bad — and an unbalanced view of other races — ignoring the bad — then it is perfectly valid to say that American schools teach an unbalanced view. It is further absolutely valid to consider this approach to be propagandistic.
To clarify what I said: I initially said that I had been taught an unbalanced view of Whites, and that I consider that view to be propaganda. I then stated that I disagreed with my own statement for several reasons: (1) Whites have been the majority ethnicity in America for most of its history. (2) It would make sense to provide a more comprehensive and balanced history of whites, than for all ethnicities for sheer practical reasons alone. And (3) whoever called me on it persuaded me of my error. I then accepted the correction. That’s how I recall it. Plainly no lying was involved. In fact, the real story buttresses my point that I’m the only serious commenter here. The rest of you either deflect, call names, insult, evade, avoid and spew bile.
Furthermore, I’ve accepted corrections and clarifications several times. If anyone were to re-read either this thread or the Hitler thread, they would see that I have debated and discussed in good faith.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@xPraetorius
“your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between a lie and an error…I admitted along with its correction…”
LOL. So you argued with me in error, then made up a story about your school in error? No one buys your BS.
You were caught in your lie and admitted you were wrong. Move on.
Corrected Post:
@xPraetorius:
“your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between a lie and an error…I admitted along with its correction…”
LOL. So you argued with me in error, then made up a story about your school in error? No one buys your BS.(#1,2,3,6,10,11)You were caught in your lie and admitted you were wrong. Move on.Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina said:
And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been. 🙂
Corrected Post:
And I know your response is probably going to go like “I am talking about your post and not you…blah blah blah…” My posts or anyone’s post for that matter; will only hold any type of relevance to you if it in fact agrees with your own opinion or is pleasing to you. So it is what it is and I am free to take it with that grain of salt that I have been.(#2,6,7,8,10,11,) 🙂How the post should have read:
🙂
Best:
— x
LikeLike
LOL. I don’t know which is funnier: xPraetorius’ attempts to sell us his BS or the disagreements he has with himself.
If I didn’t think he were a BS artist, I’d swear he were suffering from DID.
LikeLike
sharina said:
@ resw77
It is more him playing on words. Lie has other definitions and while he is using one to assert what he is saying as true. There are others that would fit into what he is doing.
sharina’s Corrected Post:
@ resw77
It is more him playing on words. Lie has other definitions and while he is using one to assert what he is saying as true. There are others that would fit into what he is doing.(7)How her post should have read:
@resw77
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77
LOL. I don’t know which is funnier: xPraetorius’ attempts to sell us his BS or the disagreements he has with himself.
If I didn’t think he were a BS artist, I’d swear he were suffering from DID.
xPraetorius:
At least I’m not suffering from Single-Digit IQ like resw77. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
Yeah yeah yeah. Uhuh. Delusional. Me me me. My way. 🙂
Next.
LikeLike
@resw77
Oh it is all a matter of what he wants it to be vs the reality of the matter. Now that I find funny.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
Changing subjects won’t cover up your lies.
LikeLike
I could put other definitions of lie in here and he would do nothing more than his unimportant corrections, because it is not what he wants it to be. I would actually feel a bit sad for him, but I will save my compassion for people I care about. 🙂
LikeLike
@Sharina
“Oh it is all a matter of what he wants it to be vs the reality of the matter…”
…as he has demonstrated on multiple occasions.
LikeLike
TruthSeeker said:
TS’s Corrected Post
How TS’s post should have read:
Your belief is not a statement of fact,
xPraetorius:
@TS: That is correct: I never said that my belief was a statement of fact. Re-read.
As regards the ad hominem attacks, you are correct. However, you abrogated our agreement, so I merely responded to your ad hominem attack. I’ll quote you: “…Scientology cult member…” Since you used the illegitimate tactic, I was under no obligation to continue to restrain from using it. As regards hypocrisy: whatever. Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. :)”—But you have proven to be all those things so your good. 🙂
I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have. 🙂
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“At least I’m not suffering from Single-Digit IQ like resw77.”
Is that a new disease you made up? Are you going to write another soliloquy to try to convince yourself it’s true?
LikeLike
xPraetorius
It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give.
People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity. You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your whitewashed view of the world, and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny.
But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@xPraetorius
“At least I’m not suffering from Single-Digit IQ like resw77.”
Is that a new disease you made up? Are you going to write another soliloquy to try to convince yourself it’s true?(#1,2,3,6,7)xPraetorius:
I don’t need to convince myself of what I’ve said. I said it because I believed it. You’re really not that bright, are you?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius
It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give.
People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity. You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your whitewashed view of the world, and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny.
But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop.
BW’s corrected post:
xPraetorius
It’s amazing how you continue to talk down to others and expect them to be nice and polite to you. That is not how it works in the real world. You get what you give.(#2,7)People, including myself, have present our truths and information and all you do is shoot them down with insults and harmful criticisms that not display your lack of maturity.(#3,9 [the “truths” presented were mostly only “perceptions, and, usually irrelevant to the topic.])You are being disrespectful to almost everyone on this blog who disagrees with your(#2)whitewashed view of the world,(#3,10,11,12,16)and no one has made you resort to this childish, spoiled brat-like behavior that is a disgraceful. And of course, you’re so deluded in your innocence you don’t see yourself as the cause, but as the victim. Pathetic and pretty funny.(#3,4,10,11,12)But for me, it’s boring. It’s gotten so predictable. I now see how you respond and how you think, thanks to you. You really don’t have a lot of depth or substance, Just the same bigoted, conservative, whitewashed, abrasive, sheltered babble peppered with insults. If I were you, I’d get a new routine. Right now, it’s like watching a week-long marathon of a 13 episode series non-stop.(#1,2,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,16)How BW’s post should read:
xPraetorius
xPraetorius:
Yes?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂 ”—But you have proven to be all those things so your good. 🙂
I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have. 🙂
Sharina’s Corrected Post
@xPraetorius
“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂 ”
—But you have proven to be all those things so your good(#6). 🙂I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have.🙂 (#6)How Sharina’s post should read”
AxPraetorius: 🙂 🙂
My reply:
Thank you, Sharina! 🙂 🙂 right back atcha!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina’s Corrected Post (amended to correct formatting errors)
@xPraetorius
“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂 ”—But you have proven to be all those things so your good (#6). 🙂
I know correction correction, but hey can’t deny truth…oh wait…you can and you have.🙂 (#6)How Sharina’s post should read:
@xPraetorius
“Any hypocrisy, whether imagined or real, doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the validity of my [xPraetorius’] words. Moreover, I’d rather be a hypocrite than an IQ-deprived, whining, self-obsessed, unhinged, scatter-brained, craven poltroon as most on this blog appear to be. 🙂 🙂
My reply:
Thank you, Sharina, I agree! And: 🙂 🙂 right back atcha!
Best,
– x
LikeLike
Praetorius is made up of several individuals. It is now obvious they sent their intellectually weakest to this blog in error since he continues to make a mockery of their group.
I also noticed a significant deterioration in the quality of his (her) posts as this comment section progressed, so I have come to two considerations: (1) he couldn’t substantively answer criticisms of his view or (2) a new Praetorius writer entered the stage. (1) seems far more probable.
Accordingly, the Praetorius group should bar this individual from ever representing them on blogs and forums again. If their group hopes to protect or build their image in the online arena, this is a necessary strategical move.
The current Praetorius writer has been exposed as nothing more than an ideological buffoon who exhibits an embarrassing inability to understand even the most elementary rules of rational discussion. His (her) points have failed nearly every test of critical examination on this blog.
After others debunked and countered his (her) claims under careful scrutiny, this individual, in a painful attempt to save face, has increasingly relied on sophistry and rhetoric. Such a reliance on rhetoric rather than rational justification is a sign that his (her) argument has truly been shattered to pieces.
As a result of this latest behavior, he (she) has proven to be an embarrassment not only to himself (herself) on this site, but also to the very Praetorian cause itself.
At this juncture, the Praetorian group has a damaged image problem: so long as their group persists on agreeing to use this intellectual midget to promote their ideological cause, they risk jeopardizing further attempts to attract visitors to their site, let alone rational discussions.
In conclusion, the Praetorius group should select a far more capable defender to promote their cause on blogs and forums.
I trust the Praetorian group will make the right decision. It is clear to everyone who the intellectual weak link of their group is based on this comment section.
-TruthSeeker
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
You may not know this but this statement of yours in answer to my last response shows up your profound ignorance on the subject and analysis of Racism.
That you could actually believe you could disregard and dismiss my statement:
“…The thing about this Western impositional form of “whiteness” as a standard for everyone to follow socially, culturally, economically, etc… is that it clearly does not work for everyone. It is not a true standard – even though – it is presented as one. But more importantly it is not a natural standard it is an artificially imposed standard. To that extent even the people on who’s culture it is primarily based on – white people – suffer grossly from it too…!
…without even bothering to check out the context I diligently supplied for its basis shows the depth of your deeply held contempt, superiority and arrogance.
You are obviously unable to engage in any REAL dialogue or analysis about Racism. One only has to sit back and reflect on YOUR OWN voluminous outpourings here. Abagond has even given you your own personal thread and what do you have to show for it?
Anyone else clearly would be embarrassed or ashamed to have their own disrespectful and ignorant behaviour highlighted in this way. But apparently not xPraetorius ? 😦
I couldn’t endorse any more what TruthSeeker has to say here:
xPraetorius, (or the group) are in desperate need of a damage limitation strategy. Some how I doubt the intellectual capacities of either will be great or perceptive enough to find and come up with one…
So I suspect the same petulant and prepubescent behaviour that has been on display here will continue…
It really is such a waste of everyone’s concerned time and energy…
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
You still have not answered my question: Why do you think you are not racist?
LikeLike
TruthSeeker
Just for laughs, I have an even more frightening theory. The Praetorius group all have the same mindsets like the conservatives on Fox Group all having a hive mind that favors and protect the rich and a strong belief that Jesus hates the poor, people of color and those who can spell above a 4th grade level.
I may be wrong on the next idea, but maybe – just maybe- there is no group. Perhaps it is just one individual pretending to be a group of people. One deranged, mentally fractured individual with a superiority complex could be behind every blog and comment since day one.
From what I’ve seen, this member has been the only member barking at everyone since he/she dropped in here. I could be wrong though. And this person sounds a lot like the troll who came to bark at one of my own articles, insults and all.
If this is indeed a group of people at work since day one, they all have the same brain, it looks like.
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
Oh dear. You only wish I were those things. Must be so nice to have sich a vivid imagination. 🙂
LikeLike
@Truthseeker
I think they switched up. Frankly the other one was much nicer. Lol
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“I don’t need to convince myself of what I’ve said.”
Well I hope you weren’t trying to convince us b/c we don’t buy your BS.
Please consider a new career.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
BW’s Corrected Post:
How BW’s post should have read:
(Note: I probably should have deleted this one too, for reasons #17, 18 and 19, but then the post would have been empty.)
xPraetorius:
@BW: I am the only member of the Praetorian Writers’ Group to have addressed this group in the past few days.
As I mentioned several times before, my colleague who addressed BW’s moronic post several weeks back was a lady writer from our group. Therefore, to summarize: two members of our group have addressed this group in the past few weeks.
BW has added three more reasons your various posts fly off the mark! Reasons #17, 18 and 19 are: (17) Idle speculation for no relevant purpose, (18) Evasion to avoid addressing the real points, and (19) Doesn’t pass the “So what!” test. In other words: Even if it were true, it doesn’t affect the argument one way or another.
Since these three are constantly coming from this crowd, I’m bemused that I didn’t include them in the first place! Probably the fish-water thing.
An example that covers all three of these might be:
• BW: “blah blah blah blah…”
• Me: “Oh, yeah, well BW’s uglier than a toad!”
BW’s assumed lack of pulchritude is idle speculation to no relevant purpose (#17). Furthermore, my reference to it constitutes evasion in order to avoid addressing the point(s) (18) and even if BW is uglier than a toad, that doesn’t affect the argument one way or another (19).
Important Tip: You all would do a whole lot better if you simply were to apply the “So what!” test to your post before hitting the “Post Comment” button. You’re welcome.
With that said, I don’t know about BW’s relative attractiveness, but a toad certainly thinks better than he does!(Calling myself on Reason #4)@BW: You and the rest of your flat-earther buddies please feel free just to keep coming at me personally, or at my methods, or at my colleagues or at how wise and perceptive you all are, while the many points I made continue to sit there unaddressed by anyone in this assemblage. I’ve never seen so much sneering, self-congratulatory, chest thumping in one place in all my life! (And I’ve been a professional baseball player!) All this while my real points sit serenely by, completely untouched by the slings and arrows you all imagine you’re hurling at them.
This group’s principal argument is, to paraphrase a bit: You said this, and you’re wrong, because you’re white, and that makes you a racist and a liar and an overall bad person, and because I don’t like you and because your mother dresses you funny!
The only ones to avoid this have been Abagond, the King of Reasons #10 and 18, and TruthSeeker, the King of Reasons #4, 6 and 7.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@xPraetorius
“I don’t need to convince myself of what I’ve said.”
Well I hope you weren’t trying to convince us b/c we don’t buy your BS.
Please consider a new career.
xPraetorius:
Lol! @all: Is there really any reason to explain to the rest of you why this post of resw77’s is moronic and meaningless? I mean, other than the fact that all his posts are moronic and meaningless?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetoruis
Aww, getting upset b/c you were caught in multiple lies? Learn from it and move on.
LikeLike
You know what is funny. They always pull out the “it’s because I am white card.” Yet when a black or Asian poster comes in and get similar treatment to them….they are no where to be found. They sit back and watch it all unfold.
So I will applaud those black and asian poster who are mature enough to stand by what they say and whine about how everything is unfair.
LikeLike
Correction* not whine
LikeLike
@xpraetoruis
“You and the rest of your flat-earther buddies please feel free just to keep coming at me personally, or at my methods, or at my colleagues or at how wise and perceptive you all are, while the many points I made continue to sit there unaddressed by anyone in this assemblage. I’ve never seen so much sneering, self-congratulatory, chest thumping in one place in all my life! (And I’ve been a professional baseball player!) All this while my real points sit serenely by, completely untouched by the slings and arrows you all imagine you’re hurling at them.”—The funny part about all this is it was addressed. You are just having a hard time accepting that. Even more so (and I think this is just an identity crisis) is that everything you have decided to criticize and bash people on is nothing more than a reflection of things you have been doing in here pretty much since “Was Hitler Evil.” Trying to direct all this at other people in hopes it will absolve you from your own actions is juvenile.
Your downfall in my respect for you has nothing to do with your view (as there is much we do agree on) or that you are white, but rather because of the following
1.You are a hypocrite
2. You were extremely rude to people who had not previously been rude to you and as such I felt no qualms with treating you and talking to you in the manner I chose.
3. You played victim where you were not. You used this for sympathy and would take advantage of those that decided to be kind to you for this reason.
4. You constantly were rude to others, but expected them to bow at your self importance.
5. You continuously put words in my mouth and proceeded to tell me my thoughts on certain matters. I am sure you will say but I apologized, but an apology is only worth something if the individual seek to remedy the problem which you did not.
6. Playing the race card. I hate it when people do this because it is just ridiculous on all fronts.
7. Even though there are things we do and do not agree on. It is evident from here that my intelligence, in your eyes, depends on how much I agree with you. smh.
One last thing. If you were so worried about your points and having them addressed, then you would bring them up. Instead of going through and deciding to correct peoples post then you would redirect it back to your points, but you never did. For those individuals that did choose to address your points, you simply decided to correct them. Sooo what happened is people just got tired of repeating themselves. You weren’t listening anyway so don’t see the issue here. 🙂
This will be my very last long post as I have been very clear. You and your personalities have a nice day. 🙂
Oh and feel free to make those corrections you love to. Just more validation that you want to hear what you want to hear. 🙂
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
xPraetorius:
First some housekeeping: (1) @Abagond: I’m under no obligation to answer your question, of course, until you answer the question that I posed to you first. However, since I’m apparently the bigger person, I’ll answer your question after this housekeeping. 🙂 (2) @TruthSeeker and @Kwamla: Both your recent posts are beautiful. Perfect examples of the sneering, self-congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual hooey that flies around here like snow in a blizzard, and that all around here apparently accept as “deep thought.” Your perception that your collective fog of irrelevant personal anecdotes, insults, invective, as well as TS’s obsession with my reasoning methods somehow mean you all “debunked and countered my claims” is wrong on the face of it. It really constitutes nothing more than “I don’t like you, you’re stupid, so I’m taking my ball and going home!” Ok. Whatever. And Kwamla’s idea that claims of super powers based on melanin levels constitute relevant argument in this context is just as far off-base as it can be. His further claim that my skepticism in the face of such claims constitutes some kind of bad faith or character on my part is simple and obvious nonsense.
However, your post, along with Kwamla’s will form the basis of a post over at my blog. I hope in the near future, because they are representative.
Now to the answer to Abagond’s question:
No, I am not a racist. Why? I’ve answered this way more than adequately in the past, but I see that Abagaond, who apparently doesn’t read the blog he pretends to moderate is unsatisfied that I have. This allows me to try yet a couple of other approaches with the granite-heads on this blog. 🙂
Here goes: First — the definition of racism that I’m using: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. If you wish to google the phrase, you can find my source. If you disapprove of the definition, you only make the point that there are many beliefs as to what actually constitutes “racism,” and that therefore to call anyone else “wrong” is simply not possible. You can’t determine what’s right and wrong unless you’re arguing about the same thing. 🙂
Second piece of evidence that I’m not a racist: My statement of my actual feelings regarding black people. First, they’re only secondarily “black people,” they’re people first; imbued with all the capabilities, rights, characteristics — good and bad — of … people — in all senses of the word. Second: I hope and pray that all black people have nothing less than happiness, good health, prosperity, and a long, richly rewarding, fulfilling life, crammed with love, laughter, and ceaseless joy; a life free from worry or anxiety of any kind. I see every black person I encounter as a potential friend, whose company I’d enjoy and whose input to my life is potentially rewarding and enriching. This is the way I see all people. Even, and maybe especially, BW and Abagond. TS? Not so much. Kwamla? Sure…but there’s a lot of unwarranted bitterness there, that appears to be caused by adherence to, again, a bunch of pseudo-intellectual hooey.
Those points alone constitute adequate evidence that I’m not a racist. Proof? Of course not. No one can prove what he’s thinking. Now, retorting along the lines of: “Yes you are a racist!” or “You’re lying!” or “You don’t even know you’re a racist!” do not constitute rebuttal. Anyone can just say — and have just said — these things, without any kind of meaningful corroboration.
However, my point is, and has long been, “white racism is no longer a big problem in the USA.”
So, now that I’ve answered Abagond’s question, let’s try something else.
Two somewhat silly (admittedly) hypotheticals to illustrate and draw a contrast: Hypothetical #1: If a genie were to approach all white people in America (let’s say of European ethnicity) and say: “I have a magic button. If I push this button, all black and brown people in America (of African ethnicity — let’s leave other brown or red people out for the moment.) will instantly wink out of existence. Those who disappear will experience no pain, but will simply wink out of existence. I will or will not push the button based on the vote of white people in America. Think carefully about this; the very existence of hundreds of millions of black and brown people in America sits in your hands. I’ll give you a week to think about it. During that week you may go to my web site http://www.genievote.com and vote at any time. Furthermore, you may go in and change your vote at any time. However, the vote in place at the end of the week will be your official vote. YOu may not abstain…you must vote, or you will die.”
Let’s compare predictions. I say: white people will reject the button push by a ratio of roughly 95% – 5%. Furthermore, I predict that less — much less than 1% would vote for the button push on grounds of skin color racism. Of the 5% who would vote for the button push, the vast majority would rationalize their vote by saying that they would be doing black people a favor. This is related to “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” and is, I believe, the <only racism that actually represents a problem among the white population. It’s a big part of the thinking on the part of America’s political left. However, in the interest of speaking of the same thing, for the purposes of this thread, I’ve not spoken much of this seriously big problem. Obviously, any vote “for” the button push would be a profoundly racist act, regardless of the motivation behind the vote.
Now for the big bombshell: 100 years ago, I predict (neat trick, I know, predicting a hypothetical in the past!) that white people in the majority would have voted to push the button in a solid majority, say 65-35. Racism at that time was a serious problem in the white population. However, 60-75 years ago, I predict that vote would have flip-flopped as the reaslization that whites needed to clean up their thinking reached and surpassed critical mass. Again, my prediction (and in partial answer to a question from Abagond some time back.)
Ok…now, reverse the hypothetical. Here’s Hypothetical #2: If a genie were to approach all black and brown people in America (let’s assume of “African” ethnicity) and say: “I have a magic button. If I push this button, all white people in America (of European extraction) will instantly wink out of existence, leaving only you and other non-white people. Those who disappear will experience no pain, but will simply wink out of existence. I will or will not push that button based on the vote of black and brown people (of African origin). Think carefully about this; the very existence of hundreds of millions of white people sits in your hands. I’ll give you a week to think about it. During that week you may go to my web site http://www.genievote.com and vote at any time. Furthermore, you may go in and change your vote at any time. However, the vote in place at the end of the week will be your official vote. YOu may not abstain…you must vote, or you will die.”
Now, how do you think that black people would vote?
I have my predictions, but I’d rather hear yours first.
Now, continue if you would, my thought game; only change it up a bit. Same genie; slightly different question: To white people of European origin in America: “Same question as my original question, only this time black people will suffer pain, humiliation, degradation and abuse for 10 days before they wink out of existence…you must go to the web site and vote, etc., etc., etc.”
Ready for my prediction? White people at that point would vote at a virtual 100% rate against the button push. Some infinitesimal portion would vote “for,” and those people are, of course, racist whackjobs.
Ok: The genie then directs the same hypothetical to black and brown people (again of African origin). She says: “Same question as my original question, only this time white people will suffer pain, humiliation, degradation and abuse for 10 days before they wink out of existence…you must go to the web site and vote, etc., etc., etc…”
How do you think black and brown people would vote? I know how people on this site would vote. They would, of course, reach for the button to push it. But, my question is directed at your assessment of the choice the larger black and brown population would vote.
@TS: go back to your Philadelphia lawyer books and I’m sure you can find some irrelevant procedural thing to object to my hypotheticals, instead of simply addressing them. I’ll save you the effort: Yes, my hypotheticals assume bunches of things, for example: a genie, as well as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” Again, why don’t you try simply to address the points.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina
You know what is funny. They always pull out the “it’s because I am white card.” Yet when a black or Asian poster comes in and get similar treatment to them….they are no where to be found. They sit back and watch it all unfold.
So I will applaud those black and asian poster who are mature enough to stand by what they say and whine about how everything is unfair.
xPraetorius:
I, of course, played no race card. You didn’t come after me because I’m black or asian. Your last sentence was incoherent.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I really don’t think that readers on this blog really conjecture about winking people out of existence. That kind of thinking and action have happened way too much already.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius:
“I, of course, played no race card. You didn’t come after me because I’m black or Asian. Your last sentence was incoherent.”—This is a statement you made ” This group’s principal argument is, to paraphrase a bit: You said this, and you’re wrong, because you’re white.” In this you believe that you are getting the response you are simply because you are white. Thus playing the race card.
Now the sad (and where your personalities need to get in order) is that you quoted what I said and still could not or refused to clearly understand what I said. I never said I came after you because you were black or Asian, but there have been blacks and Asians with similar views as yours visit this blog. They have gotten similar treatment, but they were very dignified and mature in how they chose to handle it.
LikeLike
Correction *and whine not about how everything is unfair.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Now, let’s pick and choose from the cornucopia of sillinesses above:
Sharina:
Your downfall in my respect for you has nothing to do with your view (as there is much we do agree on) or that you are white, but rather because of the following: …
xPraetorius:
I didn’t come here to earn your respect, and your lack of respect for me concerns me not at all, except in that it indicates a character flaw on your part. I am concerned about you…very concerned; but not at all about your opinion of me.
Sharina:
You are a hypocrite
xPraetorius:
Yes, to some extent, and once in a great while. However, that has no effect on the validity of what I say. The people here, on the other hand, are ignorant, poorly educated, insecure, bitter, craven, scalliwags and dastards. I’m glad I’m only occasionally a hypocrite.
Sharina: You were extremely rude to people who had not previously been rude to you and as such I felt no qualms with treating you and talking to you in the manner I chose.
xPraetorius: The very premise of Abagond’s Hitler post — that started this all in the first place — was, at the very least, rude. I was under no obligation to begin with sweetness and light.
Sharina:
You played victim where you were not. You used this for sympathy and would take advantage of those that decided to be kind to you for this reason.
xPraetorius:
Nope. I never claimed to be a victim in a larger sense. Did you all direct hate speech and racial slurs at me? Sure. In that smaller sense I was a victim. In the larger sense, however, I never made such a claim, nor do I make it now. No one here, sharina, “decided to be kind to me,” nor did I ask for it. If you re-read, you’ll see that I suggested that you all apologize for your benefit, in order to clear your consciences a bit. Confession is good for the soul.
Sharina:
You continuously put words in my mouth and proceeded to tell me my thoughts on certain matters. I am sure you will say but I apologized, but an apology is only worth something if the individual seek to remedy the problem which you did not.
xPraetorius:
Plainly not. But, if you wish to believe that, I’m obviously not going to convince you otherwise.
Sharina:
Playing the race card. I hate it when people do this because it is just ridiculous on all fronts.
xPraetorius:
For once we agree! If the people here were unable to play the race card, they’d have nothing to say!
Sharina:
Even though there are things we do and do not agree on. It is evident from here that my intelligence, in your eyes, depends on how much I agree with you. smh.
xPraetorius:
Pay attention to things that simply cancel each other out. You said, “my intelligence, in your eyes, depends on how much I agree with you.” I say, “my intelligence (as well as character, integrity, honesty and all the rest that you accused me of… 🙂 ), in your eyes, depends on how much I agree with you.” So what. They cancel each other out, so the exchange is meaningless.
Sharina:
One last thing. If you were so worried about your points and having them addressed, then you would bring them up. Instead of going through and deciding to correct peoples post then you would redirect it back to your points, but you never did. For those individuals that did choose to address your points, you simply decided to correct them. Sooo what happened is people just got tired of repeating themselves. You weren’t listening anyway so don’t see the issue here. 🙂
xPraetorius:
Congratulations, Sharina! You have added #20 to the list of reasons to correct posts: Saying the same thing back at me that I’ve already said. I’ll wordsmith a bit to get a better reading. Suffice it to say that the people here apparently never recognized the irony of calling me a “broken record” a few hundred times. 🙂
Sharina:
Your downfall in my respect for you has nothing to do with your view (as there is much we do agree on) or that you are white, but rather because of the following: …
xPraetorius:
I didn’t come here to earn your respect, and your lack of respect for me concerns me not at all, except in that it indicates a character flaw on your part. I am concerned about you…very concerned; but not at all about your opinion of me.
Sharina:
This will be my very last long post as I have been very clear.
xPraetorius:
I applaud this decision…it’s long past time for some of the fish to climb out of this barrel!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@xPraetorius:
“I, of course, played no race card. You didn’t come after me because I’m black or Asian. Your last sentence was incoherent.”—This is a statement you made ” This group’s principal argument is, to paraphrase a bit: You said this, and you’re wrong, because you’re white.” In this you believe that you are getting the response you are simply because you are white. Thus playing the race card.
Now the sad (and where your personalities need to get in order) is that you quoted what I said and still could not or refused to clearly understand what I said. I never said I came after you because you were black or Asian, but there have been blacks and Asians with similar views as yours visit this blog. They have gotten similar treatment, but they were very dignified and mature in how they chose to handle it.
xPraetorius:
Ummm…, sharina? You’ll note that I didn’t claim that you said you came after me because I’m asian or black. Hello! But you — and others — did come after me because I’m white. Didn’t you mention that you had finished posting? 🙂
(and, with that, I think I just got you to come back. Let’s see…:) )
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Sharina
xpraetorius: “The very premise of Abagond’s Hitler post — that started this all in the first place — was, at the very least, rude. I was under no obligation to begin with sweetness and light.”
Maybe you were right about xpraetorius reading in anger…and he still doesn’t seem to quite understand Abagond’s post.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“I didn’t come here to earn your respect, and your lack of respect for me concerns me not at all, except in that it indicates a character flaw on your part”—Isn’t it great that I don’t look to you to determine who I am. 🙂
“Yes, to some extent, and once in a great while. However, that has no effect on the validity of what I say. The people here, on the other hand, are ignorant, poorly educated, insecure, bitter, craven, scalliwags and dastards. I’m glad I’m only occasionally a hypocrite.”—If by once in a while you mean the majority of the posts. Validity of what you say hmmm… do you even know the validity of what you say or is it this belief thing that encompass reading minds. 🙂
“The very premise of Abagond’s Hitler post — that started this all in the first place — was, at the very least, rude. I was under no obligation to begin with sweetness and light.”—Frankly I don’t remember saying you were but I did say don’t expect friendly demeanor either (which oddly you are asserting you should get). 🙂
“Did you all direct hate speech and racial slurs at me? Sure. “—Where is my hate speech or racial slurs? You have accused me of much but when asked to provide proof you decided to make childish remarks in line of name calling and I respond in kind. 🙂
“I applaud this decision…it’s long past time for some of the fish to climb out of this barrel! “—You know it would be so nice if you pretended to comprehend something that was written to you. Read carefully “This will be my very last long post as I have been very clear.” Emphasis on the VERY and LONG. 🙂
Look at that. I made a long post. Better luck next time.
LikeLike
jefe said:
xPraetorius:
I kind of figured that there would be general non-engagement on the topic. That, by itself, is telling.
However, no public engagement is necessary. You’ll note that I called it a “thought exercise.” Hopefully — don’t mistake the purpose of the thought exercise, as TS surely will — the engagement will happen in your brains.
I told Kwamla what that purpose was already, but, I think a short story will illustrate it better.
I never use any foul language, dirty words or cuss words. Nor do I ever swear. Nor do I allow it in my house. I wasn’t always this way, but when I became a daddy, some 22 years ago, I gave up the practice. My eldest child is my 19-year old daughter for whose generation such coarseness of language is casually commonplace.
When she invites friends over to our place, she and the friends always know that they need to watch as much how they express themselves as what they say. Yesterday, my daughter said to me, “You know, Daddy, the use of foul language in my peer group is very much accepted and common. You need to take that into account.” I told her, “I know that, Honey, but my purpose was to show you that there are other alternatives for self-expression. In presenting you with other alternatives, by definition I also invite you to compare the alternatives and assess which you find better for whatever reasons (effectiveness, clarity, power, impact, etc.). Nothing more.” And that was, indeed, my purpose.
Now, where other parents may not have presented these other alternatives to self-expression to their children, I think they’re handicapping their children in the very realm of self-expression — language — that is most crucial to our interactions with all other people — and peoples.
Something like that is (one of) my purpose(s) in hanging in there with all the hypocritical race-baiters, the self-righteous blatherskites and the pompous windbags in this group. 🙂 Believe me, the fact that I haven’t convinced you of anything — at least not publicly — is of little importance to me. I know I’ve planted some “thought exercise” seeds in your collective concrete noggins, and softened that concrete just a little. No need to admit it publicly, that’s just fine. In fact, please feel free to deny it vehemently and loudly, and to call me all manner of idiot, scoundrel, bounder and whatever. Or, feel free to do the usual, “he’s-just-not-worth-the-time-and-effort” thing that is so indicative of being just out of gas. But, here is a simple fact: I’ve made you think. If you read the amen chorus that generally greets Abagond’s posts, then it’s difficult not to conclude that you’ve been letting Abagond and, likely, other pseudo-intellectual crackpots and windbags, do your thinking for you for quite some time now.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Ummm…, sharina? You’ll note that I didn’t claim that you said you came after me because I’m asian or black. Hello! “—I will apologize for that error but your error is that I did not come after you because you were white because how am I suppose to know you are white?
On the open thread I made a post stating clearly that I did not know whether you were a black woman or a white man, but you claimed to be a black woman on brothawolf’s post. So that blows your claim right out of that water. It has nothing to do with you being white, but play that race card for what it is worth.
“Didn’t you mention that you had finished posting? “—Nope. Just something else you reread to mean what you want it to mean.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“I didn’t come here to earn your respect, and your lack of respect for me concerns me not at all, except in that it indicates a character flaw on your part”—Isn’t it great that I don’t look to you to determine who I am. 🙂 [My reply: Yes, that is indeed great.]
“Yes, to some extent, and once in a great while. However, that has no effect on the validity of what I say. The people here, on the other hand, are ignorant, poorly educated, insecure, bitter, craven, scalliwags and dastards. I’m glad I’m only occasionally a hypocrite.”—If by once in a while you mean the majority of the posts. Validity of what you say hmmm… do you even know the validity of what you say or is it this belief thing that encompass reading minds. 🙂 [My reply: Not sure what you mean here.]
“The very premise of Abagond’s Hitler post — that started this all in the first place — was, at the very least, rude. I was under no obligation to begin with sweetness and light.”—Frankly I don’t remember saying you were but I did say don’t expect friendly demeanor either (which oddly you are asserting you should get). 🙂 [My reply: Nope. Again, if you re-read, you’ll see that I attacked only the post’s content. I was greeted with a bunch of personal attacks, which, I pretty much expected..]
“Did you all direct hate speech and racial slurs at me? Sure. “—Where is my hate speech or racial slurs? You have accused me of much but when asked to provide proof you decided to make childish remarks in line of name calling and I respond in kind. 🙂 [My reply: By “you all,” I plainly meant the collective “you.” There were individual exceptions.]
“I applaud this decision…it’s long past time for some of the fish to climb out of this barrel! “—You know it would be so nice if you pretended to comprehend something that was written to you. Read carefully “This will be my very last long post as I have been very clear.” Emphasis on the VERY and LONG. 🙂 [My reply: Drat! The wiggle room! (However, the wiggle room is only in the word “long,” not in the word “very.” 🙂 )]
Look at that. I made a long post. Better luck next time. [My reply: Double drat! 🙂 ]
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ resw77
“Maybe you were right about xpraetorius reading in anger…and he still doesn’t seem to quite understand Abagond’s post.”—I was surprised how many posters do it though.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ resw77
“Maybe you were right about xpraetorius reading in anger…and he still doesn’t seem to quite understand Abagond’s post.”—I was surprised how many posters do it though.
Her corrected post:
@ resw77
“Maybe you were right about xpraetorius reading in anger…and he still doesn’t seem to quite understand Abagond’s post.”—I was surprised how many posters do it though.(#2,6,8,10,17)How her post should read:
@resw77
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Yes, that is indeed great.”—I know right! 🙂
“Not sure what you mean here.”—Figures. 🙂
“Nope. Again, if you re-read, you’ll see that I attacked only the post’s content. I was greeted with a bunch of personal attacks, which, I pretty much expected.”—Still don’t get it or either still trying to wiggle out of this. whichever. 🙂
“By “you all,” I plainly meant the collective “you.” There were individual exceptions.”—Fair enough. 🙂
“Drat! The wiggle room! (However, the wiggle room is only in the word “long,” not in the word “very.”—uh huh. 🙂
“Double drat!”—Indeed. 🙂
As to the post you decided to correct. *shrugs* 🙂
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“Ummm…, sharina? You’ll note that I didn’t claim that you said you came after me because I’m asian or black. Hello! “—I will apologize for that error [My reply: Holy mackerel! Please give me a moment to pick myself up off the floor. the words “I will apologize” came from someone in this group! Whoo hoo! I have to go out to see if I can spot some flying pigs and check the temperature of hell. On second thought, BW can check the temperature of hell, because apparently he lives there. 🙂 ] but your error is that I did not come after you because you were white because how am I suppose to know you are white? [My reply: Because I said so several times.]
On the open thread I made a post stating clearly that I did not know whether you were a black woman or a white man, [My reply: Not sure I remember that post. Did I reply? ] but you claimed to be a black woman on brothawolf’s post. [My reply: No, my colleague, a black woman, claimed to be a black woman on BW’s post. That’s a good thing because she is a black woman.] So that blows your claim right out of that water. [My reply: Uhhhh… are you trying to make the claim that my colleague is not a black woman? You’d have a really tough time making that case anywhere without meeting with general derision. I suspect even BW would chuckle at you.] It has nothing to do with you being white, but play that race card for what it is worth. [My reply: It had everything to do with me being white. Please refer to Matari’s “Dr. Llaila Afrika” post, which, I might add, was rejected by no one on this blog, despite repeated questions from me as whether she and others really believed it]
“Didn’t you mention that you had finished posting? “—Nope. Just something else you reread to mean what you want it to mean. [My reply: Nope. I saw the wiggle room immediately. I was hoping only that you had misspoken.]
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Sharina
“On the open thread I made a post stating clearly that I did not know whether you were a black woman or a white man, but you claimed to be a black woman on brothawolf’s post. So that blows your claim right out of that water. ”
Looks like you caught him in yet another lie, and he conveniently used his “xpraetorius is a our generic ID” lie to cover it up.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Holy mackerel! Please give me a moment to pick myself up off the floor. the words “I will apologize” came from someone in this group! Whoo hoo! I have to go out to see if I can spot some flying pigs and check the temperature of hell”—-This is funny considering this is (according to you) not the first time I have apologized. So are you ready to admit that error? 🙂
“Not sure I remember that post. Did I reply?”—You did. 🙂
“No, my colleague, a black woman, claimed to be a black woman on BW’s post. That’s a good thing because she is a black woman”—Must you always try to play on words. You all are the same people right using the same user name?
“Uhhhh… are you trying to make the claim that my colleague is not a black woman?”—And where did I make the claim she wasn’t? Are you attempting to tell me what I meant for umpteenth time?
“You’d have a really tough time making that case anywhere without meeting with general derision. I suspect even BW would chuckle at you”—Or I can just chuckle at the deflection attempts you are making. 🙂
“It had everything to do with me being white. Please refer to Matari’s “Dr. Llaila Afrika” post, which, I might add, was rejected by no one on this blog, despite repeated questions from me as whether she and others really believed it”—Actually someone did (this was you see what you want to again). I on the other hand ignored it because I can not provide input on inforamtion I have not read and am just not aware of. So how does this “Dr. Llaila Afrika” support the idea that I responded to you simply because you were white?
“Nope. I saw the wiggle room immediately. I was hoping only that you had misspoken.”—Too bad huh? 🙂
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@Sharina
“On the open thread I made a post stating clearly that I did not know whether you were a black woman or a white man, but you claimed to be a black woman on brothawolf’s post. So that blows your claim right out of that water. ”
Looks like you caught him in yet another lie, and he conveniently used his “xpraetorius is a our generic ID” lie to cover it up.
xPraetorius:
But, what would you say if xPraetorius actually is our generic id? Is your mind that limited that you can’t envision that possibility, or are you so consumed with blind contempt that you can’t envision any possibility other than that I might be lying. Here’s another thing. I’m juggling some 15 or so of you chowderheads…if I don’t express myself absolutely-perfectly-to-your-exacting-specifications-and-satisfaction, then it doesn’t mean I’m lying. Duh!
resw77…you need to go on over to IQ’s-R-Us and pick up a few points; you’re running really low. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
@ xPraetorius
“Holy mackerel! Please give me a moment to pick myself up off the floor. the words “I will apologize” came from someone in this group! Whoo hoo! I have to go out to see if I can spot some flying pigs and check the temperature of hell”—-This is funny considering this is (according to you) not the first time I have apologized. So are you ready to admit that error? 🙂 [My reply: Sure, if I was wrong. However, this is an inconsequential, but fun, side conversation. So, if you want to admit that you apologized several times, I’m ok with that.]
“Not sure I remember that post. Did I reply?”—You did. 🙂 [My reply: Sorry…still don’t remember it. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong though. However, my colleague who is a black woman, is, indeed, a black woman. I’m sure I indicated something to that effect in my reply?]
“No, my colleague, a black woman, claimed to be a black woman on BW’s post. That’s a good thing because she is a black woman”—Must you always try to play on words. You all are the same people right using the same user name? [My reply: In the BW threads, xPraetorius was my colleague who is a black woman. In the Abagond threads, it’s been only me, the big white dude.]
“Uhhhh… are you trying to make the claim that my colleague is not a black woman?”—And where did I make the claim she wasn’t? Are you attempting to tell me what I meant for umpteenth time? [My reply: Nope. Sharina: Contrary to what you seem to think. when you mistakenly think that I’m telling you what you’re thinking, it doesn’t mean I’m telling you what you think. Got it? 🙂 🙂 🙂 ]
“You’d have a really tough time making that case anywhere without meeting with general derision. I suspect even BW would chuckle at you”—Or I can just chuckle at the deflection attempts you are making. 🙂 [My reply: Or the deflection you think I’m trying to make. 🙂 ]
“It had everything to do with me being white. Please refer to Matari’s “Dr. Llaila Afrika” post, which, I might add, was rejected by no one on this blog, despite repeated questions from me as whether she and others really believed it”—Actually someone did (this was you see what you want to again). I on the other hand ignored it because I can not provide input on inforamtion I have not read and am just not aware of. So how does this “Dr. Llaila Afrika” support the idea that I responded to you simply because you were white? [My reply: It doesn’t. ]
“Nope. I saw the wiggle room immediately. I was hoping only that you had misspoken.”—Too bad huh? 🙂 [My reply: Yep. ]
Best,
— x
LikeLike
So, sharina, resw77, jefe…which buttons would you push?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“But, what would you say if xPraetorius actually is our generic id?”
LOL. “xPraetorius” is so generic that it is a “largish white dude” from Connecticut.
“you chowderheads”
I guess you forgot that you chastised others for supposedly calling names: “I’m the only serious commenter here. The rest of you either deflect, call names, insult, evade, avoid and spew bile.” That sounds quite hypocritical.
And remember you also said: “If you keep calling names, it simply underscores the weakness of everything else you say.”
For once, I agree with you.
LikeLike
resw77
@xpraetorius
“But, what would you say if xPraetorius actually is our generic id?”
LOL. “xPraetorius” is so generic that it is a “largish white dude” from Connecticut.
“you chowderheads”
I guess you forgot that you chastised others for supposedly calling names: “I’m the only serious commenter here. The rest of you either deflect, call names, insult, evade, avoid and spew bile.” That sounds quite hypocritical.
And remember you also said: “If you keep calling names, it simply underscores the weakness of everything else you say.”
For once, I agree with you.
xPraetorius:
Again, you haven’t been paying attention. Re-read. I said several times that if others were not going to prevent themselves from calling me names and engaging in personal attacks, then I would not feel obliged to restrain myself. It is demonstrable that if you are polite to me, I’ll be polite to you; a principal to which I made an overt commitment in these very pages several times. I have never failed to adhere to that principal. Again, please pay attention. You haven’t posted anything actually relevant that I can recall. Is from that a lack of IQ, or just laziness?
Try this: Which button would you push? Can you come up with a thoughtful reply, or are you going to ignore or bloviate?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“I said several times that if others were not going to prevent themselves from calling me names and engaging in personal attacks”
I never called you any names or personally attacked you. I merely pointed out your lies, and you responded by calling me names and personally attacking me. But of course you don’t remember that.
“You haven’t posted anything actually relevant that I can recall.”
Of course you can’t recall. But, this is an irrelevant post about an irrelevant person…I mean “think tank”
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Sure, if I was wrong. However, this is an inconsequential, but fun, side conversation. So, if you want to admit that you apologized several times, I’m ok with that”—Do notice the “according to you.” 🙂
“Sorry…still don’t remember it. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong though. However, my colleague who is a black woman, is, indeed, a black woman. I’m sure I indicated something to that effect in my reply?”—You did but like I said to you before…don’t know her or you from Adam and Eve.
“In the BW threads, xPraetorius was my colleague who is a black woman. In the Abagond threads, it’s been only me, the big white dude”—See above response. Thank you 🙂
“Nope. Sharina: Contrary to what you seem to think. when you mistakenly think that I’m telling you what you’re thinking, it doesn’t mean I’m telling you what you think. Got it?”—-A simply yes or no would have done nicely. 🙂
“Or the deflection you think I’m trying to make.”—-It is a matter of you making a claim and now trying to avoid addressing it, so you are free to choose another word other than deflection but that is what it appears to be. 🙂
” It doesn’t.”—Good to know.
“So, sharina, resw77, jefe…which buttons would you push?”—And by buttons you mean?
LikeLike
“It is demonstrable that if you are polite to me, I’ll be polite to you”—Is that why you personally attacked poetess who was not even talking to you?
LikeLike
Tl;dr
LikeLike
I wonder what I have to do to get an entire post dedicated to me and have all the commenters running to respond to everything I said. Is this white privilege at work?
LikeLike
Sharina said:
(quoting me) “It is demonstrable that if you are polite to me, I’ll be polite to you”
Sharina’s reply:
Is that why you personally attacked poetess who was not even talking to you?I always find it funny that certain white people believe seriously that calling out injustice is being divisive or spreading injustice.
My reply:
Poetess’ quote was: “I always find it funny that certain white people believe seriously that calling out injustice is being divisive or spreading injustice.” Her post then continued in that vein. If in this thread — supposedly “dedicated to me” — that’s not talking about me, then one would think that someone who calls herself “Poetess” would be able to express herself better.
For your reference, I’ve reproduced her entire post, with needed corrections, below:
poetess said:
Presumably, you noted where she called me a racist. (For your reference, her quote is: “If you are a white person in America, you can’t help but hold racist ideas.”)
After that moronic, racist screed, poetess deserved a really good verbal comeuppance. I hope I gave her one.
@Sharina: I love you, but you’re flailing…
Best,
— x
LikeLike
“It is demonstrable that if you are polite to me, I’ll be polite to you”
Now that’s rich. You’ve never been polite since this whole show started.
This person is either too slow or too much in denial of his behavior.
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
“It is demonstrable that if you are polite to me, I’ll be polite to you”
Now that’s rich. You’ve never been polite since this whole show started.
This person is either too slow or too much in denial of his behavior.
xPraetorius:
Again, I have been unfailingly polite with all who have been polite with me. BW, you have hardly been any kind of example of politeness.
Sooooooooooo…which button would you push?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Anne
Tl;dr
xPraetorius:
yaai;aymdyf – pdq
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@solesearch
“I wonder what I have to do to get an entire post dedicated”
Apparently just write a bunch of soliloquies about nothing, make multiple contradictory statements, tell lies, chastise people for doing what you are doing, and don’t forget to harass and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.
LikeLike
There are many reasons I don’t like -x , for example, he LOVES Ann Coulter. Then there is his comment on his blog about how the best thing to happen to Blacks is being brought to the US as slaves. -x also commented on his blog that he believes that George Zimmerman gave Trayvon Martin immortality, just to name of few of the weird twists he dreams up on his collective group think tank. Just thinking about -x being part of a think tank addressing issues of race is, well, ridiculous.
Now if -x was so informed and super intelligent as he likes to think he is, how is that he never even heard of Tim Wise, you would think that someone with such incredible and extensive knowledge would have picked up a couple of books and read them. LOL!!!
Even no-slappz would know who Tim Wise is.
The implosion should be interested though.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Presumably, you noted where she called me a racist”—Presumably you noticed that she said “certain white people.” So from this I can conclude that you believe that you are white people. I further noted she said “Racist Ideas” and “You do not have to be donning a Klansman’s hood to be a racist or hold those attitudes.”
So the real question is…if you don’t think you are a racist then why pray tell does it matter about the “certain white people” she was talking about?
Now sadly you missed her further going on to say…”Good white people, even my own husband, have racist beliefs and slip up from time to time with some racist BS.”
” I love you, but you’re flailing”—Only in your mind, but then again the opposite is usually true in your case.
LikeLike
vanishing point said:
There are many reasons I don’t like -x , for example, he LOVES Ann Coulter. Then there is his comment on his blog about how the best thing to happen to Blacks is being brought to the US as slaves. -x also commented on his blog that he believes that George Zimmerman gave Trayvon Martin immortality, just to name of few of the weird twists he dreams up on his collective group think tank. Just thinking about -x being part of a think tank addressing issues of race is, well, ridiculous.
Now if -x was so informed and super intelligent as he likes to think he is, how is that he never even heard of Tim Wise, you would think that someone with such incredible and extensive knowledge would have picked up a couple of books and read them. LOL!!!
Even no-slappz would know who Tim Wise is.
The implosion should be interested though.
vanishing point’s corrected post:
There are many reasons I don’t like -x , for example, he LOVES Ann Coulter. Then there is his comment on his blog about how the best thing to happen to Blacks is being brought to the US as slaves. -x also commented on his blog that he believes that George Zimmerman gave Trayvon Martin immortality, just to name of few of the weird twists he dreams up on his collective group think tank. Just thinking about -x being part of a think tank addressing issues of race is, well, ridiculous.(#1,2,3,4,6,7,8,10,14,17,18,21)Now if -x was so informed and super intelligent as he likes to think he is, how is that he never even heard of Tim Wise, you would think that someone with such incredible and extensive knowledge would have picked up a couple of books and read them. LOL!!!(#1,2,3,4,9,10,12,14,18,22)Even no-slappz would know who Tim Wise is.(1,2,3,4,10,)The implosion should be interested though.(#1,2,3,6) (Presumably vp meant “interesting.” It’s likely that implosions cannot be “interested,” except figuratively.)Here’s how vanishing’s post should have read:
[no valid content to display]
Best,
— x
That reminds me of an update I forgot to pass along. Both poetess and vanishing point surfaced another reason to edit posts in order to remove extraneous or illegitimate text from your posts. Number 22 is: Why? Because you say so? Who the heck are you to make that determination? I inaugurated #22 with poetess, but vp got a reference too.
Below is the list of things that you ought to avoid when posting, to save yourself and me time:
(1) stupid
(2) irrelevant
(3) nonsensical
(4) gratuitous insults
(5) racial slurs
(6) tries too hard to be clever
(7) I covered it bunch of times before
(8) responds to a post containing these silly things
(9) wrong on the face of it
(10) statement is unknowable by the one making it. (Important Note: this has several reasons, but one that is extremely common on this blog is: mind reading. Those of you who start a sentence or a phrase, for example, with “White people …” should hear alarm bells going off. You are probably about to say something you can’t possibly know. Since mind reading is a staple of this crowd, I’ll give it its own entry.)
(11) mind reading
(12) pseudo-intellectual poppycock
(13) personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent, meant to prove a point across entire peoples. (This one is much beloved by this crowd too!)
(14) misstates something I said, then draws some conclusion from the erroneous statement. (This one is a big favorite of this crowd too!)
(15) I know you are but what am I
(16) resorts to esoteric sources and information whose validity can’t be verified in the context of this blog conversation.
(17) Idle speculation for no relevant purpose
(18) Evasion to distract from addressing the real points
(19) Even if it were true, it doesn’t affect the argument one way or another. Shorthand: So what!
(20) Says the same thing I said right back at me.
(21) Personal sentiment irrelevant to the topic.
(22) Why? Because You say so? Who the heck are YOU to make that determination?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Anne
Tl;dr
xPraetorius:
Oh, Anne…I’m guessing that sums up a lot of your life. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
vanishing point said: “Even no-slappz would know who Tim Wise is.”
xPraetorius:
No particular reason I should have heard of a guy who appears to be a typical b-list, member of the race grievance industry.
@vp: contrary to your understanding, there’s no reason to think that everyone has encountered the same inputs you have. From your post, I’d guess you’d never heard of Thomas Sowell and a long list of great thinkers who very effectively counter the thinking of Mr. Wise.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius , you are never gone to sway an audience by saying I am smarter than you. Falling into name calling is a dumb man’s game. Your own words and wit should provide you with all you need. Yet, to make a sweeping accusation will not give you what you seek. Stay in debate mode not playground mode and might find people are more impressed with what you say. I will not say you have to be on the majority side of anything but you should at least be able to look back at your own words and have your children or grandchildren read them.
You don’t see racism that is fine. Not everyone does, I personally think this happens because they have never really been on the receiving end. This is not a bad thing in itself but it does skew a point of view. I can tell you wholesale that in the 80’s and 90’s I experience enough racism to let me know it was there. I think one of Chicago’s biggest problems were those imaginary color lines. The other was telling a certain section of people there was no money while another section got Magnet Schools and other programs. Basing the schools pay on property value and lowering property values of minorities (that gives two messages one for the adults no matter what we try we cannot get better education for our kids. The other message is for the kids we are being shafted why try if you truly need education but even your best cannot compete with the schools who get more funding.)
xPraetorius, if you truly are more than one person then reign in those who fall into name calling. You will never move ahead if you go tit-for-tat in a name calling war. Discuss, your points move on to why and if you can’t convince someone move on from it and just tell them you disagree and it is fine if they disagree with you. Not everyone agrees with me and that is fine but I definitely would not find myself writing too much on someone’s blog who thinks I am an idiot.
LikeLike
@ King of Trouble
He thinks he is changing something or making people think, but the only real person who has really made me think is trojan pam. I don’t agree with everything she says, but she has really made some outstanding points.
LikeLike
Anybody else think this guy or these people are posting more here than on their own blog? LOL, oh Abagond, you gave this guy something he couldn’t get on his own, and audience.
LikeLike
King of Trouble said:
xPraetorius:
Bottom line: KoT: I disagree with much of what you said and agree with much of what you said. You made your points politely and I responded politely. It doesn’t change the fact that the “Hitler” post was a scurrilous attempt to equate HItler with white people and white people with Hitler. My response to the irresponsible insinuations in the post was, let’s say, strident. It was probably too tame. It deserved stronger.
Too bad, the others in this crowd couldn’t have the same class!
There! A worthy post from KoT! Much nicer in tone! And worthy of a polite, respectful response.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Abagond and everyone,
I mean no offense, but xPraetorius is f**king with us. And it seems like he/they are enjoying it -judging by the number of smiley emoticons he leaves in his comments – so much because he got an audience that is willing and patient to put up with his cyberbullying.
It’s obvious he/they are not serious about this blog or any other anti-racism blog. Hence, he refers to us as race-baiters and members of the race grievance industry. He seriously thinks that we are just pimping out on oppression which he says doesn’t exist.
xPraetorius is not, nor has he/they ever been interested in learning, let alone discussing anything that matters to us. The only thing he is interested in is shoving his whiteness into our conversation. We all know he is a sad excuse for a human being for a number of reasons, but he/they are trying to pretend (assuming he is pretending) he is the innocent victim. He doesn’t want to admit that he is a problem.
For some reason, xPraetorius seems more interested in my and Abagond’s blog. He/They may have trolled in others, but it’s clear he thinks our purpose is a load of bull, and he/they seem quite proud in condemning others just because they have the nerve to talk about race.
Yes, he/they will shift the blame back onto us. He/They will read this message, will cross the words out and label – using his arrogant list – everything wrong according to him. He/They sees this as a game, and we are helping him play it by giving him/them the attention that all spoiled bratty children cry for. And I called him/them spoiled and bratty because his/their comments present themselves as such. Of course, he/they will deny it.
I’ve seen people, like this xPrae. They go around starting crap and will deny ever starting it. We all know that if this was real life, xPrae would not behave like this. That’s what makes it even more sad.
I would tell him/them what I really think, but I respect and admire Abagond’s blog too much to sink low enough to tell xPrae what he/they can do to him/themselves. Plus, I’ve wasted way too much time and energy on this fool, and with all due respect, so have you all. At first it was amusing, but it’s gotten old and stale. There are way more important issues to concentrate on, way more events going on that we need to address that are more important than this. He’s/They’re not even arguing anymore. He’s/They’re basically drowning and enjoying his mental suicide, and I won’t go down with him.
In all I’ve had enough of drones like xPrae. XPrae is nothing more than a white conservative, racist, immature maniac, or group of said maniacs, and I’ve closed the chapter on this fool.
xPrae, this blog and my blog were made by blacks for blacks and other POC. We didn’t make them for for the likes of you. If you don’t like it, you can…(censored)
Bye.
LikeLike
Gen said:
Anybody else think this guy or these people are posting more here than on their own blog? LOL, oh Abagond, you gave this guy something he couldn’t get on his own, and audience.
xPraetorius:
As regards audience, Gen, you have no idea…Abagond is getting some exposure I’ll bet he never thought he could obtain…and it ain’t about the numbers…it’s about the positions occupied by the people now reading his blog posts. Didn’t anyone every teach you it’s quality, not quantity? You keep you eyes on the broadcast media, and you’ll start to see just what reach I’m bringing to Abagond all the way over from my lil’ ol’ blog. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf
Abagond and everyone,
I mean no offense, but xPraetorius is f**king with us. And it seems like he/they are enjoying it -judging by the number of smiley emoticons he leaves in his comments – so much because he got an audience that is willing and patient to put up with his cyberbullying.
It’s obvious he/they are not serious about this blog or any other anti-racism blog. Hence, he refers to us as race-baiters and members of the race grievance industry. He seriously thinks that we are just pimping out on oppression which he says doesn’t exist.
xPraetorius is not, nor has he/they ever been interested in learning, let alone discussing anything that matters to us. The only thing he is interested in is shoving his whiteness into our conversation. We all know he is a sad excuse for a human being for a number of reasons, but he/they are trying to pretend (assuming he is pretending) he is the innocent victim. He doesn’t want to admit that he is a problem.
For some reason, xPraetorius seems more interested in my and Abagond’s blog. He/They may have trolled in others, but it’s clear he thinks our purpose is a load of bull, and he/they seem quite proud in condemning others just because they have the nerve to talk about race.
Yes, he/they will shift the blame back onto us. He/They will read this message, will cross the words out and label – using his arrogant list – everything wrong according to him. He/They sees this as a game, and we are helping him play it by giving him/them the attention that all spoiled bratty children cry for. And I called him/them spoiled and bratty because his/their comments present themselves as such. Of course, he/they will deny it.
I’ve seen people, like this xPrae. They go around starting crap and will deny ever starting it. We all know that if this was real life, xPrae would not behave like this. That’s what makes it even more sad.
I would tell him/them what I really think, but I respect and admire Abagond’s blog too much to sink low enough to tell xPrae what he/they can do to him/themselves. Plus, I’ve wasted way too much time and energy on this fool, and with all due respect, so have you all. At first it was amusing, but it’s gotten old and stale. There are way more important issues to concentrate on, way more events going on that we need to address that are more important than this. He’s/They’re not even arguing anymore. He’s/They’re basically drowning and enjoying his mental suicide, and I won’t go down with him.
In all I’ve had enough of drones like xPrae. XPrae is nothing more than a white conservative, racist, immature maniac, or group of said maniacs, and I’ve closed the chapter on this fool.
xPrae, this blog and my blog were made by blacks for blacks and other POC. We didn’t make them for for the likes of you. If you don’t like it, you can…(censored)
Bye.
xPraetorius:
I’d correct your post, BW, but just imagine a bunch of strikeout, with the one most important reason being #7 — I’ve covered all that before. Obviously, the post is rife with most of the rest of the “reasons there was no reason to post this post.” Whatever, BW. You go pretend that all your beliefs and ideas are absolutely current and up-to-date. You really should call yourself BrothaDinosaur…that’s how outdated your thinking, if such it can be called, is.
However, with BW’s last passage — “xPrae, this blog and my blog were made by blacks for blacks and other POC. We didn’t make them for for the likes of you.” — I guess I can rest my case. That does sum up nicely the attitude that I’ve read on your and Abagond’s blog.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Praetorius, I need your sagacious advice with a personal problem. Oh great white all knowing bwana, what is better for constipation? Ex-lax or Metamucil? How about gaseous anomalies which I suffer from whilst attempting to read your posts? I confess I barely get by the first paragraph! Do you think this may symptomatic of the content therein? Help Praetorius!
Anyone else here know the technique for performing the Heimlich maneuver on oneself? I almost choked on a sub sandwich whilst reading this loon get progressively more delusional. Give him some change like you would the loons on the subway, maybe he will go away!
LikeLike
“I’ve wasted way too much time and energy on this fool, and with all due respect, so have you all. At first it was amusing, but it’s gotten old and stale. There are way more important issues to concentrate on, way more events going on that we need to address that are more important than this.”
*********
@BrothaWolf,
Did you miss seeing the comment I addressed to you? See below.
LikeLike
Herneith said:
Matari said:
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“predict a banning coming on!”—Something else for you to be wrong about…Unless of course you plan on doing something to get you banned. 🙂
LikeLike
@soulsearch,
Yes it is. And there is only one person who can explain why this happened. Anyway, I want to do a post on why my dog eats his own vomit. It has always fascinated me. I hope I get to do it.
LikeLike
Matari,
Actually no. I finally took it in and took your words to heart.
Honestly, what took me long is hoping to somehow lead xPraetorius into a trap that would get himself banned, but it’s clear that xPraetorius is too clever not to slip up, but is too immature and having too much of a good time to leave himself.
Nope. xPraetorius will remain until he either moves on or he gets banned. Either way, I’m moving on for my own sake.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
On this thread I gave you free reign. On other threads you will have to act like you’re grown: stick to the topic at hand and be civil.
I do not have as much free time as you, so if you cannot handle that, you will have to go.
LikeLike
“Honestly, what took me long is hoping to somehow lead xPraetorius into a trap that would get himself banned, but it’s clear that xPraetorius is too clever not to slip up..”
*******
Brothawolf,
You are far more gracious, and giving, than I by assigning that which behaves with appalling immaturity, insincerity and arrogance, with cleverness.
LOL
The deliberately clueless, ridiculous idiots and know-it-alls trolls tend to leave us much sooner (on their own) when/if their gigantic egos aren’t receiving the attention they so desperately demand. He, it, they, she, will be gone soon enough..
There is a God in Heaven!!
: -)
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius:
BrothaDinosaur: You just can’t fathom the possibility that I won’t “slip up” and fall into your clever traps and commit some racist slur, simply because I’m actually not a racist, can you? Just as you won’t find me robbing a package store, kicking kittens or taking candy from babies (except on this thread 🙂 ), I won’t say a racial slur because I don’t have racist thoughts, feelings or inclinations of any kind.
You simply can’t get your mind around the fact that I consider you a person before I consider you a black person, can you? I won’t commit a racial slur, because it’s just not in me to do it.
You on the other hand have already done it to me — and you got away with it! Abagond didn’t say a word to you! I’m like no other white person you’ve ever perceived, and you can’t figure it out. Oh, I’m probably like 95% of the white people you’ve met, but it sure looks like as soon as you met ’em, you saw only the color of their skin. So, I’m betting you prevented any engagement before it even started. In other words, it’s your perception that’s messed up! Challenge it!
Read this well: in your mind you made them racists before they said word one to you. You’re not part of the problem, you are the problem. Ok, let’s be fair. That’s the problem, and you help perpetuate it.
And, let’s be fair again…I don’t know your life story. Maybe you have experienced abuse at the hands of white people. I have too. That’s kind of inevitable; there’re a lot of ’em around. But, did all white people abuse you, BD? Or just a few. And, even if it was for a long time, if it was only a few, then you still have no right to generalize across the entire population. Sorry; you just don’t. Oh, you will, I suspect, but you have no moral right to do so.
On this blog you met a stubborn white dude who wouldn’t let you get away with your bluster and your blather, and who treated you like a human being in full, and that completely flummoxed you; it threw you for a total loop. Read back at your huffing and puffing and blustering and fulminating and all your oh so righteous indignation…In a non-online interaction like this, if challenged, you’d never have allowed this to go on before storming off, yelling “Racist!” over your shoulder.
What you and the rest never figured out was that I’ve been treating you all like human beings in full. That means both looking at your perspectives and assessing them fairly, and looking you squarely in the eyes when you’ve messed up and calling you on it.
In one of the other threads, there was a “trainee barrister” who told of how she couldn’t stand the racism of the over-polite. Wow! She can tell that someone is racist when that person is being polite?!? Well, then, all she said was there was no point in being polite with her! To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear: what a sad, strange little woman! But, you know what, BW? Her perspective is not far from what you’ve expressed to me here.
Why would you want to lead such a blinkered, blind life? I understand not wanting to leave the comfortable, and challenge oneself, but you have to. Otherwise, you just stop and you stagnate, and before you shuffle off this mortal coil at 95, you find out you really stopped living the day you stopped growing.
Oh, and thanks for calling me clever, but I wasn’t trying to be clever…just myself. BD: There is no trap that you can set that can get me to use a racial slur, so why don’t you try actually to talk about my points. By the way: which button would you push?
So far, everyone has evaded the question. I find that very telling.
@Abagond: I answered your question; now man up and answer mine: (1) Do you think I’m a racist? and (2) Which button would you push?
Best
— x
LikeLike
Anne
@soulsearch,
Yes it is. And there is only one person who can explain why this happened. Anyway, I want to do a post on why my dog eats his own vomit. It has always fascinated me. I hope I get to do it.
xPraetorius:
Why am I not surprised that your dog’s odd eating propensities fascinate you, Anne?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ All
My advice on xPraetorius:
1. How to read a thread where xPraetorius comments: Skim or skip over his comments. Few of them have any substance. The few that do you will be able to tell from how others answer him. At that point you can go back and read what he wrote.
2. How to answer his comments: Don’t. At this point he is not serious enough to be worth your time. At bottom he is an attention whore. That means he will make personal remarks about YOU to draw you in. Instead of answering HIM, tell ME to delete the comment – or do what I do: roll your eyes. Also, and this is just as important, do not make any personal remarks about him. He LOVES that. It gives him an excuse to defend himself. EXCEPT ON THIS THREAD, I will delete all comments, good or bad, about him personally, comments of the form “xPraetorius is…” (as opposed to “xPraetorius says/thinks…”). THIS thread is about what xPraetorius is, the other ones are not (unless his name appears in the title).
3. Wait, you gave this guy his own thread and now YOU are telling us to ignore him? At this point, yes. Maybe he will wise up and become a productive commenter, but at this point he is not. This thread makes that abundantly clear. Giving him a thread was a calculated gamble on my part. It may prove to have been a huge mistake.
NOTE that this is ADVICE only. You will NOT be banned for going against it – you might just have some of your comments deleted, as noted above. You will have to make your own judgement and act accordingly.
LikeLike
Mr X , how are your up bop chops doing? So you played major league ball? Were you a pitcher? I was a basketball player in high school ( we had an incredible team , that took state the year after I left, big deal in our state), and one year in college until i badly sprained my ankle, ruining my pro career (yeah right), now I am a passionate body surfer…
this festival I just played was incredible:
https://www.facebook.com/cocoraizes/photos_stream
this is the deep Afro diasporic tip, look at all the incredible costumes and words cant describe the power of the drums and dance…
Im still on the road and cant get to a computor all the time, its just as well, after this festival, im speechless, intellectual discusions and words fall very short of the deep profound state of awareness these cultures can put you in if you let them
Gee, I was hoping the “petit black woman” on your tank would come over here and give us her insights…I actualy like the thought of a tank taking in these things and giving a collective insight…I was even curious if your tank might have broken to some higher insight on these matters
Im sorry, Im disapointed that you come out exaulting people like O Riley, and that your tank isnt hipping you to the fact that there is plenty of white racism in affect in America today…and in Brazil also, basicly because we both havent truly faced up to our slave legacies from the past…
I still have to look at what Abagond said about how our state in the early sixties in the USA,looks pitiful compared to now, and people wernt willing to face that and admit it back then …some cant now
just like back when they wouldnt let black players in the major leagues…hey, if you were a major leaguer, I mean that must be some really deep deep stuff to contemplate and that was just not that long ago, think of Jim Crow etc
I think, we as white people, have to really think about what is the state of white racism in America now that we as white people just arnt aware of , just like before…of course we have evolved, but, we havent broken through to the othrer side
I also will say, coming up from Brazil, black Americans are much more present in middle and upper class activities like traveling, owning their own businesses and seen in high end places compared to black Brazilians…and the diologue is more hightened…and I think that is why things have gotten better, the hightened diologue and scrutiny of white racism, and it is also why there is more division..its the price we pay to have the diologue for now…not what I wish , but what I know is nescasary for now…
Funny, I feel you implied you took a stand on abortion that got heat, Im afraid it might be against it…we will severly disagree about that if that is the case, as we would disagree about string bikinis and kids on the beach…i wish I was wrong but that is what Im feeling…well, you and Abagond would be together on that, since he is anti abortion also…so its funny how these things shift
again, I dont think you are racist, I think you are naive about racism
I wont be at a computor on any regular basis (Abagond, please dont think Im undermining your recent post,I havent been able to participate), off to Salvador next , another huge Afro diasporic center, so I cant answer fast, but,its kind of too bad at some of the interaction I see on here…and I dont judge the people on here or you about it, its just too bad and some of the state of where we are at now…glad you are going to the march
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
You are allowed to shorten a commenter’s name (for example,”BW” in this case), but not change it into something else. I reserve the right to delete comments like that. Just so you know.
LikeLike
I think this piece of research is highly applicable to this thread and may help explain much of the on going pointless discussion that has taken place in this thread:
Researchers establish link between racism and stupidity
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“So far, everyone has evaded the question. I find that very telling. “—And here is basically the sum of what you have been doing. People address such questions and you ignore it and move on to irrelevant banter.
I am sure you will return with the predictable response, but at this point…who cares. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Abagond
It was not different from the fact that he gave you three threads, so your good. As for responding to him…I was getting board anyway.
LikeLike
>Why respond to this obviously side question?
because dude i studied latin for 7.5 years.
>This is a good example of the Abagondian modus operandi(*):
good point as in how you wouldn’t say ‘modum operandi’ therefore it is technically the wrong case
LikeLike
v8driver said:
>This is a good example of the Abagondian modus operandi(*):
good point as in how you wouldn’t say ‘modum operandi’ therefore it is technically the wrong case
xPraetorius:
Lol! I’ll use “modus operandi” in all cases, since the term that has become idiomatic in English. Since, as I’m sure you know, English is a very lightly inflected language, borrowed words that would normally change case in their parent language, tend to be frozen in English, in whatever case they arrived in.
(Wow! Preposition Police! Emergency!) 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
This is the infamous, long debunked “Conservatives are Stupid (therefore racist)” study. Three quick points: (1) to latch onto a fraudulent, long-discredited study shows a tendency to latch onto the first indication of something that agrees with one’s point of view. That tends to move one inexorably into the echo chamber that is this particular blog’s primary characteristic. Of course, if the very basic premises of the echo chamber are incorrect, then all the enthusiastic social validation in the world won’t make the conclusions correct. (2) You don’t want to use that study even if it weren’t fraudulent. With the naked, unshakable, racism I’ve seen on the part of the majority of the participants in this blog, it would be and easy next logical step to conclude that they are mostly of low IQ. BrothaWolf, for example, has confessed to being a racist. Does he have a low IQ? Of course not. And (3) as I like to say, “stupidity is the luxury of the intelligent, but the prison of the stupid.” Intelligent people can choose to be stupid whenever they want, but people with lower intellectual capacity are stuck with their limited reasoning. Now, for an example of someone plainly intelligent, but who overtly embraces real stupidity is the now infamous “Dr. Llaila Afrika.” It’s instructive to re-read Matari’s post containing the “thoughts,” if such they can be called, of the good Dr. Rarely have I read such well-expressed pseudo-intellectual hooey in my life! Here’s a guy who expresses the incredibly stupid, incredibly well. Is Dr. Afrika stupid? Of course not. But he chooses to be so in much of his life. I’m guessing because it pays well.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I’ll respond inline, in bold-face and square brackets.
B. R. said:
xPraetorius:
It’s always great corresponding a bit with you, B. R. Thanks for your perspectives, and for your presentation of them!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“Which button would you push? Can you come up with a thoughtful reply, or are you going to ignore or bloviate?”
I don’t know to what you are referring…I neither read nor have any intention of reading your desultory soliloquies.
If you spent nearly as much time on your fledgling blog as you do on Abagond’s blog, then you’d probably attract some readers (other than your alter ego)…
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@xPraetorius
xPraetorius:
So you don’t read what I write, and pretend you’re then qualified to offer critiques of what I said?
I suspected as much from the, shall we say, less than brainy other replies I’ve received, but it’s nice to have your out-and-out confession of it.
Have you made that trip to IQ’s ‘R’ Us yet. You’re dangerously low. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
So, Abagond, I answered your question. Can you answer mine? Do you think I’m a racist? It’s a simple question.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“So you don’t read what I write, and pretend you’re then qualified to offer critiques of what I said?”
I read writings that are “to the point”, but I surely don’t have for the rest of your ramblings and meaningless drivel.
“Have you made that trip to IQ’s ‘R’ Us yet. You’re dangerously low.”
Repeating an idiocy won’t make it any more sensible. Worry less about me and more about your useless blog.
LikeLike
This is an example of something you seem to do quite a lot xPraetorius. You issue a denial and rebuttal but then don’t even bother to provide any other source other than your own words. So can you provide any external evidence for your claims that this has been debunked? And by whom?
I have my own definition on racism (white supremacy – as you know). It does not support this false and misleading view that anyone, Black or white etc…, can be racist. You can find my explanation in full here:
Also, for someone who has a already admitted to not knowing who “Tim Wise” is or even looked at the video I provided for you on his definition of “Whiteness” and “white privilege”. Entering into any discourse about the merits of what Dr. Llaila Afrika writes about, at this or any other stage, would be pointless and futile if you are claiming an inability to grasp any of these two important concepts. I can assure you these two ideas are essential to understanding racism otherwise you will continue to express, as you indeed already have main times, profound ignorance about its well documented structure.
By all means disagree with what people say but to insist that they rely simply on your own words for this is not SERIOUS debate is it?
LikeLike
Thanks for making the correction Abagond 🙂
LikeLike
And now a moment of truth.
“However, your crowd here manages to get it exactly backward. They respond to the snark and pass on the substance, of which there has been quite a substantial amount.” —Interesting how he says this yet the exchange between him and truthseeker show otherwise.
“And they don’t. They jeer, sneer, snark, bluster and bloviate, but they do, most definitely, not answer. And example: I’ll say something like: “So, how about this hypothetical?” The response will be: “You’re a liar and a racist.” Your group has been following your advice the whole time!”—Yet we notice replys from Kwamla and others that prove otherwise.
“I can’t refute his remarks, so I’ll simply declare him stupid and irrelevant and slink away.”—Yet we notice he attempts to correct what he does not want to hear.
“Then they’ll have nothing to say! If your crowd put one tenth of the energy into addressing my arguments as they put up into fabricating my life story, they MIGHT produce an intelligent post or two!”—-Arguments addressed above yet is still refusing to acknowledge.
“I can’t have that, so I need to start the process of moving him on outta here. We can NOT have him suggesting that my people think for themselves. I’LL do the thinking for them!”—Still assuming that people do not think for themselves when those that have proven to don’t jump to coddle him (I suggest readers view others posts to confirm this as a lie).
“As I mentioned, you REALLY don’t want to allow challenging voices to be heard on your blog, do you”—See above posts for reference to why this is a lie.
“It’s “advice” until, and only until, you start to demonstrate a tendency to think for yourselves, at which point it’ll rapidly morph into something ummm… “different” from advice.”—Again a lie that can be proven by the simply visit of other threads.
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: Again, we need to be talking about the same thing, or else there’s no point in talking. For example: I went out to YouTube and looked up Dr. Llaila Afrika, and clicked here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdb_q13aFuc and watched most of the full hour of it. Again, maybe you find something coherent in the torrent of what sure seemed like flapdoodle to me. I say nothing coherent, and a lot of snake oil. I am perfectly prepared to say that the link I gave is not definitive, but if it pretty well sums up Dr. LA’s beliefs, then it’s hard to think of him as anything but a nutjob.
I’ll check out Mr. Wise, but remember: his definition of “whiteness” and “white privilege” are precisely that: his definition. He may be right or wrong — that’s why I largely stayed away from playing dueling links, studies or videos — but if the link clarifies what you believe, then it’s interesting to me.
As to “the study,” it came up as a news story a few months ago. The methodology used to produce the story was to begin with the premise and go back to find corroboration for the conclusion, not the actual truth. It’s a common unscientific, largely political, tactic meant to produce a “study” that one can quote in order to make one’s views seem more legitimate. In using that tactic, for example, one can produce a “study” that proves anything under the sun. For example: I can point you to a guy who will tell you that extra melanin in the skin confers the ability to “feel” insincerity and deceitfulness in white people. Again, this is why, in a forum like this, I never play dueling links, videos or studies. If you want to conclude that melanin gives magical powers, and obtain a study to show it, you’d want to start with that guy.
Also, I read your link above. Yes, it does provide extra perspective to Abagond’s writing, but it doesn’t change my view that he is basically simplistic and incorrect in his overall view. In such a way as to permit him to make a deeply offensive post equating Hitler to white people and white people to Hitler. That he admits that he does it as a racist (his blog post title is, after all, “All Black’s Are Racist”) is mildly interesting, but doesn’t change the fact that (1) he needs to stop being a racist, and (2) what he said in the Hitler post was very wrong. A non-racist couldn’t have written the Hitler post. Furthermore, since all Abagond’s writing is, by definition, tainted by the racism he has admitted to, then all of it starts off as suspect.
However, not all blacks are racist. Not even close. I personally know and admire many who are not even close, as well as many who would be deeply offended at the accusation. Is their perspective somehow wrong even though it contradicts Abagond’s “all blacks are racist” hypothesis?
Are many blacks racists — as I understand the term(*)? Sure. I think the evidence backs this up extensively. And, as I’ve mentioned in past posts, more blacks are racist — and virulently so — than whites. As I further mentioned, white racism is just not a big problem in America today. At least not as “racism” has been defined in the race grievance industry. As a side note. I do believe that white racism is alive and well on America’s political left. I wrote about it here: http://praetori.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/racism-is-and-always-has-been-a-democrat-party-problem/ .
That, Kwamla — the white racism of the American political left — is the racism that black people need to worry about. The overt “blacks-are-somehow-inferior” nitwittery on the part of white people is almost completely eradicated.
@Kwamla: you said: “I can assure you these two ideas are essential to understanding racism.” My reply: Essential to understanding racism as you understand it. As we have found out, you and I disagree on the very definition of racism itself. I would suggest to you that a comprehensive understanding of Dr. Thomas Sowell’s work is necessary in order to understand racism. Again, that’s why I don’t play dueling studies, links, videos…or, in this case, dueling experts. In another forum, sure. But not this one.
One quick thing: If anyone anywhere were to produce the “photographic negative” of Drl Llaila Afrika — ie some white dude making the exact same serious-sounding claims for white people as Dr. Afrika does for blacks, he’d be run off the stage, and likely out of the country, branded as the ridiculous, white supremacist racist, he would be.
Best,
— x
(*) “A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
LikeLike
What this appears to me is not a matter of thinking for one’s self as I have seen on this blogs many posters have a mind of their own. Most threads are full of opinions and questions and dialogue from individuals with different takes on the situation. Some are in agreeance and in some cases they are not.
So the real issue that I see forming from all this is x feels people are thinking out of the box if they believe him and that you are sheep if you believe Abagond. The way I see it is you are still sheep even if you follow x because you are choosing to blindly believe what this individual is saying without any real question and when questioned you are faced with a mediocre response that is in his mind “suppose to explain everything.”
In the end I will continue to address things the way I have….judge people on an individual basis, but realize that America has not jumped over the hurdle of racism like they believe they have.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
“Giving him a thread was a calculated gamble on my part. It may prove to have been a huge mistake.”
It was clearly a huge mistake; he’s just trying to draw attention to himself and his sparsely visited blog.
I tried to warn you about him, but hopefully you’ll take my advice this time by deleting this post altogether and never looking back…
LikeLike
@sharina
Abagond at least attempts to provide evidence (i.e., hard data or accountable historical acts), whether or not one accepts such evidence.
The problem with xpraetorius is that he presents his opinions as facts, e.g., “Are many blacks racists — as I understand the term(*)? Sure. I think the evidence backs this up extensively.”
But he forgot to provide such evidence. He used the word “evidence” over 50 times on this thread, but has yet to provide any.
Truthseeker said it best:
There’s nothing wrong with opinions–everyone has them–but passing them off as facts in xpraetorius’ manner shows dishonesty and indolence.
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: First my apologies for the incompleteness with this post. I wrote up a long one using the edit box on Abagond’s blog, hit “Post” and it disappeared into cybver-nothingness. I knew that I was supposed to write in Notepad and copy-paste into th eedit box, but forgot to! Youch!
Anyway, I’ll try to reproduce what I had written before.
First: regarding the study, it was a news story a few months ago. Someone, I forget who, had the premise that “Conservatives are stupid.” He decided that was a touch sell, so he worked back from that premise to find people who believed the same, quizzed them and produced his study. I forget what the tactic of working backward from the conclusion is called, but it’s a common tactic with people who aren’t really interested in the truth, but rather in validating their pre-conceived notions.
Second: I watched Dr, Llaila Afrika at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdb_q13aFuc. I watched about 50 minutes of it.
It’s an hour-long diatribe that struck me as both extremely clever and really stupid at the same time. It was a wonderful example of saying just a whole bunch of really stupid stuff, really well and fluently. What does one say about someone who does and says something really stupid really well? Easy: plainly he’s very intelligent, but is choosing to embrace stupidity. Again, I’m prepared to hear that the video I watched no longer is indicative of what Dr. Afrika thinks. If that’s true, can you point me to something more current?
Third: You said: “I can assure you these two ideas are essential to understanding racism.” My Reply: Yes. Essential to understanding how you understand rcism. We’ve already determined that you and I disagree as to the definition of racism. Mine is: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” You disagree. There’s no point in talking about anything unless we can agree on what we’re talking about.
Fourth: I read the post at the link in Abagond’s blog. I also read your comment. The post adds perspective to Abagond’s thinking, but, like you, I still disagree. Abagond’s writing, so, likely his thinking too, has a fatal flaw. It’s in the title of his post: “All Blacks Are Racist.” First off, that means that he himself is racist. If, as Abagond insists, he’s a racist, then all his thinking and writing are tainted by that racism. It throws everything he writes into question. Worse, in making that statement Abagond asserts that he has an in-depth view into the thinking of all blacks. Furthermore, he’s saying that in the realm of race, all blacks think and feel alike! Really? Freakin’ really?!? How on earth can anyone think that a statement like that could ever be legitimate?!?
A major accusation against racist white people is: they think all blacks are [fill in whatever here]. The follow-up legitimate question is: How can any nitwit possibly think that all blacks think, or feel, or reason alike?!? Only a neanderthal racist could think that! I think this confirms that I have a higher regard for black people than Abagond! Why? Simple: Not all black people are racist, as Abagond has written.
As to your comment: I disagree as well. You say that if whites are busy oppressing blacks through racism, then blacks can’t possibly be racists in response. You then offer the completely ludicrous idea that 95% of whites oppress blacks. This is outlandish and silly. Obviously you and I are going to have to disagree on that one. However, your basic premise is incorrect as well. A white person can be racist toward a black person who is equally racist toward him. Simple as that. Racism is a state of mind. To deny that black people can have a certain state of mind is to deny black people their humanity. They are capable of having exactly, the same states of mind as white people because they’re really people who also happen to be black. It appears that I have a higher opinion of black people than you do as well, Kwamla!
As to Tim Wise: We can play dueling videos, dueling links, dueling studies and dueling experts all day. For every one of these things or people you find, I can find one too. That kind of thing just tends not to be fruitful, so I try not to do it. For every Tim Wise there’s a Jason Riley, or a Charles Payne, or a Thomas Sowell, and on and on and on and on…if you wish to think that Mr. Wise is the definitive source for all learning in terms of race, okay, but I’d say that’s silly on the face of it. Race and race relations are vastly too complex for one person to have figured it all out. One can make global statements that are valid, but one then needs to produce lots and lots of global-scope evidence — not single sources or personal anecdotes — to support the statement.
I made my global statement — white racism is not a big problem in America today — and buttressed it with all sorts of evidence and statements and thought exercises and the like. My narrative met only derision, peremptory dismissal, scurrilous accusations and insults. The response from Abagond World was unworthy of an important topic. At least you have made a sincere attempt to provide support, but you added in your own insults and racial slurs as well!
Look, I could be right or wrong, but the irrational, emotional response from most people here weighed heavily in favor of what I was saying. After all, if I were wrong, surely there would be evidence of thousands of black-on-white racial incidents daily. After all, we’re a country of more than 300 million! Surely not all the media are hiding all these incidents! No, the media hunger for white-on-black racial incidents! If they were out there, you can be sure you and I would hear about it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@B.R., I see what you did there. Well played.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Your last two comments on this thread seem to be roughly the same. Do you want me to delete the earlier one?
LikeLike
@resw77
I agree. Which to me is more sad than anything.
LikeLike
abagond said:
@ xPraetorius
Your last two comments on this thread seem to be roughly the same. Do you want me to delete the earlier one?
xPraetorius:
@Abagond: just a snafu with my internet connection. No need. I’ll do the housekeeping. Thanks for the offer. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@ Abagond
“Giving him a thread was a calculated gamble on my part. It may prove to have been a huge mistake.”
It was clearly a huge mistake; he’s just trying to draw attention to himself and his sparsely visited blog.
I tried to warn you about him, but hopefully you’ll take my advice this time by deleting this post altogether and never looking back…
xPraetorius:
That would restore the ideological purity around here, wouldn’t it? 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Another moment of truth
“That would restore the ideological purity around here, wouldn’t it? :)”—-More denial of how it is around here. 🙂
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Normally I’d have pretty much ignored this one — I’ve covered all this many times before — but there was one thing I wanted to address. Sharina said: “x feels people are thinking out of the box if they believe him and that you are sheep if you believe Abagond.” My reply:No, not true at all. What surprised me — and lost me a bet with my colleagues — was that there was no movement whatsoever on your part in several hundreds of posts. Not one single post that went something like this: “Good point. I disagree with it, and here’s why.” I came at it from a hundred different perspectives, and all I ever got back was “Oh, I’ve seen that a million times before, and you’re wrong and you’re a racist and you’re a liar and here’s how I experienced racism that obviously proves that everyone across the country is experiencing it too!”
I mean, I came at it with • my “five points,” and • the abolitionist movement not just appearing — like magic, if you will — out of nowhere and • the $17 trillion and • my hypothetical button pushes and • the fact of recourse for real discrimination and • the avoidance behaviors here and • the insults from here • and the long, long list of editing reasons and • Christianity and • huge</b numbers of prominent and wealthy black people all around the country and • facts: whites turned over power and wealth nearly without firing a shot and and • a black President and images, thought exercises, analogies, metaphors and similes and on and on and on and on and on and • last, but not least: I never gave up on you. I could have just given up on you, and gone away with a snarky parting shot. You know I can pull off snarky. I tried joking, snarking, apologizing, admitting where I had made errors, engaging. I tired anger, shaming, righteous indignation and sarcasm. I finally settled on breezy cheerfulness. And all of it sincerely meant. No one budged an inch. That was what I called “Fortress Thinking.”
I don’t need anyone to agree with me. I don’t care…but you never gave the slightest indication that you were even thinking about anything. Oh, you indicated you were reading it all, but certainly not processing it. As I said in another post…nobody here appreciated the irony of telling me over and over and over and over and over again what a broken record I am.
By the way, a bit after all this started, my colleague came up to me and said, “Give it up…you won’t get a one of them to move one millimeter.” This was my colleague, the petite black lady who had crossed swords with BW. I replied, “Yes, I will. Abagond’s obviously educated. He’ll be open to different arguments, different perspectives, ways to expand his horizons. Either he’ll make some small concession somewhere, or someone else who has an education will. This blog is an intellectual step up from the crude race-baiting of BrothaWolf’s blog.” Her reply was short and to the point: “Nope. Not one of them will move an inch.”
She was right. Too bad.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Her is the big underlining factor that I am getting here. You can’t distinguish between Abagond and other posters. This line here ” was that there was no movement whatsoever on your part in several hundreds of posts.” I told you upfront where i stood on your post and that I would not be repeating and bringing my position back here. So this statement here is a lie (based on my definition of it). It is one you continuously perpetrate although I have repeatedly stated to you this very same thing. So here is one kick against truly taking your case seriously.
“Not one single post that went something like this: “Good point. I disagree with it, and here’s why.”—Why should it? Life it not cut a dry so why would you expect it to start like that?
“I came at it from a hundred different perspectives, and all I ever got back was “Oh, I’ve seen that a million times before, and you’re wrong and you’re a racist and you’re a liar and here’s how I experienced racism that obviously proves that everyone across the country is experiencing it too!”—This yet another lie you keep claiming. There are people who may have but their were certainly people who addressed you and your points. So why keep this lie going?
“I mean, I came at it with • my “five points,” and • the abolitionist movement not just appearing — like magic, if you will — out of nowhere and • the $17 trillion and • my hypothetical button pushes and • the fact of recourse for real discrimination and • the avoidance behaviors here and • the insults from here • and the long, long list of editing reasons and • Christianity and • huge</b numbers of prominent and wealthy black people all around the country and • facts: whites turned over power and wealth nearly without firing a shot and and • a black President and images, thought exercises, analogies, metaphors and similes and on and on and on and on and on and • last, but not least: I never gave up on you."—So basically you expected me to change my position. I was not going to and I told you that on your blog I don't know how many times. All this discussed on your blog at length.
"I don’t need anyone to agree with me."—That is funny because your passage about indicates otherwise. But on your blog I assumed we agreed to disagree on the points I did not accept, but oh I was the one that was wrong and should have just given up on you.
"She was right. Too bad."—It is not bad that she was right. Not one person in here should allow anyone to decide the direction they think. Not even you and your think tank minions. Nothing in this world is cut and try and it is ignorant to believe it is. It is ignorance at it's finest to even fathom that stats and logic can determine human behaviors and choice. Frankly all that stuff you mentioned does not mean racism is not a big problem. It just means that it is not a big problem to you because of this this and that.
I offered you polite conversation, but I refuse to let you or anyone dictate on matters of my mind. I am a free thinker and I reserve the right to be.
LikeLike
It is like when I was in college and took a speech course. How you present the material to people will determine whether they listen or whether they shut you out, while initially I did decide to listen to you….I did begin to shut you out. It was not in regards to Abagond or how true I did or did not take Abagond’s words, but it was frankly a matter of you. The more rude and condescending you became the more I just decided to shut you out. Then the matter of almost everything having an excuse. “I did this because he did that..etc.” Reminds me of when my children fight. To me I saw it as…for someone claiming to be one thing…he sure is presenting himself as another.
It is what it is. I wish you the best, but like I said:
In the end I will continue to address things the way I have…judge people on an individual basis, but realize that America has not jumped over the hurdle of racism like they believe they have.
LikeLike
Abagond
I hope you will not delete my last two post as he really needs to read it. I always give people a chance whether I agree with them or not and I want to make note that I did try with xPraetorius. I did visit his blog and discuss things and what I agreed and disagreed on. He was polite there to me. I guess once he got here things change and he got amnesia, but it is what it is.
LikeLike
resw77
There’s nothing wrong with opinions–everyone has them–but passing them off as facts in xpraetorius’ manner shows dishonesty and indolence.
This is the whole point of it all. Everyone has opinions just like everyone has different views. There are also such a things as different truths. There’s more than one perspective to the world.
And too many times, the perspective of black people are always shunned, laughed at or lashed upon. It’s no different than telling others that what they think doesn’t matter. There clearly is no intellectual or moral reasoning behind such thinking.
LikeLike
Mr X, im banging this out on a hotel computor, where I am at serious disagreement with some people on this blog, in matters of interracial sex, the value or not of afro diasporic cultures that also show naked bare booty,
the good and bad of American foreign policy,whether the arab slave trade argument red card is valid when aplied to me when I acknowledge slavery in the Americas has severe ramifications all the way down into today in our societies, the value or not of hugo chavez, the redeeming factors of pornography,the value, or not of rock music, etc….but
I stand behind many fundamental opinions and testimonies , on here,of racism from whites towards black people in our country and in the country I live in today, and beleive that there still is white racism in affect in our country that affects our evolution…
and, I have stated, I have agreed with some of your points, and argued in earnest that just because their are wealthy black celebrities, entertainers and business people, doesnt mean that there arnt blocks of white racism and institutional racism in effect in our country…after all, there were rich black entertainers in the middle of huge amounts of lynchings and jim crow laws
I think all the struggle in the Civil Rights movement and people did die in that, are examples that huge blocs of white people had no intention of turning over power with out firing a shot…what about the blatent white racism of realters and local government officials coluding to create white flight? This is proven fact
so, Im sorry your petit black female colleague said that, I do have an attraction for petit black females by the way, but, its just a reason why , in good concience I cant look Abagond, Brotherwolf, all the black people here who are making points about white racism to you , in the cyber eye, and say, ” you should just trust Mr X and his think tank, you should follow them, they really have the right direction…”
again, that doesnt mean you havent made some good points,you sure have stamina, and i respect you are a musician and athelete…
for sure, I cant say you shouldnt respond to insults, because I am severly guilty of responding to insults and will take it into the mud with no qualms, i didnt live in new york 8 years for nothing….and I got banned for it here and Abagond very generously allowed me to come back on…which I wonder if he regrets that sometimes….ha ha
but, its too bad, because people like you and Brothawolf make some good points , as do many others, but, we all get stuck in personal vendettas, me included, and our good points long ago get lost
LikeLike
“I mean, I came at it with • my “five points,” and • the abolitionist movement not just appearing — like magic, if you will — out of nowhere and • the $17 trillion and • my hypothetical button pushes and • the fact of recourse for real discrimination and • the avoidance behaviors here and • the insults from here • and the long, long list of editing reasons and • Christianity and • huge</b numbers of prominent and wealthy black people all around the country and • facts: whites turned over power and wealth nearly without firing a shot and and • a black President and images, thought exercises, analogies, metaphors and similes and on and on and on and on and on and • last, but not least: I never gave up on you. "
wow dude, that is not what you call readable.
sharina says:
"It is like when I was in college and took a speech course. How you present the material to people will determine whether they listen or whether they shut you out, while initially I did decide to listen to you….I did begin to shut you out."
you need to figure that out dude, your pretentious mode of delivery is galling for lack of a better word, a real turn-off, and your verbosity is not a numerically equivalent substitute for style.
LikeLike
B. R. said:
xPraetorius:
AB. R.: I find very little with which to disagree in what you say. A couple of small quibbles — in-line, above in the usual style — that’s it. I never considered you part of the echo chamber here. However, you’re also a white dude. 🙂
BW’s quote somewhere above was something like, “this blog is for black people and POC only!” The rest of the reactions around here — save yours and a couple of others — seem to show this same Fortress Thinking. I was not saying the “correct” things, and I was white, therefore I was racist, a liar and all the rest of the nonsense. That kind of reaction is a very effective way to insulate oneself from different points of view, in order never to have to challenge oneself. Fortress Thinking. However, such Fortress Thinking is a sure way to allow changing times and reality to pass one right by, leaving many here saying the same things that were said 50 or more years ago, as though nothing has ever changed.
Take a look at the “Dr. Llaila Afrika” link. That kind of thinking is like the most idiotic of racist white thinking from back in the 1920’s when they were looking for all sorts of physical characteristics to prove mental inferiority. That kind of nonsense is thoroughly and completely discredited now. Yet, it is apparently alive and well here on Abagond’s blog with the followers of the esteemed Dr. Afrika.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
v8driver said:
(quoting me) “I mean, I came at it with • my “five points,” and • the abolitionist movement not just appearing — like magic, if you will — out of nowhere and • the $17 trillion and • my hypothetical button pushes and • the fact of recourse for real discrimination and • the avoidance behaviors here and • the insults from here • and the long, long list of editing reasons and • Christianity and • huge</b numbers of prominent and wealthy black people all around the country and • facts: whites turned over power and wealth nearly without firing a shot and and • a black President and images, thought exercises, analogies, metaphors and similes and on and on and on and on and on and • last, but not least: I never gave up on you. "
v8's reply: wow dude, that is not what you call readable.
xPraetorius:
Yep. You got that right. I plead the fatigue of the moment.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Brothawolf said:
xPraetorius:
At last, BW! A little sense! I take this as your admitting that I’m not a racist, and that at the worst I have a “different truth” and another perspective. We’re moving forward!
Since, as you say, I have a different truth, then I suspect this is your indirect way of apologizing for calling me a racist, a liar and all those other awful things you called me, when all along I simply was saying different truths.
I accept your apology.
Since I recognize that you believe in “different truths,” that makes your apology valid, and my melanin is not detecting any insincerity or deceitfulness.
However, I’m not a big believer in “different truths.” Different perspectives, yes. Different truths, no.
Therefore, I continue to maintain that white racism is no longer a big problem in America today. Since, in your mind this is only a “different truth,” you can’t argue that a truth does not not spring from intellectual or moral reasoning. Obviously a “truth” can spring only from correct reasoning.
Ok, after that fun little exercise, let’s get serious again. Sorry, I don’t believe that the Nazis of the Communists simply had a “different truth.” These scumbags were possessed of a Very Big Lie.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ B.R.
It sounds like fun. My Brazilian friend returned home at the beginning of the month (she has been their all month) to visit her mom. I so wish I could go because everything sounds like fun.
LikeLike
I do not wish to offend anyone in this statement and I apologize if I do, but having a black president tells me that democrats were smart enough to realize how to monopolize on black votes. I do believe the republicans attempted it with Herman Caine, but I think he got hip on to his puppet status. The excuse he gave for leaving was just ridiculous.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Normally, I’d let this one go unremarked upon, because resw77 already admitted he doesn’t read the posts, then feels qualified to present critiques. Obviously he’s proven himself to be uninterested in serious conversation.
However…there were some delicious ones in here that merited response. They are, as usual, inline in the usual style.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
“There are also such a things as different truths”—I actually disagree with this. There is only one truth (must be my religious fanatic nature). Everything else is a gathered opinion. People will see and process certain information in different ways. Let us take the black president as an example.
1. one group that I know of believe this is a sign that America has changed. Post racial.
2. Another believes it is only a small change as Obama does not have 2 black parents.
3. Then others believe he is a puppet used only for show.
Which one you choose will depend solely on what you want to believe. Determining which one is true is much harder as you would have to be skilled in the art of mind reading. The first I have to disagree with as Obama experienced a large amount of racial jokes and hate filled attacks during his term compared to any other president I have seen.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
The first part is correct, as far as it goes. The calculations were as tad more complex than that on the part of the Democrat Party, but sharina’s point is correct: Barack Obama is President today because of the color of his skin, not despite it. (A point, by the way, that Geraldine Ferraro made quite clearly during the 2008 primary campaign(*).) The part about Herman Cain is incorrect.
Sharina’s point ought to be all this crowd should need to confirm my assertion that “white racism is no longer a big problem in America today.” A vastly more serious problem is the obvious fact that the Democrat Party thought that electing a black President was more important that electing a good President.
Best,
— x
(*) Ferraro said: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“They are sheep if they refuse to believe a different viewpoint simply because it’s not Abagond’s”—This was actually something I said and not resw77. So then your problem becomes you jumped on the position of trying to disrupt something for nothing. There are several different view points on this blog as I stated to you in other posts, but what you, as true to your nature, believe you were right and failed to do proper research on the blog to see how wrong you actually were.
“Sharina’s point ought to be all this crowd should need to confirm my assertion that “white racism is no longer a big problem in America today.””—No, you are trying to use my words to confirm your assertion when in fact that is not what I am saying or meant in the first place.
Politicians are all about their party winning. The care for the American people has become (or has been for a while) an afterthought. They were cooking up schemes to win since bush got in. Black voter turnout was pretty low. The choice they had was a white woman and a black man.
If they chose Hilary they were looking at Clinton voters and possibly women votes.
With Obama they were looking at a large amount of black and minorities votes (many of who probably had not voted in previous elections).
They simply chose what gave them a better chance and it was Obama. Says nothing about racism not being a big problem.
LikeLike
All in all it is like the wizard of oz. Pay no attention to the white men behind the curtain. Just the black puppet in front of it.
LikeLike
@sharina i think we are nowhere’s near post-racial
@xprater
[My reply: All in all, if you look closely, you will see that my disagreement with the Abagond group is a matter of degree. My assertion — that white racism is not a big problem in America today — does not in any way deny that white racism is a problem. However, as I think the evidence shows, black racism is a much bigger problem. ]
ah dude then you just don’t have enough street experience
Honestly i went out on a limb last night. I was talking to my girl whos not my women and blah blah it’s so complicated noone can stand it even us, and she’s well half black half cherokee id’s as a black woman, and i will admit sotomayor is in the back of my mind sometimes when this stuff come up, not to the degree he is all about ‘hairhats’ etc., but so this girl i’m connected to closely says, ‘and there’s no black men around because they’re all locked up or shooting each other’ and it came around to why is that, and well i just jumped out there with ‘the family,’ and obviously that went south real fast in terms of the context of a civil conversation (i was sober believe it or not).
and being her, she got right to it, you know, eventually it got back to ‘you white mf’s took all our money and our kids and our lives, your ancestors did it’, she was not about hearing oh i’m second generation american etc.
so xpraetor you are not correct i don’t know how or when it can possibly get better but i never have to think oh black people as a society, a collective, did this or that, you know?
it’s called empathy?
it might not fit you now but you could work on it dude.
-tc
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I found this article in my search. Have you seen this or done a post on it?
http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/in-focus-racism-in-america_2012-10-28.html
@v8driver
” i think we are nowhere’s near post-racial”—I don’t either and TP illustrated some great information on why we are not. Information that included video, audio, and articles. I know she can be hardcore as heck and we have a difference of opinion on certain issues but she is on point about the race relations in America.
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
I have to challenge this. I pay very close attention, and I’ve not heard one single, solitary racial joke directed at Obama, or at anyone in his administration. If these jokes are out there, he ones telling them are doing so in deep, dark secret.
Next: It’s quite demonstrable that much, much, much more verbal abuse, scorn, derision, sheer vein-popping hatred, vitriol and vituperation were directed at George W. Bush than at Obama. And I’m no fan of George W. Bush!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
OMG, seriously why do you people even bother?
He will not change, his protection from reality is his dictionary and his “knowledge”. Haven’t we learned already from the past about the same approach and they still don’t get it? I will give applause though, because “debating” (If you wanna call it that) with him is quite hair-pulling. It’s the SAME thing trying to prove racism and their thinking cap is STILL empty. It’s like going to the yahoo comment section and debating with the commenters there.
Sorry, but I’m not falling for all these smart enhanced vocabs, trying to make it sound like he’s been around and studied, thinking he will be “different”. When in fact behind these sweet words is the same putdowns, condescending tone and denying injustice of people of color that you would get from any other racists.
As people said, I’m tired of trying to explain. If they do not want to learn, so be it.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“I have to challenge this. I pay very close attention, and I’ve not heard one single, solitary racial joke directed at Obama, or at anyone in his administration. If these jokes are out there, he ones telling them are doing so in deep, dark secret.”—It wasn’t but this goes back to your selection of information. I just did a google search and up pops racist obama jokes.
The constant osama obama jokes, the monkey jokes(those that were circulating through politicians computers). etc.
“’m no fan of George W. Bush!”—I had no problem with bush…all the way up until Katrina.
LikeLike
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tea-party-gop-leader-who-sent-racist-obama-as-a-monkey-email-wont-quit/politics/2011/04/18/18926
LikeLike
@ Drosera
Hey! I am just hard headed.
LikeLike
v8driver sid:
@sharina i think we are nowhere’s near post-racial
@xprater
[My reply: All in all, if you look closely, you will see that my disagreement with the Abagond group is a matter of degree. My assertion — that white racism is not a big problem in America today — does not in any way deny that white racism is a problem. However, as I think the evidence shows, black racism is a much bigger problem. ]
ah dude then you just don’t have enough street experience
Honestly i went out on a limb last night. I was talking to my girl whos not my women and blah blah it’s so complicated noone can stand it even us, and she’s well half black half cherokee id’s as a black woman, and i will admit sotomayor is in the back of my mind sometimes when this stuff come up, not to the degree he is all about ‘hairhats’ etc., but so this girl i’m connected to closely says, ‘and there’s no black men around because they’re all locked up or shooting each other’ and it came around to why is that, and well i just jumped out there with ‘the family,’ and obviously that went south real fast in terms of the context of a civil conversation (i was sober believe it or not).
and being her, she got right to it, you know, eventually it got back to ‘you white mf’s took all our money and our kids and our lives, your ancestors did it’, she was not about hearing oh i’m second generation american etc.
so xpraetor you are not correct i don’t know how or when it can possibly get better but i never have to think oh black people as a society, a collective, did this or that, you know?
it’s called empathy?
it might not fit you now but you could work on it dude.
-tc
xPraetorius:
I love the story, v8. I mean that very seriously. Couple of quibbles.
First, I think you dismissed too quickly your girlfriend’s inability, or lack of willingness, to understand your point that you and your family had nothing to do with oppressing black people in America. Your point was a simple truth, and the fact that your girlfriend used mere arbitrary closed-mindedness to shut down the discussion simply doesn’t speak well of her … or maybe, of your willingness to cross an angry woman. You wouldn’t be the first…in this, we men are nearly all brothers! 🙂
Next: (saying this gently) you really have no idea how much street experience I have. I actually have quite a lot — likely as much as, or more than, the vast majority of commenters on this blog. Let’s say that I’m easily in the 99th percentile as far as “street experience” is concerned, and leave it at that.
Next: I am full to the brim with empathy. However, if my assessment of the extent of white racism in the country is correct, then I have exactly the right amount of empathy. Here’s the scoop: one can empathize totally and completely with the occasional individual victim of stupid, racist white people, all while insisting, as I do, that white racism is no longer a big problem in America. Don’t forget, v8 (or tc…not sure which you prefer), misdirected empathy is useless and frequently counter-productive. Let’s try an example: A heroin addict lies on the sidewalk begging for change or food. It is absolutely correct to empathize with the addict’s suffering (not necessarily his addiction), and to offer comfort, but someone, some truly caring person, needs also to step up, slap the guy, and say, “You need to get clean. You need to stop what you’re doing, clean yourself up, and go seize all the opportunity that’s out there.
I’m going to say this very gently as well: in simply rolling over when your girlfriend shut you down and pulled the Noble Global Victim card, you did her no favor. To allow the paranoid, the misinformed, the deluded to remain unchallenged in their delusions is to be guilty of the equivalent of kicking my hypothetical heroin addict as he lay there on the street.
Time for another global statement: Black people are in the same place as the winner of the nasty argument. The argument loser, crestfallen, recognizes what he did or said wrong and apologizes. The argument winner, not ready yet to abandon his martyrdom, says, “Oh, yeah? Well, it’s too late now. We can never be friends again!”
I am the truly caring person who is willing to tell the people on this blog to clean themselves up, to get rid of their addiction to white racism and to their martyrdom(*) (to which Abagond admitted in his “All Blacks Are Racist” post) and to seize all the opportunity that’s out there. Now, that opportunity is not only in the financial realm, but in the social realm as well. There are no more enthusiastic segregationists in America than black people. There is a vast reservoir of goodwill out there in America from white people toward black people, if anyone is willing to tap into it and run with it and get to know some really great people. Yes, you will run into the occasional bad apple…ignore her and go find another one. There’re more than 180 million of them, after all, and each different from all the others!
By the way, my ancestors were nordic, (French, German, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon) and I “id” as human. You, and everyone here, might want to try that once in a while. It’s actually easy…you simply give people — all people — the benefit of the doubt, until they prove they don’t merit it.
Best,
— x
(*) to which, really, they’re not entitled. The wrong was done by people long dead, to people long dead. Looooooong dead. Trying to claim the Noble Victim mantle now is a cheap attempt to steal it from those to whom it truly belongs. For example: if Jay Z. is a “victim of white racism,” then the very concept of “victim of white racism” has no real meaning anymore.
LikeLike
@Praetorius:
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzZZZZZzzzzz
zzzzzschnooka schnau
Huh?
LikeLike
Sharina posted:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tea-party-gop-leader-who-sent-racist-obama-as-a-monkey-email-wont-quit/politics/2011/04/18/18926
xPraetorius:
Thank you, Sharina for this link! It very neatly proves my point. I quote from the article to which you linked: “Davenport, who is a top Southern California Republican party official and a Southern California Tea Party activist, reportedly sent the email with the title, ‘Now you know why no birth certificate,’ is now in hot water with the Republican Party and the right-wing media.”
So, this moron is now, and I quote, “in hot water with the Republican Party and the right-wing media.” So much for racist Republicans! So much for racist right-wing media! So much for media cover-ups of racial incidents! In one fell swoop, Sharina demolished nearly all the jibes, insults, slams and slurs directed against Republicans and right-wing media, better than I ever could have!
Further research on Marilyn Davenport shows that she sent out the moronic e-mail in 2011, apologized and slipped therefrom into obscurity. I couldn’t find anything on her after 2011. (criterion: first page of a google search.)
@Sharina: I hope you can produce more than this. A whole lot more than this. Remember your original premise, and I’ll quote you: ” Obama experienced a large amount of racial jokes and hate filled attacks during his term compared to any other president.” If you’re really willing to say that Obama has experienced more “hate-filled attacks” than Bush, then you were living in a different solar system for the past 13 years. You are correct in one thing. The attacks against Bush were not racial, they were nearly constantly of the “Bush=moron (therefore he’s racist, sexist, homophobe, war monger, fascist…)” variety. The one odd joke — from a white grandmother! (I’m certainly willing to admit she might be behind the times!) — goes more to my point than to yours. I’m waiting for a “large amount of racial jokes” or some credible indication of such jokes.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“That would restore the ideological purity around here, wouldn’t it?”
There are many dissenting views on Abagond’s blog. I OFTEN disagree with him and others (see my comments on other threads for proof), but unlike you, I don’t lie, make numerous contradictory statements, harass people or pontificate in drab screeds.
“This is rich coming from someone who admits to not reading the posts.”
I said, “I read writings that are ‘to the point’, but I surely don’t have for the rest of your ramblings and meaningless drivel” (and who does?). And each time I criticised you, I used your own quotes (verbatim).
You, on the other hand, tend to contortingly paraphrase others (e.g., saying that I am one “who admits to not reading the posts”)
“I presented many, many historical facts…abolitio[n]ist movement…voting records for the Civil Rights acts…$17trillion dollars”
None of your listings prove that African Americans have made progress, b/c their progress cannot be predicated on the actions of others (Euro Americans). Saying that just b/c Euro Americans fought a civil war, blacks have progressed is akin to saying I bought you a book so now you are smarter.
If you want to provide evidence that African Americans have progressed (in whatever manner), then your supporting evidence should be measurable and relate specifically to them (not examples of what someone else did).
You certainly cannot prove it by throwing around a “$17 trillion” national debt figure that accounts for ALL government overspending, not just welfare programs like, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (all of which do NOT SOLELY benefit African Americans.
I know this concept is a difficult one for you to grasp, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out in time.
LikeLike
@Brothawolf
“This is the whole point of it all. Everyone has opinions just like everyone has different views. There are also such a things as different truths. There’s more than one perspective to the world. ”
So because I believe that you killed my cousin, that must mean it is the truth?
In the real world (i.e., western society), things have to be witnessed, measured or otherwise substantiated in order to be considered “evidence.” xPraetorius threw around the word “evidence” multiple times on this thread without providing any. Irrelevant examples, personal beliefs, etc. do not automatically constitute as “evidence” in western society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ xPraetorius
“By the way, my ancestors were nordic, (French, German, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon) and I “id” as human. You, and everyone here, might want to try that once in a while. It’s actually easy…you simply give people — all people — the benefit of the doubt, until they prove they don’t merit it.”—don’t have to try something I have already been doing, but I guess you figure you know better. All this because I refuse to swallow your bs. smh
“So much for racist Republicans”—So much for intellect you claimed to have. I have not issues with republicans and my article was not to prove them as racist. So NEXT!!! You tried to claim….that Obama was not the subject of racial jokes etc. That was the point of that article and instead of you owning up to being wrong the first thing you try to do is turn it around to something else. As for these large sum of racial jokes….do you really think they are only in google searches…try twitter or I know facebook, but since I made the claim I will be happy to find more. 🙂
LikeLike
Ok, Sharina. However, I submit that one racist joke by a 74-year-old grandmother does not constitute a whole lot of racist jokes. Please feel free to return withat least 1,000 different ones, as that is what I call: “a lot.”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Since resw77 already admitted to not reading the posts before replying, there is no real need to respond to the nonsense he says above.
If, however, he admits to reading the posts, then there is no excuse for his inability, or unwillingness) to understand them.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@resw77…one more quick thing. Since you indicated that you don’t read my posts, you therefore render suspect everything you write that is either critical or positive about my writing (yes, you may regard that as an open door). Therefore I will not read your posts until you indicate that you are paying attention. No need to abase yourself. Simply (1) admit that you, indeed, do read my posts, at which point I will start responding to you if you have a serious point, or (2) continue to insist that you don’t read my posts, so I can continue to understand that you are not a serious commenter.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“The first I have to disagree with as Obama experienced a large amount of racial jokes and hate filled attacks during his term compared to any other president I have seen.”—Key word in this statement is “that I have seen.” Do you really want to gamble on how old I was when bush was in office and if at all I was involved in politics or if I had access to anything to show I knew about his level of hate filled attacks? 🙂 You will have the links and youtube videos tomorrow regarding obama as I would like to enjoy the rest of my day.
LikeLike
Oh and since you are the one that specifically believes bush had more that is something you would have to prove. 🙂
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@Brothawolf
(quoting BrothaWolf) “This is the whole point of it all. Everyone has opinions just like everyone has different views. There are also such a things as different truths. There’s more than one perspective to the world. ”
So because I believe that you killed my cousin, that must mean it is the truth? [My reply: That’s what BrothaWolf seems to believe. Not me, however. If you were actually to read the posts, you might have discerned that already. ]
In the real world (i.e., western society), things have to be witnessed, measured or otherwise substantiated in order to be considered “evidence.” xPraetorius threw around the word “evidence” multiple times on this thread without providing any. Irrelevant examples, personal beliefs, etc. do not automatically constitute as “evidence” in western society.
xPraetorius said:
Plainly, resw77, you continue not to read my posts. You are therefore ineligible to comment on them. By the way, I did not kill your cousin.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
i am not harvey milquetoaste, nor politically correcct.
i go there dude, trust and believe, and some sotomayor did come out
actually she said who’s responsible for that [black men killing each other] and i said the black woman who raised them, the mom, she was pretty much mortified, (and we’re talkin about life in the hood here, no mixed neighborhood suburban bs dont get it twisted ppl)
i believe it went something like this, the baby daddy is gone, 10 different kids by ten dudes, mom’s layin up in a effed up house basing up all day waiting for a check, and the kid 8, 10 years old sees all that, is able to understand that,
she went on about how school is supposed to train you for life, well i went to private school and all that crap but i was like a babe in the woods once i got to college, it was my assertion that parental interaction even in limited doses is so much more influential and just a warm blanket to a child, even a teenager even if they wont admit it, if they aint lost to the street already, and of course my tangent is i can’t even see my kids, so that’s kinda what motivated me, out of angst, even more because in PA basically the mom gets the kids as an ex-worker of mine put it “pretty much unless the mom is burning the house down and is roasting marshmellows over it with the kids…”
her position is the kid knows what he is doing just like the adult.
she got so mad at me she left and was gone all night
and well the analogy of the junkie well it’s not your place to counsel a junkie on the street that is pearls before swine, which is your position on trying to come here etc i know this, but i don’t think it is really on point as most people here seem to have jobs and can function in the world, and don’t use race as an excuse to not move on, so that argument is slightly deflective and sort of an overloaded function? i guess.
well thanks for getting me warmed back up as i have been not writing lately i feel the need to do so soon, and i’m ready, i might even work on my blog.
still don’t agree with you
LikeLike
Sharina said:
Oh and since you are the one that specifically believes bush had more that is something you would have to prove. 🙂
xPraetorius:
@Sharina: you just asked me to prove that, for example, the sun rises in the morning. There is not a man, woman, child or jorbia on the face of the earth who pretends that G.W. Bush took less abuse than Obama. If you want to challenge received wisdom of that order, then please check out also the various groups who question the Apollo moon landings.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
so she says though, well how come my kid here never been arrested, this other kid is doin good, and i got to try out “not all black people and not you”, that was not well received either. was talkin about the parents of kids that go out and shoot each other, but she was drunk and generally in a bad mood, it was not my favorite night. i believe i was not upset she left!
LikeLike
v8driver said:
xPreatorius:
Thaanks, v8, for your in-depth post…I need (and want) to do a family thing right now, so will return in a bit to address at greater length.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
No, but I absolutely will gamble on who’s received more “hate communication of of any kind,” and it’ll be Bush. By quite a lot. Big can o’ worms, by the way, but not, I suspect, one you want to open. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Since resw77 already admitted to not reading the posts before replying, there is no real need to respond to the nonsense he says above.”
Based on your responses, you appear to have never read anything that anyone has written. If you pontificated less on this blog and more on your own, you might have half as many visitors as Abagond.
“That’s what BrothaWolf seems to believe. Not me, however. If you were actually to read the posts, you might have discerned that already.”
If you could read, then you’d see that my comment was addressed to brothawolf, not you.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“@Sharina: you just asked me to prove that, for example, the sun rises in the morning. There is not a man, woman, child or jorbia on the face of the earth who pretends that G.W. Bush took less abuse than Obama. If you want to challenge received wisdom of that order, then please check out also the various groups who question the Apollo moon landings.”—I am not asking you to prove anything here. So I would suggest you take the advice you keep trying to give resw77 and read what I am saying or maybe you should ask questions when you fail to understand. You brought up Bush (nor republicans but it did not stop you from trying to bring it up to make a point). If you are going to throw stuff into the conversation that I did not then you deal with the issue of proving or disproving but do not try to throw it my way as something I would have to.
LikeLike
@xPraetorius:
“No, but I absolutely will gamble on who’s received more “hate communication of of any kind,” and it’ll be Bush. By quite a lot. Big can o’ worms, by the way, but not, I suspect, one you want to open.”—So basically in order to avoid being proven wrong you switch it up to hate communication to put yourself in a position to be right instead of addressing the current issue? Again with the trying to throw in positions that I did not have in an attempt to get me to prove or disprove them.
LikeLike
@resw77 LOL!
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@resw77, you said: “If you pontificated less on this blog and more on your own, you might have half as many visitors as Abagond” @resw77: You don’t really know very well how this “internet” thing works, do you?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Thank you for admitting that Bush received way more “hate communications” than Obama. I obviously refuted the “racial jokes” thing.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Thank you for admitting that Bush received way more “hate communications” than Obama. I obviously refuted the “racial jokes” thing.”—I never said that, but twisting and lying is what you are good at soo. 🙂
LikeLike
As for the “racial jokes and hate filled attacks” that I am actually suppose to be looking up….there was so many I had no idea where to begin…..twitter or facebook or youtube or regular articles that the news caught. 🙂
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“You don’t really know very well how this ‘internet’ thing works, do you?”
Should I take that as an admission that this is all a failing attempt to entice Abagond’s readers to argue with you on your fledgling blog? I’m sure you duped a few unfortunate souls, but you’re going to need to spend time writing on your own blog and less on Abagond’s.
And didn’t you say you weren’t reading or responding to my posts? Disappointing…I was really hoping you meant that!
LikeLike
@resww7: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks!
Best,,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Then, amidst that cornucopia of stuff that you allege, why did you produce such an obscure, out-in-left-field example?
Surely, there were thousands more to choose from…
I certainly would have chosen something a whole heckuva lot more relevant than that.
Best.
— x
LikeLike
Oh, and Sharina, please try to make it something that someone — anyone — takes seriously.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
” Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks!”
Don’t thank me yet. I still haven’t resorted to lying, name-calling, harassing, contradicting myself, writing pointless soliloquies, etc.
I’ve got a long way to go to!
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Sorry…there’re,what. 15 of you? and ummmm…fewer of me. 🙂 I might occasionally slip up and miss something. However, since you’ve already admitted to not actually reading the posts, I’m confident that if I miss something that you’ve posted, resw77, it won’t have any effect on the substance of my arguments — which, by the way — you are skillfully ignoring, with this fog of obfuscation and irrelevancies. It’s interesting…this tactic of evasion is so well-refined around here, that I have to believe that it’s a very common, well-practiced tactic from this crowd. Or, that it’s the only tactic people use around here when faced with perspectives they don’t like.
Otherwise, still counting, and as of now, there’s been not one response to my rather stark hypotheticals, except from jefe who expressed the cowardice outright, and said he wouldn’t answer them. Abagond has completely chickened out from answering my question (reference: Does he believe that I’m a racist.) And nothing but whining from people like resw77, sharina, BW, Anne, Herneith, etc. So far, only v8driver and B. R. were able to pull together anything resembling a coherent post that merited any kind of response. I had to pick and choose for the occasional fragment of something worthwhile in all the other steaming piles of olinguito guano you guys have belched out so far.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“Then, amidst that cornucopia of stuff that you allege, why did you produce such an obscure, out-in-left-field example?”—LMFAO!!. Only you took that article and ran with it to mean more (obviously very much more) than it did. Just as you take my words to mean things that many times they have not.
” And nothing but whining from people like resw77, sharina, BW, Anne, Herneith, etc. “—You will have to produce this post where I am whining. Most of my posts are smiles and laughs, so another fabrication on your part then?
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Whew! I have good news for you then! All you’ve done up to now, is lie, call names and harass! Lucky break for you! You haven’t yet contradicted yourself, though, because you haven’t yet seen fit to make a point of any kind, so you still need to cover that. You know the “substance” check mark? However, you’ll have to go back and re-read, as you’ve already confessed to having missed quite a lot. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Oh and by hypothetical you mean the button response….I asked you a question about that seeing as I was unaware of this, but you failed to respond or direct me to w hat you meant. Now go ahead and run along to the excuse of 15 people are coming at me blah blah blah as you always do…now that is a fine example of whining.
In fact like I also said…others experience this as well and have done fine in keeping up.
LikeLike
“I had to pick and choose for the occasional fragment of something worthwhile in all the other steaming piles of olinguito guano you guys have belched out so far.”—Yet has managed to respond to just about everything posted. Wow. 🙂
LikeLike
@sharina
“And nothing but whining from people like resw77, sharina, BW, Anne, Herneith, etc. ”
LOL. He had the nerve to make that statement in his whiney post.
“You will have to produce this post where I am whining. Most of my posts are smiles and laughs, so another fabrication on your part then?”
And now he’s blaming his proclivity to fabricate on having to respond to too many people.
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Sorry…there’re,what. 15 of you? and ummmm…fewer of me.”
Boo hoo. There’s also one of me; I’m not in a group or imaginative “think tank” that operates a struggling blog.
You picked fights with everyone, so either deal with it or move on.
“All you’ve done up to now, is lie, call names and harass”
Everyone has an opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. However, when I said you lied and called names and harassed, I actually used your own quotes to prove it.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
This is the statement you made sparking this so called journey.
“I’ve not heard one single, solitary racial joke directed at Obama, or at anyone in his administration.” —-My respone to you was…and I will quote “this goes back to your selection of information.” If you stand by this statment that you have not heard it then so be it, but that link is proof that it has been done.
You then went on to pick through what I said and say well you need to prove this.
My initial response was not to you or anyone in particular, but you took that opportunity to engage me. You have coninuously twisted my words to suit your position and even stooped so low as to lie about things I said/did and you want me to sit here and coat tail to your fragile ego? I don’t think so. I have tried my best to be nice to you and tried my best to agree to disagree but as the rude person you are that was not enough and you felt it gave you merit to treat me as you have been. You have come off as a negative person and for that I simply would ask you to no longer engage me.
LikeLike
Nope…there’s only one of you — really 1/10th of you if you’re counting substance, but you can go off and take a nap, have a pint or two, feed the pets, watch Law ‘N Order, take a bath and go on a two week vacation, while still being confident that there is another mindless drone to pick up where you left off. I don’t have that.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I have never regardless of my disagreements with a poster asked them to not respond to me, but I refuse to continue playing these games where I not only have to watch for someone twisting my words, but I have to watch for lies, and mental games because they simply do not have the integrity to own up to their own mistakes. I am sorry but if he even mentions my name I would like his post deleted.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Sharina: you said that Obama had suffered from some vast quantity of racist jokes (for which I challenged you) and showed me an obscure reference from 2011, from someone who immediately fell into obscurity. Sorry, surely you could come up with something better than that.
As to your accusations, of course I never ever, not once, not ever lied to you. Please refer to the definition of “lie.”
As to your request, and I quote: “You have come off as a negative person and for that I simply would ask you to no longer engage me.” (1) I point to all those beautiful posts to me filled with sweetness and light — particularly from you 🙂 and (2) I’d be happy to. Please feel free to consider your response to this post as the last time I’ll address you. (Chicken! 🙂 ) Unless, that is, you say something delicious, as you tend to.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
One small correction to your post, Sharina:
“I have never regardless of my disagreements with a poster asked them to not respond to me, but I refuse to continue playing these games where I not only have to watch for someone twisting my words, but I have to watch for lies, and mental games because they simply do not have the integrity to own up to their own mistakes. I am sorry but if he even mentions my name I would like his post censored.”
@Sharina: Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you refuse to engage with me?!? It’s pretty easy.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ resw77
“And now he’s blaming his proclivity to fabricate on having to respond to too many people.”—That is my big problem here. The constant need to just make stuff up and pass it off. To me that shows malice and a complete lack of regard for the truth. I am all for hearing different points of views from anyone, but this type of behavior is just too much. I have a loving family and friends and I am happy and this type of negativity is what I don’t need to gather around me.
I have been in comment sections where every poster has attacked me and I simply deal with it. If I make a mistake big or small I apologize for it, but I never excuse it.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
And yet you do nothing here but excuse, bluster, accuse me of ridiculous things, read minds, misquote me, call me names, put words in my mouth … didn’t you indicate that you were through addressing me? 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPretorius:
I’m a hard worker.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
“you said that Obama had suffered from some vast quantity of racist jokes (for which I challenged you) “—You challenged me before or after that statement? See You made that statement I quoted first in which I gave that link to. Because it was you who claimed “I’ve not heard one single, solitary racial joke directed at Obama, or at anyone in his administration.” So at that point it was not about the numbers. It was not until later that you decided to challenge me, then it became about the numbers, but by then you had lied on me, fabricated situations regarding me, and I was rightfully feed up.
“As to your accusations, of course I never ever, not once, not ever lied to you. Please refer to the definition of “lie.””—By all means refer to the different definitions of lie. You can by all means hang on to the one you feel exonerates you, but I am holding on to the one that describes you.
“Chicken!”—More childishness in the effort to continue your lies and fabrications. If you can’t admit your wrongs, then it is in no way a chicken move for me to ask that you leave me alone.
And as I have said to you for the 3rd time now…You have a nice day. 🙂
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Sorry…there’re,what. 15 of you? and ummmm…fewer of me.”
“Nope…there’s only one of you..”
LOL. Another prime example of your many contradictory statements.
“you can go off and take a nap…[whining]…I don’t have that.”
Just ask the “petite black woman” in your “think tank” or one of the others who uses your “generic” name to take over for you.
LikeLike
@ resw77
Is it me or was i talking to you in that response, yet again he is attempting to engage me.
LikeLike
@Sharina
“Is it me or was i talking to you in that response, yet again he is attempting to engage me.”
That’s a good example of the harassment in which he claims he does not engage.
LikeLike
@both of you…when it goes rapid-fire, I do mix up who’s talking to whom. Your inability to envision that possibility speaks poorly of you.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Not the plan. ‘Sides, she’s doing something else.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
To repeat. I’ve never lied to you. Why should I…I don’t need reference to lies to bat back the sillinesses everyone here has been writing.
You have a nice day, too. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I will kindly answer this question
“@Sharina: Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you refuse to engage with me?!?”—I don’t like when people make up lies and fabrications about me. You did that repeatedly and then when asked to provide proof you come back and tell me I should provide it and that you are not my secretary. Then you start to twist my words. It would be ok if this was happening sometimes but the mere fact that it has become almost every post is ridiculous.
I personally no longer wish to make times for the games. I don’t want to make time to repeat myself. i don’t want to make time to have someone decide to call me names or make personal attacks on me, especially when I did not engage them first. I am done and if you wish to continue then by all means do so but I am removing myself from the train wreck as I have better things to do that will make me happy. Beside…it is better that I remove myself than to take my experience with you and turn it into an excuse to hate white people.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
First example: “15 of you” — “you” = plural.
Second example: “there’s only one of you” — “you” = singular.
I can see how the less literate might become confused. I’ll lower the intellectual level a bit.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Whew! Good thing I didn’t do any of that!
Happy to have you address other things! Finally!
(I predict you’ll respond to this one. 🙂 )
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ resw77
“I do mix up who’s talking to whom. Your inability to envision that possibility speaks poorly of you.”—LMFAO!! When truthseeker made this claim that it was what he was doing what did he say to her again? something like no just me…..Then I could have sworn I acknowledge no qualms with him or them.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I officially would like to claim harassment as I have asked xPraetorius to leave me alone yet he has continuously attempted to engage me.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
I missed the BIG nugget in here! Sharina said: “That is my big problem here. The constant need to just make stuff up and pass it off.” I never thought Sharina would admit to “just making stuff up and passing it off,” but I’m glad to hear her admit it! Confession is good for the soul, and I’m glad Sharina has seen the light!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I will excuse posts that he responds to where I have answered his questions but I will not longer be answering his questions or engaging him.
LikeLike
@ Resw77
Isn’t it nice. More proof of him twisting my words.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Two quick things: (1) Sharina: do you really think that you don’t give as good as you get? Abagond told you, above, just to stop engaging me…(2) the herds are starting to bleat again.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Please note another clear indication to xPraetorius to no longer respond to me.
@xPraetorius
I am once again kindly asking that you leave me along. I no longer wish to engage you on any matter for the reasons I have clearly stated to you. If you still have confusions pleas feel free to reread what I have previously stated.
LikeLike
alone*
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Your inability to envision that possibility speaks poorly of you.”
LOL. You mean your inability. We are pointing this out to you b/c we see it and you don’t.
“Not the plan. ‘Sides, she’s doing something else.”
LOL. No one buys your BS.
xpraetorius: “Sorry…there’re,what. 15 of you? and ummmm…fewer of me.”
So I guess “me” is supposedly plural too, huh, oh great literate one?
And, of course, saying “fewer of me” is an excellent demonstration of your supposedly superior writing skills.
LikeLike
@Sharina
“Isn’t it nice. More proof of him twisting my words.”
That’s probably why Abagond gave him this post: a display window for his juvenile and dishonest behaviour. Maybe it was a good idea after all.
LikeLike
xPraetorius, why did you pick the name or is it your real name. Is it the musician side of you that wanted the name in Latin though deep in German history or was it the name of Judge that caught you.
I cannot for the life of me understand the zeal in which you write. I am sure that in all things moderation has been over-looked. I won’t berate you on something that was made specifically for you. I do believe you have the right to go wild on such a thing.
I just worry that you haven’t found your pace. All around you on this blog there is a feeling of qualm. I do not think you want this, I would rather think you prefer a hand shake and beer approach. There are places for no bars arguments and having such zeal in your approach. I ask you to please take a little rest from this site collect your thoughts and find away of discussion that is not mal like. Seek not the Mars example here, there is a time and a place for it. I feel that maybe you aren’t able to get through how you’d like to.
Take sometimes and let the battle lust die down a bit. It may hurt a bit but take a little acquiesce before you burn down the last of the bridges. I use to debate and I can understand the feeling of getting your point through. Yet, getting your point through while alienating your audience at least to me is not a good thing. I believe you can do better.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
If you re-read, you’ll see that I never claimed to have superior writing skills, just that you have inferior reading skills. I continue to hold that opinion. “Fewer of me” is plainly a funny.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Looks like you got the last word, Sharina! 🙂
LikeLike
King of Trouble said:
xPraetorius:
@KoT: the name choice was much simpler than that.
I appreciate your worries as to whether or not I’m adequately rested. I assure you, I am. I would ask you: is my zeal adequately matched by the zeal coming from the other side of the argument? If so, what’s the problem? In my opinion, there seems to be plenty of zeal coming from Abagond-world. Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve established no bridges here that I could burn down.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Nope. It was to get my comments off to the sidelines and keep me busy with the substanceless, off-topic stuff from people like you and Sharina, so I’d avoid commenting on the other threads. Wasn’t that obvious to you, res?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Whew! Finally!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Notice the quoted comments as this individual continues to make efforts to engage me. I am asking again that his comments that include my name be deleted as I do not wish to be involved with dishonest individuals or pathetic childish behavior.
“Whew! Finally!”
“Nope. It was to get my comments off to the sidelines and keep me busy with the substanceless, off-topic stuff from people like you and Sharina, so I’d avoid commenting on the other threads. Wasn’t that obvious to you, res?”
“Looks like you got the last word, Sharina!” 🙂
I at this point not only consider it harassment but cyberbullying and will proceed to copy these statements and take whatever further steps needed to remedy them.
LikeLike
@ resw77
“That’s probably why Abagond gave him this post: a display window for his juvenile and dishonest behaviour. Maybe it was a good idea after all.”—Perhaps but it is at this point sad that he feels harassment is an accomplishment.
LikeLike
@ King of Troube
I truly admire the wise words that you share.
LikeLike
Sharina said:
So, it’s fine for you to toss off cheap pot shots, but not for me to respond? That’s just odd thinking.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
This quote is further harassment. I was talking to King of Trouble and admiring him and he has once again made it about him in an attempt to engage me.
“So, it’s fine for you to toss off cheap pot shots, but not for me to respond? That’s just odd thinking.”
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Many, many comments ago in this thread Abagond offered the following advice:
Perhaps if you had chosen to consider this advice more carefully you would not be in the current predicament you find yourself in. Maybe now is the time to call it quits and put this down to experience.
I personally do not think its too late to take on board Abagond’s previous advice.
LikeLike
xPraetorius
Your last response to me was, to put it mildly, little short of incoherent, dis-connected rambling. Even though I noticed you had two attempts at it.
At the end of my comment I put this to you:
“…By all means disagree with what people say but to insist that they rely simply on your own words for this is not SERIOUS debate is it?…”
Many other commentators have repeatedly made similar observations of your behaviour. So I am by no means the first to point this out or bring it to your attention.
While it is obvious you ignore and continue to ignore this behaviour on your part you seem to enjoy and relish pointing this out in others:
Which as, many commentators posting here have expressed, is no different than what they have requested of you?
Perhaps it is also time for xPraetorius to begin to withdraw and reflect on his own words, actions and behaviour. You wouldn’t tolerate such hypocritical and inconsistent reasoning from commentators here so why should they from you?
This goes beyond a simple misunderstanding or illustration of double standards on your part…
LikeLike
xpraetorius: “Nope. It was to get my comments off to the sidelines and keep me busy with the substanceless, off-topic stuff from people like you and Sharina, so I’d avoid commenting on the other threads. Wasn’t that obvious to you, res”
it didn’t work
LikeLike
@Kwamla
Perhaps it is. My hard head did not let me follow them at first but I most certainly know better now.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
1. On THIS thread I allow people to make personal remarks about xPraetorius, therefore he is allowed to make them back.
2. On OTHER threads I delete personal remarks upon request. I also sometimes delete them on my own.
2. Anyone is allowed to comment on what you SAY, mock it even. This is a public forum. If you are unwilling to face that degree of scrutiny, you are in the wrong place. You are expected to stand by what you say.
LikeLike
@ Sharina:
I told you there was a shark in the water and now you are complaining there is a shark in the water.
LikeLike
@ abagond
!. I asked him to stop engaging me as I had decided to stop engaging him, so he had no need to continue to make remarks to me.
2. I stand by fully what I say, but I have asked him to stop responding to me (for the reasons I noted) and as such he is continuing it.
“I told you there was a shark in the water and now you are complaining there is a shark in the water.”—No, I am complaining of harassment when I have asked him to stop engaging me.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I see how it is though, so I will handle this my way. 🙂
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“I never claimed to have superior writing skills, just that you have inferior reading skills”
…Yet you have the nerve to “correct” people’s “stupid” and “nonsensical” (one of your favourite words) posts…SMH…
I recall telling you numerous times that you lacked reading comprehension skills, and now I see you’re latching on. Try being original.
“’Fewer of me’ is plainly a funny.”
Nice try covering up your poor writing skills, but it doesn’t work on me (or anyone else). That’s probably why your little blog can’t seem to attract much interest…
LikeLike
resw77 said:
@xpraetorius
“I never claimed to have superior writing skills, just that you have inferior reading skills”
…Yet you have the nerve to “correct” people’s “stupid” and “nonsensical” (one of your favourite words) posts…SMH…
I recall telling you numerous times that you lacked reading comprehension skills, and now I see you’re latching on. Try being original.
“’Fewer of me’ is plainly a funny.”
Nice try covering up your poor writing skills, but it doesn’t work on me (or anyone else). That’s probably why your little blog can’t seem to attract much interest…
xPraetorius:
Ok. @resw77, if you wish to believe I’m a poor writer or reader, please feel free to do so.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
Picturesquely said, Abagond! Incorrect, but picturesque all the same. I’m more like a guppy trying to make his voice heard above all the unthinking righteous indignation. (There: it’s teed up. Feel free to have fun with the guppy image. 🙂 )
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Nope. It was to get my comments off to the sidelines and keep me busy with the substanceless, off-topic stuff from people like you and Sharina, so I’d avoid commenting on the other threads. ”
He could have achieved that by simply deleting your off-topic comments…I stayed on-topic BTW.
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“Ok. @resw77, if you wish to believe I’m a poor writer or reader, please feel free to do so.”
Thanks, but I don’t need your permission…
LikeLike
..and I see Abagond just deleted another of your off-topic comments on the “How to Tell if…” thread…SMH
LikeLike
OK, got it. 😛
LikeLike
@ resw77
“He could have achieved that by simply deleting your off-topic comments…I stayed on-topic BTW.”—I am beginning to believe the issue was not a matter of topic. I don’t see where anyone was off-topic, but I did notice that every time the conversation was stable…..he would do something to cause chaos.
LikeLike
@Sharina
“I don’t see where anyone was off-topic, but I did notice that every time the conversation was stable…..he would do something to cause chaos.”
And he is still trying to take other threads off topic…but that’s just another good example of him criticising others for doing (or not doing) what he does.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
That’s your silly interpretation. You keep at it res…at some point you’ll do a substantive, on-topic post purely by accident!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Are you back?
LikeLike
resw77 said:
..and I see Abagond just deleted another of your off-topic comments on the “How to Tell if…” thread…SMH
xPraetorius:
Yes…the purge has begun. Ideological purity will be established! 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
Hello Xpraetorius. I have enjoyed your arguments, some very insightful and some very educational. I have agreed with the majority of your points and I do concur that there are and have been initiatives in play to address racism. We will agree that it is a punishable offence and I agree with yourself that there has been a period of self examination to put right the wrongs of the past.
However, I am having a hard time with the global assumption that racism is no longer a big problem. You like to play on statistics to prove this hypothesis. For instance, small pockets of isolated incidents don’t equate to a big problem. So, correct me if I am wrong, it would take more than half the population of the USA to be racist for it to be a big problem? Am i over simplifying? Please correct me if so. What number would it take for it to be a big problem?
Talking from personal experience, all the black people I have ever known have suffered racial abuse, either in the past or present, or both. You could argue that this may be concentrated in certain areas, but I have known black people throughout the world. If it was not a big problem, then I expect very few of my black friends to have experienced racial abuse.
Perhaps one part of the country is racist, maybe a backwater town. Ideas spread and future generations learn from their descendants. Some fortunately know better and shirk off these ideas.
Unless a survey is carried out countrywide, we cannot know for certain if it is a big problem or not. I suppose through police reports and reported incidents, then the government itself would truly know. Do they want to admit that racism is a big problem in it’s own self interests? I do not claim to know the answer, but nobody can pretend that they do have the answer either.
We can only hope through time that all scars will be healed, but more understanding of the prejudices that people endure that we can address these issues
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
I am sure you are aware of the term cyber bullying. Because of you inability to be mature in your debates(among other things) I have kindly asked you to stop commenting to me. Yet you continue a series of harrassing comments that seek to engage me. Thus I willat this point take the steps to treat I as cyberbullying and proceed as such.
But know this….had you acted like an adult in our discussion, then you would have been treated as one and I would not be taking the direction I am now. Thank you for providing the evidence I need to proceed.
LikeLike
@ gio
Interesting enough I did provide a survey that was done to determine if America is more or less racist after Obama’s election. It is above, but I will recopy when I am at my computer.
LikeLike
@ sharina,
Thanks, I will look forward to reading.
LikeLike
Agreed.
The sentence in bold is a substantive objection: it highlights one of the main problems with xPraetorius’ reasoning. Even if his points were an adequate causal explanation (I find them inadequate) of how one can “succeed” irrespective of race, they still fail to establish the conclusion that racism is not a big problem.
Furthermore, his use of the adjective “big” is problematic because it is entirely subjective.
In short, these are just two of the main criticisms raised against xPraetorius in this thread.
Below is a clear example of his reasoning (point “A” is question-begging):
LikeLike
@ Peanut
My door is always open for you to do a guest post. You have done at least two in the past.
LikeLike
Truthseeker:
Agreed.
The sentence in bold is a substantive objection: it highlights one of the main problems with xPraetorius’ reasoning. Even if his points were an adequate causal explanation (I find them inadequate) of how one can “succeed” irrespective of race, they still fail to establish the conclusion that racism is not a big problem.
Furthermore, his use of the adjective “big” is problematic because it is entirely subjective.
In short, these are just two of the main criticisms raised against xPraetorius in this thread.
@Truthseeker
Yes, you are correct, nothing more than just subjective reasoning. Xpraetorius has scorned people in this thread for mind reading and his big assumption that racism is not a big problem is guilty of the same thing. Covert racists exist, and if appearing to agree with the consensus frees them of guilt or hides their real emotions, then it frees them of scrutiny. “Hey, Barack Obama’s presidency is a wonderful thing [I hope this hides my racism].
A crude example and I apologise, but I hope you understand my point.
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
@Kwamla: I’m being kind of censored here, so either this will come to you late, or not at all…One quick point. Yes, BW tells all sorts of personal anecdotes and expects that they somehow can prove that his experience is global. A personal anecdote in return is perfectly valid to illustrate the much smaller point that playing dueling personal anecdotes (or dueling videos, links, sources, studies or experts for that matter) is largely fruitless in a forum like this one. Why? Simple: the person disagreeing will instantly challenge the validity of your anecdote, link, video, source, expert or study, and produce an equal and opposite one of his own.
Yes, I admit, I’ve done it here. For example: I referred to Wikipedia as a source for the number of copies of an infamous book sold. Instantly, there arose a howl of derision and scorn directed at my use of Wikipedia as a source. Further, others have produced sources whose validity I disputed. That’s why I largely (though not infallibly, to be sure) keep it on the level of the theoretical and/or the widely known. Things like the abolitionist movement and its roots are widely known and accepted. Things like the amount of wealth transferred from whites to others are either widely known, or can be calculated based on widely known facts. There is no perfect way to demonstrate either your point or mine. There are invalid ways to prove global assertions (such as: white racism remains a big problem in America), and one of those is the personal anecdote.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina, Ive been away from computors and couldnt come in, but, I wanted to say, without your laborous diologue with Mr X, we wouldnt have seen various postions he has that tell us what is behind some of his statements
You mentioned about Brazil above to me, excuse me if I run with that a minute, I sure wish I could share what I saw last week with everyone because it truly was a phenominal example of deep dish Afro diasporic drum dance culture and its enormous power …Ive opened for Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, Billy Joel, Keith Jarret, Thelma Houston, Chick Correa, Gary Burton etc etc, and I was never more rivited waching the groups before me and after, every second was sensational and the essence of black Afro diasporic genius I have reffered to
The real sad part is that, these groups are no way in the Brazilian main stream media …they tour , all over the world, but, no one knows about them like the stream of mediocrity served up on the chumpy buffy table the corps give us…even the shows that think they are showing us culture
this incredible music dance is languishing in obscurity, and ever more being regulated to nothingness , dismissed, buried and destroyed..
right now, Brazil is trying to face its racism with quotas implimented, public service anouncements that talk about how bad racism is, slowly black faces enter mainstream media…yet, the real profound Afro Brazilian roots and expresions are being slowly regulated out of the picture for a more homogonised standard whitenised version of culture…even with some Afro diasporic expresions pushed, but in a strange catagorised way, not a healty real way
this is the “racism” I see as the real villain…it always was cultural
Mr X has his five points, which as Kwamla validly pointed out, doesnt fit for everyone…
but i say, those points arnt really the points that get over in the cut throat business world…I would say you really need to:
1) be able to put on false smiles and politic to get ahead
2) be prepared to lie and cheat if you have to, and if not, to gain the offensive, for sure on the defensive, like answering how much money you make when someone asks you
3) learn how to play into cliques and hiarcial situations
4) learn how to throw some elbows under the boards…or you will be crushed
5) be on the look out from getting stabbed in the back
the business world is a dog eat dog situation, cruel , cold blooded and not fare
to the people who berate oprah for negotiating with the white owned sponcars, you have to get, you dont have to like or agree with people you do business with
a black woman in the music business gave this tip out and i remember it all the time “its not what you deserve its what you negociate”
the 5 points of me x dont really play out in reality..in truth, if the vh1 special can be beleived about the crack rappers who got big in the music business,guys who actualy sold crack on the corners actualy found a way to get in the music business and become huge successes all the way to entering the biggest entertainment business of all…the movies
(Im in Salvador right now, Peanut!!!! Ill say hello for you)
LikeLike
Gio said:
Truthseeker:
Agreed.
The sentence in bold is a substantive objection: it highlights one of the main problems with xPraetorius’ reasoning. Even if his points were an adequate causal explanation (I find them inadequate) of how one can “succeed” irrespective of race, they still fail to establish the conclusion that racism is not a big problem.
Furthermore, his use of the adjective “big” is problematic because it is entirely subjective.
In short, these are just two of the main criticisms raised against xPraetorius in this thread.
@Truthseeker
Yes, you are correct, nothing more than just subjective reasoning. Xpraetorius has scorned people in this thread for mind reading and his big assumption that racism is not a big problem is guilty of the same thing. Covert racists exist, and if appearing to agree with the consensus frees them of guilt or hides their real emotions, then it frees them of scrutiny. “Hey, Barack Obama’s presidency is a wonderful thing [I hope this hides my racism].
A crude example and I apologise, but I hope you understand my point.
xPraetorius:
@Gio: I’m being kind of censored here, so either this will come to you late, or not at all…
First: thank you for admitting that it’s possible that my points are correct, and that some might differ with them, yet some might find them persuasive.
Second: I addressed the difficulty with “big” in an exchange with TS, I believe. I explained that since I don’t specifically call for a hard and fast conclusion with the “five points,” I would accept the reader’s definition of “big.” Quite a concession on my part, you’ll agree, I’m sure.
Instantly, you can say I’m wrong merely because of differing perceptions regarding the concept of “big.”
However, you’ll see also that I invited the reader to approach the five points as a thought exercise, that would take place in the head of the reader. I further stated that there was no need even to “answer” in public the “yes” or “no” question implied by the points, but to use the points as an aid in assessing the bigger picture. That’s all.
If you re-read, you’ll see also that I never suggested that the “five points” were dispositive, but merely a thought exercise. I further said, publicly, that my answer to the “five points” was “Yes,” so as to provide an insight into and illustration of where I was coming from.
As to your point that “covert racists” exist. I believe that to be true as well, but it’s completely irrelevant. Since the extent of it cannot be known, it cannot form a valid part of any argument. To say that covert racism exists is probably a true statement. This is also a true statement: “Even if covert racism didn’t exist at all no one could possibly know it.”
Now, your final point is correct. All of this is subjective reasoning. There is not a measure for racism. Racism is a state of mind…one can’t measure that.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Peanut said:
xPraetorius:
@Peanut: I’m being kind of censored here, so either this will come to you late, or not at all…
@Peanut: And yet, all I ever did was respond to others. 🙂 My first post was right on-topic; then all my follow-up posts were simply in response to others’ posts. If their response was off-topic, then, of course, any response but “get back on-topic!” would be to continue to derail. By definition. Since Abagond allowed the derailment by those who agree with him, I drew the perfectly valid conclusion that Abagond didn’t mind if the exchange went far afield. He’s the moderator here after all. He can’t allow the discussion to range far and wide, then complain that the discussion went far and wide! He has all power here!
I took the approach that I would respond to anyone who wanted to engage. I didn’t for example bring up Dr. Llaila Afrika. I didn’t for example, bring up the discussions of white deeds and misdeeds throughout history, but I did respond to those who did. An honest reading of any thread I was in will confirm that.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
B. R. said:
xPraetorius:
@B. R.: I’m being kind of censored here, so either this will come to you late, or not at all…
Very interesting, kind of dismaying view into the music business world and Brazilian society. You and I could go on for a very long time about the condition of music in the two countries! “Commercial vs. Non-commercial” alone would occupy volumes! Especially nowadays, when all participants in the music industry are scrabbling for decreasing dollars as people either save their discretionary money or re-focus it on necessities. In a horrible economy, such as we have now, music purchases of any kind are among the first things to be cut off, while YouTube and other free music sources prosper.
As I mentioned above, I hope you have a gigantically successful trip!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Yes, better to do a guest post about a topic that you know something about. Do you really want a thread that is all about you only? I didn’t take you for a megalomaniac. 😛
LikeLike
@peanut
Trust me when I day there is a massive difference in this post and any one you have or would ever write.
LikeLike
@ Peanut
I seriously doubt you would want me to write a “Notes on Peanut” post and then throw it open for comments, allowing people to say anything about you because YOU would be the topic.
LikeLike
But we love peanut so I doubt it would be a problem, but a note on Abagond…hmmmm
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Yes, mine’s a lot and more interesting. A “Notes on Peanut” post in which everyone says, “We love Peanut, and here’s why.” would be a yawnfest.
This one is, manifestly, not a yawnfest. 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Gio
Here is the study: http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/in-focus-racism-in-america_2012-10-28.html
Frankly they did not need to do a study to tell me this. The racist twitter feed, the racist jokes, the racist facebook comments…..this man has had to deal with such a large amount of hate. It is sad. I understand disagreeing with his policies, but they way they decided to disagree is disheartening.
I am curious if any has been done after the Martin-Zimmerman to get an idea of race relations since the trial verdict. That would be very telling. What is odd to me that people is when race gets involved in these situations I always read or hear “something else for the media to divide us.” Truth is we were already divided. The focus is just being put on how much.
LikeLike
@ B.R.
“its not what you deserve its what you negociate”—That is very true. Sad but true.
Party it up for me. 🙂 I have 30 days until my next vacation and it is not remotely fast enough.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Thanks for the article Sharina. Very insightful and at the same time very worrying. I had no idea the percentage was so high. Funnily enough, it is 51% that express anti-black sentiments or attitudes, a number high enough for Xpraetorius to admit that it is really a big problem.
@ Xpraetorius
Care to read: http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/in-focus-racism-in-america_2012-10-28.html?pagenum=1
This line in particular:
“Fifty-one percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.”
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
This is in answer to a comment of yours I deleted on the Christopher Lane thread:
1. Insults: Anyone is allowed to mock or question someone’s intelligence. You are allowed to call someone a racist or a troll. They relate to the part a commenter plays on this blog. More personal remarks I will delete upon request. Sometimes I delete them myself, particularly if I think they are going to lead to a fight (or did lead to a fight).
But please note: I have little sympathy for those who dish it out but cannot take it. So, for someone like you, who drips with condescension, who hectors commenters who tell you to leave them alone, you are not going to get much sympathy from me. Same goes for Herneith, Satanforce, B.R. and some others who can be pretty rough.
2. The word “racist” is not a slur here. Too much of the blog is about racism to ban it or even moderate it. Making it a word too “toxic” to use silences those who call out racism, which in effect supports the racist status quo. Offline whites try to Control Reality by making it a costly word to use. But not here – because I set the rules. To me it is not a slur but a description, like “communist” or “Methodist”.
If you do not like being called “racist”, then go back to your own blog where you can ban it.
LikeLike
Sorry Abagond, posted on the wrong thread:
@ xpraetorius
Thank you for posting. I do understand your thought exercise and what it aims to achieve. Although, is it not in the best interests of the United States to make sure everybody who is capable of working to do so? Paying into the economy rather than taking from it? Even in a racist society, it would be rather detrimental to refuse or make it difficult for minorities to work. Imagine the strain on public funds.
I did a quick check on the 2010 census for the USA, and there are almost 40 Million black people living in the USA.
Perhaps your argument isn’t that Black people cannot work, but are relegated to low income work by default. Hence, following your 5 points, they would be able to escape that prison?
Yes, we have seen successful Black personalities in the media who are the exception to the norm. Don’t forget though, we live in a capitalist world, so anybody can be profitable if they have the desired talents.
Supply and demand in its most basic form.
It doesn’t negate the fact we live in a racist society and that the average Black person who are not afforded fame and fortune have to endure racial abuse in varying degrees that prevent them from fulfilling their desires and to enjoying a comfortable life without prejudice.
I will agree with you that race relations have improved in the last 50 years, but not nearly enough to warrant race relations being just a small problem. It will eventually and gradually improve over time (I can only hope so) whereby we are all enjoy equality.
LikeLike
Gio said
xPraetorius:
@Gio: This is why, as I mentioned above, I prefer not to dip into the realm of dueling studies. For every one like this you can produce I can produce another that “proves” or at least demonstrates the exact opposite conclusion. Furthermore, I noticed the timing was late October, 2012, just before the November election. This “study” was likely one of those timed to produce its “results” and “findings” right before the election, so that depending on the election results, people in the race grievance industry could howl, “See? See?” and start their opposition to President Romney.
Here’s a quote from the article: “We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked,” said Jelani Cobb, professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut. “When we’ve seen progress, we’ve also seen backlash.”
Here’s another quote in reaction to the study: “Part of it is growing polarization within American society,” said Fredrick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University. “The last Democrat in the White House said we had to have a national discussion about race. There’s been total silence around issues of race with this president. But, as you see, whether there is silence or an elevation of the discussion of race, you still have polarization. It will take more generations, I suspect, before we eliminate these deep feelings.”
So, they obtain a reaction from two people whose very livelihood is tied up in the race grievance industry? I noticed they didn’t solicit the opinion of someone who disagrees with the findings. There are a few of them out there, after all.
Then, the source of the study is the AP, working with a Stanford University professor — Ooooookay…Just about ’nuff said. Ivy Plus schools and the AP are hardly noted for producing studies that accurately portray political states-of-mind in America.
Their methodology — on online poll using supposedly random interviewees from a “nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research” — is pretty suspect. GfK Custom Research is, I gather, a German market research firm. I happen to have a background in Market Research — I wrote database software to store and analyze the results of telephone surveys. I find their description of how they collected their data — online they asked people to respond to questions and pictures and to provide reactions. Ouch! This methodology is fraught with the potential for obtaining results way off from what people actually think! First there’s the famous Question with five mutually exclusive choices. I’ve never taken such a survey where any of the five choices were completely satisfactory! Second: there’s the question of writing/typing vs. talking. I don’t care that people tend to be more honest online than speaking, they tend also to express themselves a lot more poorly ion writing than speaking. There’s more, but that’s enough for now.
Furthermore, I can tell you that it’s a breeze to manipulate a study to tell you what you want it to tell you, and numerous studies are made with the goal of confirming preconceived notions, rather than arriving at the truth.
With that long-winded reaction out of the way, the bottom line is: that’s why I try not to play dueling studies (or videos, or links, or sources, or experts) in a forum like this. For every such “study” anyone produces finding this or that, you can find another equally credible study finding not this or not that.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Gio
But he won’t. In fact I can almost bet he will find a way to deflect from it or show it has little or no meaning. Denial is the very heart of why I personally believe racism is a big problem. In life you can not fix a problem if you are unwilling to acknowledge their is one. Part of the reason why I think the denial happens is basically because people see it as no real way to fix them. People don’t really know what to do or where to start to remedy the problem. I did a Google search regarding America not racist….came up with studies on America racist. With so much talk about it from so many different sources I doubt that it is not a big problem, but rather a problem people prefer not to address. TO be completely honest….I was like that once. In this denial. In it for a long time, but then you wake up and you scramble to find others who have woken up so you can find ways to fix the problem.
LikeLike
@ xpraetorius
I understand your cynicism to surveys and studies, I don’t entirely trust them as well when they can be structured in such a manner as to manipulate the results. Point taken.
However, with the study making such bold claims, would they not need substantive evidence at their feet if they ever came under scrutiny?
I can imagine participants would be more honest filling out an online survey, no reprisals or awkwardness to worry about.
Anyway, I like yourself, am here to learn. If you have sources that contradict the aforementioned study, then I would be more than happy to take the time to read it and adjust my perspective if it is persuasive enough.
Take care.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
I appreciate the clarification. I re-read your comments policy and some of the comments afterward, and that gave additional clarification. However, you did leave a wide range of latitude for you simply to delete comments as you see fit. (<– obviously completely within your rights as Supreme Master of this blog.) I’m interpreting either that (1) I fell afoul of the subjective nature of your decisions, which is heavily influenced by whether or not you like the poster or he agrees with you, or (2) there were other posters whose entries were deleted as well, but you didn’t notify them publicly. And, as to your objection that I “drip with condescension” or “hector,” none do that better than BrothaWolf who has experienced only “Yay rah rah’s” from anyone here.
You will acknowledge, I hope, that not considering the accusation of racism to be a slur, does add a rather important, hidden nuance to your comments policy where you explicitly threaten to delete comments for ad hominem attacks or name calling.
Since calling someone a racist is not considered name calling, I withdraw my request for an apology.
As to your assertion that I can dish it out, but not take it, I think that is demonstrably false. I can take it just fine…I get miffed when I dish it back and the recipient just runs to papa Abagond calling for you to delete or ban me. I think the scorn that I heap at that point is more than justified. You may disagree. Furthermore, all the dishers here gave (nearly 🙂 ) as good as they got. If I’m a more skilled putter-downer, then those who would put me down ought simply to tread more carefully. I will not put anyone down who does not put me down, but I think I owe it to your posters to address their ideas as forcefully as I think they need to be addressed, if only in the interest of honesty and candor.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Gio said:
xPraetorius:
Thanks, Gio, for your very thoughtful post…I agree with your assessment of online posts in one regard. Some might be more honest, but others might be more willing to exaggerate for effect. There are just a whole lot more clarifying data points that one can when researching thoughts and feelings when one is not confined to closed-ended responses and the like.
A personal anecdote (please see all my disclaimers above regarding personal anecdotes, but it could be illustrative of the problem with surveys and polls): I once responded to a telephone poll-taker regarding current events. She asked me about 30 questions, and for each question gave me the five options for a response. For not one of the questions were the five possible responses even close to adequate, yet they covered the entire gamut of possible responses! The five possible responses were in each case something like: “Would you say you are 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. somewhat dissatisfied, 3. neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4. somewhat satisfied, or 5. very satisfied?” My answer each time was something like, “Well, I guess the closest is #3, but that’s not even close to the answer I’d give if I could respond fully to the question.” The poll-taker’s response: “Well, I have only these five choices, so I’ll mark you down for #3.” At the end of the poll, I had to tell the very pleasant young lady, “If you read back my responses, you will not have an even remotely accurate reading of what I think of [whatever the topic was].” She responded, “Ok…thank you for your time,” and hung up. Later, I learned how that particular poll showed all these very interesting things about how people are thinking and feeling and all the rest. It was as very well-respected polling organization too! Like Gallup or another famous one. Polling and surveys are part of an extremely inexact science.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Correction:
xPraetorius said:
I meant to say:
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
Sorry, @Sharina, I can’t just let this one go by. You said: “this man has had to deal with such a large amount of hate. It is sad. I understand disagreeing with his policies, but they way they decided to disagree is disheartening.” I assume you’re talking about President Obama.
I do hope, then, that you were equally quick to condemn the vastly greater amount of sheer, undisguised, wide-open hatred directed at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, including open speculation about assassinating him.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
sharina:
But he won’t. In fact I can almost bet he will find a way to deflect from it or show it has little or no meaning. Denial is the very heart of why I personally believe racism is a big problem. In life you can not fix a problem if you are unwilling to acknowledge their is one. Part of the reason why I think the denial happens is basically because people see it as no real way to fix them. People don’t really know what to do or where to start to remedy the problem. I did a Google search regarding America not racist….came up with studies on America racist. With so much talk about it from so many different sources I doubt that it is not a big problem, but rather a problem people prefer not to address. TO be completely honest….I was like that once. In this denial. In it for a long time, but then you wake up and you scramble to find others who have woken up so you can find ways to fix the problem.
@Sharina,
Yes, you were absolutely right, he did just that and deflected. I have invited him to counter with opposing documentation, although he has stated he doesn’t like dueling studies. Although how can he expect to offer a rebuttal if his entire arguments are subjective? I hope he can enlighten me.
Do you think part of denial is due to shame or guilt? Maybe you’re right and nobody sees a foreseeable solution, so they chose to ignore it.
Maybe the solution could start in the education system. Are kids exposed enough to black history and culture? Is it lacking?
LikeLike
@Gio
It is lacking or nonexistant in some areas. America educational system is poor. I would opt for a cultural studies to show all ethnic backgrounds. Some would say black history month but one month to showcase the contributions of African Americans is ridiculous. Let’s not even talk about the lack of information on Native Americans. I think if we did take that route we could see a decrease in the amount of racism that America face, but often times parents are upset about these type of learning and then seek to protest.
The biggest complaint I hear is “it’s racist to have a black history month…why can’t we have white history month.”
LikeLike
@ Sharina,
I think it is ludicrous that people complain about black history month when clearly it will be white history for the rest of the year. Perhaps just making black history part of the curriculum would be a step forward. I suppose education is going to be the only way of solving the racial divide.
LikeLike
Gio said:
xPraetorius:
@Gio…I told you I don’t think that playing dueling studies is fruitful, and you then castigate me for not playing dueling studies? What the heck?!? It’s hardly a deflection (1) to tell you that I won’t do what I disapprove of, then (2) not do it.
As regards “his entire arguments are subjective.” No, my conclusion is subjective — my opinion — bolstered, however, by extensive arguments, both subjective (my opinions, extensively supported) and objective. You came in very late in the exchange, so you missed them. Sharina on the other hand, never even understood them, and obsessed instead over the tone of my argument.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Oh, and @Gio, you have been receiving responses, except Abagond is not allowing them through until much later, if at all. That means that it appears as though I’m not responding, when I am.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“That’s your silly interpretation. You keep at it res…at some point you’ll do a substantive, on-topic post purely by accident!”
This is a thread about you and your buffoonery, and my comments on this thread have addressed the same. You may not like what I say, but again, I used your own quotes to contradict your pompous claims. Obviously that makes my posts both “substantive” and “on topic.”
LikeLike
@ Gio
“Sharina on the other hand, never even understood them, and obsessed instead over the tone of my argument.”—This comment is just more of him not acknowledging his lack luster argument skills and failed attempts at proving anything.
Just as he assumed you just popped into the discussion rather than the fact that you had been watching it and just not commenting.
LikeLike
xpraetorius:
Thanks, Gio, for your very thoughtful post…I agree with your assessment of online posts in one regard. Some might be more honest, but others might be more willing to exaggerate for effect. There are just a whole lot more clarifying data points that one can when researching thoughts and feelings when one is not confined to closed-ended responses and the like.
@ xpraetorius
I understand your position on surveys, and I am all too familiar with the common “strongly agree to strongly disagree” tactics used in surveys. They don’t exactly capture a person’s true feelings on the subject. I don’t know about yourself, but I don’t rate my emotions on a scale of 1 to 5.
However, we could be making wild assumptions about the methodologies implemented in this study. Unfortunately, the article is not entirely forthcoming about this. So, we cannot prove it is true or false on the face of it, but we have to ask the reason the study was carried out. Was it politically motivated? Or was it to gauge the mindset of Americans to try an establish the likely outcome of the elections?
We will never know, we can only conjecture. However, my position on racial relations still stands, hence I was hoping you would be able to persuade me otherwise. I know you don’t engage in dueling studies, but I am not in this to win either, and it is not about one man upmanship.
I apologise for the remarks, no offence intended. And, yes, it is odd that your posts are coming through at erratic intervals, I thought for a second I had missed them the first time round.
Yes, I did come into this debate quite late, but I have followed this thread with keen interest. I just want to understand why you think racism is not a big problem (I know it is a big problem in Britain), I am not here to beat you over the head with surveys, studies etc, just a polite exchange if you will.
Take care.
LikeLike
Sharina:
“Sharina on the other hand, never even understood them, and obsessed instead over the tone of my argument.”—This comment is just more of him not acknowledging his lack luster argument skills and failed attempts at proving anything.
Just as he assumed you just popped into the discussion rather than the fact that you had been watching it and just not commenting.
@ Sharina,
This is quite disappointing, and I will even acknowledge that X’s way of handling people have gone by the wayside. Tit-for-tat is a trap many of us fall into and it seems the latter half of the thread degenerated into that.
@ Xpraetorius
I have respected your views in the past, and in some cases the elegant way you have handled situations, but now you only seem interested in engaging in personal attacks. I am not defending anyone, as other people are guilty of this also. But, you have a thread dedicated to yourself, use this to get your message across (whether people disagree or not). I am not a saint either, but I thought you were above tit-for-tat slander.
Please don’t let this discourage you from further engagement with myself, I am interested in your views.
LikeLike
@ Gio
” think it is ludicrous that people complain about black history month when clearly it will be white history for the rest of the year.”—As insane as it is those are and still continues to be the most common arguments I hear regarding black history in the school system. Education is key on so many level, but it is only if parents are willing to really sit down and open the doors to this without fuss. I have heard of a big movement to homeschool just so their children can be taught a more accurate history lesson.
And I want to apologize for making a response to you above regarding xpraetorius. I do not wish to involve you or anyone in this vendetta he has with me and his continue attempt to harass and lie on my behalf.
LikeLike
“Sorry, @Sharina, I can’t just let this one go by. You said: “this man has had to deal with such a large amount of hate. It is sad. I understand disagreeing with his policies, but they way they decided to disagree is disheartening.” I assume you’re talking about President Obama.
I do hope, then, that you were equally quick to condemn the vastly greater amount of sheer, undisguised, wide-open hatred directed at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, including open speculation about assassinating him.”
Sharina Says:
Now he wants to have a discussion like an adult, but now it is too late as I have attempted several times just to do this and several times he has attempted to be an azz about the entire situation. Note to anyone that is taking pointers from this individual.
1. If I tell you my position on something once…be sure I will not be repeating it again.
2. If you are confused about…go find that post where I told you in the first place.
LikeLike
@ Gio
Like many others the only thing that I truly disagree with is the idea that racism is not a big problem so truthfully not sure why so much hostility from him. I felt that saying something as simply as agreeing to disagree would be fine, but I see it is not. Truthseeker was very very eloquent in presenting the primary reasoning behind why I felt the way I did. I could not have remotely said it better.
LikeLike
Sharina:
” think it is ludicrous that people complain about black history month when clearly it will be white history for the rest of the year.”—As insane as it is those are and still continues to be the most common arguments I hear regarding black history in the school system. Education is key on so many level, but it is only if parents are willing to really sit down and open the doors to this without fuss. I have heard of a big movement to homeschool just so their children can be taught a more accurate history lesson.
And I want to apologize for making a response to you above regarding xpraetorius. I do not wish to involve you or anyone in this vendetta he has with me and his continue attempt to harass and lie on my behalf.
@ Sharina
We both agree that education is the key to finding racial harmony. Perhaps not a remedy as those opposed to the ideology will find a way to poison the minds of their children. But I do believe those born without a racist bone in their body will see the light, but these are probably exceptional cases.
Regarding X, I am here to read/listen. I like to think we have gotten on quite well despite the initial misunderstanding. So, I like to think of you as a friend on this blog.
I know he is in the wrong and I hope he can identify that within himself as well. Didn’t he claim to love you and heap praises on you for making good points? Surely, he would afford you some dignity when you have asked to cease communication, but he seems to want to have the last word.
I hope this is a case of X having a bad week and is clouding his judgement when approaching people on this blog. Please X, return to a most respectable stance as I enjoy your posts when you are at your best.
LikeLike
@ Resw77
“This is a thread about you and your buffoonery, and my comments on this thread have addressed the same. You may not like what I say, but again, I used your own quotes to contradict your pompous claims. Obviously that makes my posts both “substantive” and “on topic.”—Indeed it does. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Some of my posts maybe delayed due to the mention of a certain somebody, so I will adjust my future posts to keep the conversations more fluid.
Take care xx
LikeLike
@ Gio
Ok and it will be in my best interest to do the same.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
It looks as though my post has passed moderation. Is there anyway to communicate with bloggers externally?
LikeLike
If it is not about x, then open thread. Anything about him has to stay I here.
LikeLike
@Sharina
Hi Sharina. I mean talking in private with someone e.g. some sort of email facility.
LikeLike
That is something you may want to ask Abagond about. I am not sure how that would work as I have never done it before. You can ask him in open thread, or got to about and find contact information on him to get more information.
LikeLike
@ Sharina,
If it is no inconvenience to yourself I would like to talk to you in private. I hope I am not overstepping the line, and if you do not have time then I understand.
If you do: gio_100@ymail.com
Take care xx
LikeLike
Gio said:
xPraetorius:
One brief moment of snark: I did mention several times above that Abagond is kind of censoring me and that posts were not coming through until later. I understand this impulse on Abagond’s part. It removes the “chat-like” atmosphere of my sometimes rapid-fire responses to others’ posts. Others were getting hot under the collar at the near-conversational pace, and were starting to whine.
@Gio: Thanks again for your thoughtful post. You are on the nose about our understanding of the study — we can do no more than speculate about its conclusions, the motivations for producing it, and the methodologies. Again, that’s why I don’t like to use them generally. They — honest studies — do have their place…just not in forums like this. Again, IMHO.
As to the arguments I used, I have used a whole passel of ’em! They started in the “Hitler” thread, and continued on over into this one. I’ll see if I can summarize so that I don’t have to review the more than 900 posts in the two threads:
First an introduction: I said that I am of the opinion that white racism is not a big problem in America today. This was in response to both Abagond’s Hitler post and an argument that a colleague of mine had had with BrothaWolf on BW’s blog. I’ll signal what is objective fact, and what is subjective opinion on my part.
Some of my arguments:
• First: the U.S. won World War II (yes, that’s historically debatable). The dominant race in the U.S. (white people) then went on to write most of the history of that conflict as well as of American History itself. (Objective fact.)
• I told of the American history — written by white people, obviously — that I had learned in grade school in the ’60’s, that was very clear-eyed about white deeds and misdeeds in history (ojective fact and subjective [my memories])
• I posed two hypotheticals: one about jumping to the moon, and the other about swimming in a lake.
• I mentioned a black President, as well as very wealthy black entertainers, athletes, artists, businesspeople. I pointed out that barriers to financial and social mobility were no longer in place. (Objective fact)
• I mentioned that white people, if so racist, never would have permitted any of that (subjective conclusion from the previous objective fact)
• I pointed out that my persistence in the face of what sure seems like unshakable opposition demonstrated pretty conclusively that I’m not a racist — at least not by the definition I use. (subjective conclusion from the objective fact)
• I coined a term — “ghost racism” — to refer to the constant appeals for me to understand that there is racism “out there” that only certain people (coincidentally who agree with Abagond, et al) can see. (subjective opinion)
• I demonstrated that an unemployment rate of 8% could be better than one of 6%… if, that is, it was plummeting at 8%, but skyrocketing at 6%. I used that illustration to show that context is important for most arguments. (mix of the subjective and the objective.)
• I made the point that the constant references to long ago misdeeds by white people, really bolstered my point that today white racism is not a bib problem in America. (mix of objective and subjective)
• I pointed out that all the efforts that whites have made probably indicate that whites have been thinking about it for some time now. These states-of-mind don’t just happen overnight.
• I made this point: “It’s not only white racism that has been dying for 200 years, but white prejudice of ANY kind. See, eg: legislation concerning, blacks, Hispanics, women, Japanese WWII internees, ruthenians, asians, vegetarians, allergics, non-smokers, gays, lgbtqqiaap, etc. Again, anything resembling a “bigoted” or “prejudiced” race — particularly a DOMINANT one! — could not POSSIBLY have promulgated that mountain of legislation.” (subjective conclusion from the objective fact of minority-friendly legislation in the past 60 or so years)
• I pointed out the extent (huge) to which the commenters who opposed what I said engage in mind-reading (“Whites think…”, “They want to…”, “They tried to…”) I called out people on this one regularly. Didn’t diminish it appreciably, though 🙂
• I pointed out the extent to which — absent context — many of the arguments used in this thread could be used to support my conclusions. For example: BW said that Christianity wasn’t responsible for the many concrete examples of white attempts to redress their past misdeeds — welfare, turning over power, wealth and the like. Well, of course, then there’s no other conclusion possible but that white people did all that simply from the goodness of their hearts. (subjective conclusion to support the importance of context.)
• I made this, I think, very good point:
(subjective, but well said, I thought)
• I pointed out a place where Abagond said that an obscure book had sold “millions” of copies. The Wikipedia entry said it had sold around 17,000 copies. Abagond quoted another source indicating that the book had sold 1.5 million copies. Of course, even today, 1.5 million copies is a gigantic quantity, even for a fiction best seller. This was an obscure “non-fiction” treatise that attempted to prove during the depression that black people were inferior. I kind of doubted that lots of ordinary people were buying any non-fiction, especially niche, dubious books like the one in question. The “millions” point that Abagond used was in support of an important point he was making. I further said that, really any sales statistics buttressed my point of view. Huge sales then and that book would be laughed off bookstore shelves now; Poor sales then, and that means that racism was on the decline even then.
• I introduced my “five points.” (subjective thought exercise)
• I spent a long, exhausting time trying to get the group here to stop with the personal anecdotes, the mindless accusations, the irrelevant, the relentless attempts to be clever, the racial slurs, the insults, the mind reading, the speculation, misstating what I said and more. (objective and subjective)
• I produced several hypotheticals involving a genie and a magic button. (subjective thought exercise) Interestingly, there was no serious engagement with any of my hypotheticals. Yes, I am prepared to hear that they weren’t well presented or entirely thought out. However, I suspect a less innocent reason behind it.
• I made this point: “But CONSTANT references to the past DO indicate that you’re not finding a lot of material from the present to refute my contention that: white racism is not a big problem in America today.” (subjective conclusion from objective fact of the numerous references to the long, long past, or just the long past. [My definition of “long past:” 60 years ago or more, in the context of my point about white racism not being a big problem today.])
And, at this point, I’m about a quarter of the way reviewing through this thread to compile that partial list. I think you get the point. I’ve made several of them. 🙂
I appreciate your politeness and courtesy.
One more quick point: Abagond is still censoring me, so you might get this post a lot later…or maybe not at all.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Vaguely on-topic, yes. Substantive no. I checked the original blog post. There’s no mention of the word “buffoonery.” until you said it, near the bottom of this thread. More mystical, magical mind reading, res? Time to make that trip to the store that I mentioned. You’re really running low! 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@xPraetorius
“Vaguely on-topic, yes. Substantive no. I checked the original blog post. There’s no mention of the word “buffoonery.” until you said it”
Clearly you don’t think before you write. How can something can be “vaguely” on topic. Either it is or it isn’t, but since my comments have been about you and your behaviour (the subject of this thread), then they are indeed relevant and on topic.
My comments on this thread have been “substantive” because they outlined truths about your lying, hypocrisy, harassment, poor grammar, poor reading comprehension, etc. (using your own quotes). If you listened and stopped whining so much, then perhaps you could use this criticism to become a better person, e.g., get a social life, create a decent blog, etc.
“Buffoonery” may not have been Abagond’s word, but it is mine, and it accurately describes your behaviour.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
@res: keep trying…you might get it one day; though I suspect it’d be by accident.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
XPraetorius’s buffoonery is on topic here.
LikeLike
i think its a computer program what was that old one emily or whatever that would talk back to you back in the day
LikeLike
or that star trek episode with the 3 gambling disembodied brains!
xprater: -3 style points for abusive use of adjectives!
LikeLike
You just reminded me of growing up with Monty Python. 😛
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
But not, thank goodness, on display…everyone else’s, however is like a mondo pimple on the end of their noses. Kind of a can’t miss thing.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ v8driver
You are thinking of Eliza. Maybe it is an experiment to see if it can pass the Turing test. That would account for why its responses are so predictable, why it just repeats itself when it does not know what to say.
LikeLike
Btw, I claim copyright on the term “mondo pimple.” You all need to use another term of abusive endearment or else pay me.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
@Abagond: “It,” Abagond, “It?” You are out of gas! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…you admitted racists are, after all, about denying people their humanity.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Xpraetorius.
Thanks for taking the time to compile an overview of your arguments. I will ask you this though. Is it possible to have an elite few with good intentions to implement policies that award Blacks the same privileges that the rest of society already enjoys? While at the same time, society in general playing catch up with the ideals set in motion by those in power who should know better anyway?
My American history is not on par with many contributors in this forum, and please correct any mistakes or assumptions. That being said, didn’t Abraham Lincoln face a lot of resistance when trying to enact abolitionism? Yes, it eventually passed, but I can imagine the majority of society had a difficult time accepting this reasoning, especially slave traders and slave owners who would lose out financially. Would they change their minds about slavery overnight? Would they see the light the same way Abe Lincoln did?
Who does our thinking for us? The Government. Do we always agree with their policies and decisions to act upon certain things? No. Some policies are at the detriment to some groups, while favouring others. I could be cynical and go off topic and say that my Government looks after the self interests of the elite, because they are a powerful 1% of the population.
Ok, I digress. My point is, the Government may make decisions on my behalf, and the population in general has to process this, agree or disagree and either alter our worldview, or stick by our current mode of thinking.
I’ll ask you this. What are the advantages to the Government for striving to achieve racial equality? 30-40 million black people, social unrest, embarrassing scandal hitting the news (Birmingham, Alabama, 1963) and the eyes of the world watching your country. Why, after 100 years, with many generations beyond slavery, are black people still suffering prejudice? To be clear, I am talking from the 1850s to the time of the civil rights movement.
Has the White race undergone a period of self examination, or was the White race forced to change at the self interests of the few?
Take care.
LikeLike
@abagond “XPraetorius’s buffoonery is on topic here.”
I thought so.
@xpraetorius
So Abagond, the arbiter, agrees I’m on topic.
As to substance, again, I’m only responding to your own pontifical claims using your own statements (verbatim) against you . I’m only able to do so b/c you frequently contradict yourself, and so your frustration should be redirected at yourself.
LikeLike
Off topic here, but are there are lot of trekkies like me on this blog?
LikeLike
First off, I was pissed to have my comments deleted in the “Magical Progress” thread, even the ones that referred to X. I do not understand why Abagond will create an entire thread and cater his blog to a troll while deleting people who actually have something of substance to say.
I do not know why Abagond does not seem to care of believe the X is merely NoSlapz and ban him but that’s his perogative. The alternative theories I hold as to why Abagond doesn’t believe this are unthinkable so I will let them lie for now.
It sucks to have a nice blog taken over by one asshole though. It really does. Abagond, I still haven’t quite recovered from your bout of idiotic misogyny. I can’t help but wonder how many female readers you offended if not outright drove away with that fiasco…and this stupidness with X is not gaining you many friends either. While this thread has over 700 comments, your newer ones are fairly bare by comparison.
And then Da Jokah adds absolutely nothing but insults to the conversation and again this is tolerated.
Why?
I, for one, don’t come here as much as I used to because what’s the point if there is no intelligent conversation, merely blatant trolling that is unchecked.
It’s your blog, your space, but honestly this isn’t fun anymore, it’s just hurtful.
LikeLike
@ ThatDeborahGirl
XPraetorius was making the “Magical Progress” thread about himself. You and I and others were helping him do that by commenting on him, wondering if he was No Slappz, etc. I deleted all those comments because they were off topic and derailing the thread.
If you have an objective way to prove he is No Slappz, then he is out of here in a second. He does not have the same IP address – though, of course, No Slappz could have moved. No Slappz had no interest in music, even though B.R. brought it up while he was here. They both have perfect spelling, so there are no quirks like that I can point to. Etc.
XPraetorius is not as bad as he was just a few days ago – mainly, I think, because now I moderate all his comments.
If I come to think this thread is a mistake I can either delete it or shut down its comment section. I am still letting it play out to see how it goes. Right now it is making it easier to keep the other threads on track.
I do not ban people just because I do not like them. I need objective grounds. “He’s a troll”, unfortunately, is too subjective. I wish it were that simple.
If the past is any guide, xPraetorius will be gone in a few months. I have had worse trolls and more simultaneous trolls than now.
LikeLike
If you don’t mind me asking…who was your worse troll and what made him/her worse?
LikeLike
@ Sharina
She Who Must Not Be Named was by far the worst. She lived three time zones behind me, so I would wake up and find my blog on fire. After I banned her she sent me threatening emails for like nine months. Part of what made her so bad was my own inexperience.
LikeLike
Or quite possibly that she was just crazy.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
@Abagond: Let’s be clear about sequence. Any content whatsoever that was “about me,” happened this way: (1) Someone attacked me; generally by calling me a racist, or a liar or a [fill-in-dumb-name-here], or accusing me of some foul perfidy or evil thoughts, (2) I called them on it and defended myself, generally with some kind of reference to something proving that the accuser had no basis for the accusation. For example, to call me a liar, as is popular around here, is to say someone somehow magically knows the actual intent behind my saying something I said. The idea from my standpoint was (1) not to allow the accusation to go uncountered, and (2) to give some hint to the accuser as to why he shouldn’t do it in the future, and should stay on topic. If you’ll look back, you will see that numerous times I asked the commenters to respond to the issues in question.
Many will say, “Don’t call me names!” I explained why, as well. Heck, if your readers could have looked past their petty desire to jeer and sneer, I might have given you a whole upgraded stable of readers! They still might behave better in other threads. I think their demeanor toward me is a hopeless case, though.
TDG is the perfect example of everything I’ve said. In her post above, she called me someone I’m not (I’ve never heard of this No Slappz character until I got here), called me a troll and an a*****le, called you a misogynist and implies that a thread approaching 800 posts proves declining interest in your blog. In the selfsame post she complains about the lack of substance! I hope someone other than me saw the irony in that.
In your reply, to your credit, you were very polite to her, but she was a flat-out jerk, and in her post managed to do all the things she says she condemns.
Let’s be clear about something else…apparently, without DJ or me, there would be no dissenting commentary around here at all.(*) If that is what you all really want, then I have no problem with that at all. However, again, there are close to 800 posts on this thread that say differently. Sorry, there’s no way around it: Your group do like trying to try to throw punches at me. If I parry well, they seem to enjoy the chance to try again. Hard to deny that. Between you ‘n me and the lamppost, your group are kind of attached to their Praetorian Punching Bag. Some get ticked off when the punches don’t land, or when I laugh it off, or I toss a little something back, but 800 posts says they kind of like it…and me. 🙂
I’ll leave in a bit, and you all can then make your inevitable “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” and “Good riddance, a****le!” cracks, sure of how ineffably clever, glib and funny it will prove you to be, all without ever having discerned what my goal was in being here, and whether I achieved it. 🙂
And, then, once in a while, there is the odd actually substantive post, like those of Gio.
Best,
— x
(*) Yes, I saw the posts of Alexandra, brahms, Thaddeus and the odd other commenter, but as soon as any one of these gets near any of this group’s sacred cows, it’s immediate: “Racist!” “Liar!” If they hang around for any length of time, it’s: “Troll! Abagond — get rid of him!” Typically the dissenting voices raise their heads, then duck back quickly before the shotguns come out loaded with racial buckshot.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
Gio said:
xPraetorius:
Thanks for your very thoughtful post, Gio. Answers are above, inline in bold font.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
This echos my own feelings at suffering the same treatment in the: “…the-white-rules-for-thinking-about-black-people…” thread.
Its hardly a respectful way to treat regular contributors. Particular when those comments conform to rules set out in your own comments policy.
You may not readily see or appreciate this observation but its actions like this which can actually lead to or cause much of the unfortunate and unnecessary dramas you’ve experienced like the “worst troll incident” you mention above.
I am surprised Abagond because much of this is basic simple respect and courtesy. It makes no sense to bend over backwards to extend this to the latest white troll while completely ignoring the concerns of regular Black contributors. I shouldn’t need to tell you, you of all people, how this could easily be perceived.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla @ ThatDeborahGirl
My apologies for over-reacting. In future I will declare something off topic but not retroactively delete off-topic comments by established commenters.
LikeLike
We all remember Church’s Chicken, he was an awful troll.
LikeLike
Abagond,
It’s kinda like Guinan and Picard when she was the only one who knew they were in the wrong timeline and Tasha Yar was supposed to be dead. (yes, Gio, I’m a trekkie too).
No, I don’t have definitive proof. I only have my instinct and experience to go on. Only that and my short history of commenting here and being a reasonable human being.
That and my own writing experience and the experience of having to deal with No Slapz’s bullshit through four different blogs.
It wasn’t something I was even thinking about. I had actually made the decision to give him a shot and thoroughly read through one of his posts when it hit me. It was very clear to me, once I actually took the time to really read him, who and what you were dealing with. You, yourself, said that the writing styles were similar, but that’s not enough proof for you.
Whether you believe me or not, or ,even if I am ultimately wrong about his identity, I still have to admit that I am utterly baffled as to why you are putting up with this blatant derailment from X.
LikeLike
rofl. mary. Yes he was.
LikeLike
Maybe off topic but the truth is negative attention really isn’t the same as positive attention. If anyone thinks that then they are fooling themselves to make themselves feel good.
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
I can still hear you, ya know! 🙂
@Kwamla: Yes, be sure that Abagond discriminates properly or else it could be perceived incorrectly by this group of the thinnest-skinned, bunch of whiny, sniveling, how-many-drops-of-black-are-you, petulant, self-obsessed, wah-wha-waaaaahhh, babies I’ve ever come across in all my life! ** Sheesh! ** 🙂
Best,
— x
LikeLike
xpraetorius: “apparently, without DJ or me, there would be no dissenting commentary around here at all.”
Here’s another example of his pompous and biased claims…as if he’s Abagond’s saving grace, and as if all commenters express the same opinion.
He’s made this statement numerous times before, yet when I challenged him on it, instead of trying to prove me wrong, he whines about being “attacked” and resorts to name-calling, etc.
As to his whining about not being a liar, I would never have pointed out his lies (using his own words) had he not written a pompous soliloquy about not being a liar.
When he does have something to say that isn’t about himself, it’s always about why whites shouldn’t feel guilty, whining that American “schools teach how evil white people were and still are,” and “white racism is not a big problem in America today” b/c whites are the only race engaged in a “long process of self-examination.” Just like Rush Limbaugh, he wants whites to stop feeling guilty and you to thank whites for getting rid of racism.
LikeLike
^ u right its not the same. the ones that get negative attention get more time and energy focused on them. The positive ones get little to no attention or recognition, I guess that builds humbleness *sigh*. don’t know when was the last time I’ve seen a reality show with positive ppl. Don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a post dedicated to a positive commenter or person. A lot of times ppl act negative for attention and they know they will get it. To be positive and do right sometimes feels like its not even worth it, I mean dam u get more attention for acting an as, than being respectful and calm.
LikeLike
XPraetorius’s buffoonery is on topic here.
Speaking of buffoons, here’s a trailer for a movie I saw. The cretinous main characters keep running around in circles to escape the alien she-monster. The plot reminds me of how xpraetorius ‘debates’, in circles. Any ways, it turns out the she-monster was benign and was bringing a message of peace to the earthling, but the moronic earthlings would not listen!:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdyBTc9Qb9Q)
LikeLike
Many will say, “Don’t call me names!”
I never called you names! In fact I was complimenting you!
but as soon as any one of these gets near any of this group’s sacred cows, it’s immediate: “Racist!” “Liar!” If they hang around for any length of time, it’s: “Troll! Abagond — get rid of him!”
Racist, liar, buffoon!!!!!!!!! Let his buffoonery runs its course. People will stop responding to him eventually unless they need something to do whilst watching paint dry. For example, I am currently suffering from acid indigestion after consuming a plate of jambalaya and two pieces of salmonella inducing pizza. Whilst awaiting the expulsion of this excess gas, I broke my vow of not posting about this clown. But what is one to do whilst bored? Watch paint dry?
Typically the dissenting voices raise their heads, then duck back quickly before the shotguns come out loaded with racial buckshot.
How poetical! Buckshot is hard to extract from one’s body once shot!
Here’s a lovely poem I found, it reminded me of you:
A worried young man from Stamboul,
Found lots of red spots on his tool,
Said the doctor a cynic, “Get out of my clinic!”,
Just wipe off the lipstick you fool!”
LikeLike
@ Herneith: LOL!
LikeLike
@mstoogood4yall: I cosign that.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Its not clear to me why you overreacted as you did. I don’t think it was a result of anything I said in my deleted comment. But I could be wrong. I suspect it may have had something to do with xP’s response to mine but could have also been triggered by his response to your own comment too in the same thread.
In any event, if anyone clearly less intelectually crediable and popular than your self can produced such a reaction, like this, than that person has a point in telling you something you need to know.
It does’nt neccessarily follow that it is what that person would consciously think it should be – we all know the typically, non-sensical, racist verbagge xP has plastered all over your blog – but it probably is something of value or importantance, incidental to this, you should know.
So for example:
Reading between the obviously “myopic racially motivated inferences” there is a clear problem you have in dealing with dissenting opinion. This is irrespective of who or where it is coming from. Its no different (analagous) to the situation of a soveriegn leader delaing with “dissidents” or dissent amongst his/her subjects or kingdom. There are draconian as well as diplomatic ways of dealing with objectional subjects. But the consquences of pursuing either strategy will always resurface later to deal with.
This, for what it is worth, is my own “metaphyiscal” analysis of the predicament you continuallly face on an otherwise unique and exceptional place of expression for analysisng issues of racism in a white supremacist society.
It would be naive to believe otherwise that such a place would not be an instant magnet and attraction for the likes of xP and numerous other troll like personalities….This observation at least has been shown to be accurate over the many years of this blog’s existence… 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve re-posted my (fortunately already backed up!) deleted comment again here, as you suggested from the other thread.
I still believe it has some validity for xP to consider….
@ xPraetorius:
My comments (just like yours) are entirely my own point of view. Which I am expressing from my own personal vantage point. (shared by others too I might add) Granted you may not be able to see this, but as my statement above elucidates, this is hardly surprising!
A personal opinion expressed can never be INVALID! Its the person expressing this opinion that is free to make that determination. So to me what I am saying has every degree of validity. Others here may agree/disagree with me or may even agree/disagree with you. So who decides if it is valid or not?
Answer: We all do..!!!
We can all voice our own subjective opinions. Other people can endorse them or not. Neither action makes them less valid or not. Again, We have to believe they do!!!
You have a whole post dedicated to you to tell everyone what Black people see and how they think. For the most part most people commenting on this blog do not think what you say has much validity. Understandably too in my opinion!
Unlike, your response here, I personally would be intrigued and concerned if any white person were able to tell me something, as a Black person, I couldn’t see for myself. I would want to know more and explore this. I would be open to discover what they had found… I would even acknowledge this. But then again, thats just my opinion…
You on the other hand are simply confirming what I’ve already described completely eludes you…
Your only saving grace is that at least you’ve chosen to take up unsolicited residence on Abagond’s blog to avail yourself (though unwillingly) of this information. So perhaps you deserve a little credit for that 🙂
LikeLike
Kwamla,
Yes, this place is a magnet for certain types. Yet while a bowl of syrup would attract both hummingbirds and cockroaches, people tend to chase only the cockroaches away. The key for us and agabond is to understand the difference between the two.
LikeLike
The whining is in full chorus now!
Herneith set a new low for substanceless dreck. Not surprising. I knew she wasn’t as dumb as she sounded. No, she’s a lot dumber.
And for Kwamla, it’s Wednesday therefore I must be a racist. Oh, and I used letters from a Eurocentric alphabet. Proof positive!
And mstoogood4yall really thinks she’s too good for y’all. ‘Nuff said on that score!
resw77 is still out there, plugging away, still unable to read, or string two thoughts together that don’t contain mystical, magical mind-reading and other moronia. But he has tenacity! I guess if he can’t have IQ, then tenacity is something.
Let’s see whether Gio responds,,,otherwise, this just might have run its course.
Abagond really ought to rename his blog: “All My Children.” Oh, oops…that names taken by a show about a bunch of other drama queens! And, “All My Idiots” just doesn’t have the right ring to it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Why are you here?
LikeLike
I had to visit Herneith’s link. Of course, the trailer is for a movie, and movie’s are meaningless, but the movie does support one of my main points rather nicely: White people have been publicly criticizing their own actions and states of mind — whether in pop culture, in the media or just out and about — for a lot longer than I said! I’ve been saying “50 years” because I’m about that old and I’ve seen it all my life, but the movie is older still.
I appreciate the support, Herneith!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Maybe he got tired of writing post after post whining about you and your commenter and decided to finally engage. Oddly enough he tells everyone else they are whining but I count not one but several posts above of his whining and complaining about being called a racist, liar, etc. Not to mention whining about 15 of us and one of him.
Did I miss anything else he was whining about?
LikeLike
@ resw77
“He’s made this statement numerous times before, yet when I challenged him on it, instead of trying to prove me wrong, he whines about being “attacked” and resorts to name-calling, etc.”—There have been several similar statements he has made that have resulted in nothing more than this whining. You will be lucky if you get past the Abagond did this type of whining.
That is why I have said this is just not constructive. It would be different if the debates progressed, but once you get somewhere he always takes it right back to but this person did this to me or this person that. Can’t take responsibility for anything.
@ Riverside_Rob
““apparently, without DJ or me, there would be no dissenting commentary around here at all.”—You did all that azz kissing on his blog and he only give credit to Da Jokah. Considering you do disagree quite a bit on here I thought you would have high praise.
LikeLike
Resw77, “white guilt” isnt going to solve anything, I dont do “white guilt”, its Mr X’s feeling white racism isnt that relevant today that is his blind spot..
Abagond, this blog has a large commenter base compared to a lot of blogs, I understand its not easy to be fair and regulate , I think you are doing the best you can and a lot of people are giving you static…at the end of the day, it is your blog…if I dont like some of your rules, I still have to accept and play by them..
Mr X, you know, some people said that you have made some good points , but its your opinions about racism that apear to be misguided…I agree with that, you do have some good things to say, raise some points that ought to be addressed, but, I find your views on white racism to be sometimes naive…
And I find your take on the commenters on this blog to be inacurate…there are pockets of people that agree about certain things and disagree about others…as a matter of fact, there are lots of disagreements and then flows of agreements about lots of differant subjects..
Take Kwamla, I have learned some absolutly wonderful things about the Dogon and Professer Ari (sorry if i got the name wrong now), and other wonderful things, he has my automatic respect, yet, if I bring in true links about Hugo Chavez and how he helped The Farc and how the Farc ran arms and drugs with Brazilian huge drug gangs with crack cocaine as the drug that turned Brazil into the worlds largest crack user, to him, I am an American flag raiser and not worthy …I asure you, from some of your implications of Obama, I think you and Kwamla could have a great unity…as a matter of fact, Abagond would be right in there with you, you guys would trade some great notes on how bad Obama is…I love Obama , by the way…and, you and Abagond could tag team very well on a debate on abortion…which I support the right of the woman all the way….
Where I see opinions on here about interracial sex, naked booty dancing, etc that I find just disgusting, I still stand side by side with the opinion that white racism is still a big problem in America…
But, this is your thread, and I just wanted to give you a challenge here…actualy, I am going to pave the way for you to upgrade your guitar playing by a huge leval, if you are interested in that..I got this direction from black American jazz musicians, who hipped me to the real value of up tempo bebop modern jazz
A great Chicago trumpet player I was playing with in an all black band, gave me Miles Davis’ Four and More record, and it transformed me…and Ahmad Jamals ex brother in law really put me through my paces about up tempos
So, here is what I challenge you to do…take about 20 or thirty minutes each day to practice off of these cuts from these records:
Miles Davis…Four and More, cuts “Seven Steps to Heaven”, “so What”, “Walking”. MIles Davis “Milestones” cut “Two Bass HIt (the whole record swings its tail off)”, Miles Davis “Miles Smiles ” cut, “Gingerbread Boy”…now I dont have time now to link it up, but, its easy, and where I need a drum set up and cd player you could do it all next to a computor and headphones
Now, go back and forth with the cuts I mentioned, if some are harmonicly too hard…go to “So What”, even I know its Dminor for 16 bars then 8 bars of Eflat minor, and back to 8 bars of Dminor….practice accompaning the soloists and soloing above the soloists…we need to be able to isolate things , so you can forget the soloist and pretend the band is accompaning you…
Learning up bop modern jazz, is one of the highest levals of improvisation in our American music…it developes incredible rhythm strenght and helps you to think quick on changes…coming down to medium tempos will give you a tremendous buoyancy in your playing , in any idiom…I can tell in 16 bars if a player has been playing and praticing bebop..Marcus Miller is the greatest slap bass player ever…and I played bebop with him and Walter Bishop Jr..
do this one month and you will be a differant player…I challenge you to this…then we can talk about the depth of Afro diasporic culture in American music and the racism it has always been facing
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“I’ll leave in a bit, and you all can then make your inevitable ‘Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,’ and ‘Good riddance, a****le!’ cracks”
How’d I know you’d be back? I guess “a bit” is relative.
“drama queens” and “idiots”
Another example of his name-calling when someone challenges his pompous and inaccurate claims.
@B.R.
“Resw77, “white guilt” isnt going to solve anything..”
Who said it was? But clearly xpraetorius, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc. are wrestling with guilt b/c they feel the need to fabricate unfair treatment towards whites in this country (e.g., xpraetorius’ lie about how his school taught him that all whites were evil…that he later denied), and the constant need to tell us that racism against nonwhites is obsolete, as if they know what it feels like to be a nonwhite in America.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
You mean, when my opinions are plainly unwelcome?
There are a bunch of reasons, but first some observations:
(1) Who doesn’t love a spirited exchange? Sadly this group seems unable or unwilling to engage in such an exchange on an intellectual level, if the concepts are uncongenial to them. Again, there was never even the slightest of hints of “Hmmm…I hadn’t looked at it from that perspective. I’ll have to get back to you after I’ve thought about it a bit.” That the logical equivalent of a punt, would have proven that there was some actual genuine, independent thought going on here. Only B. R. — the freakin’ white dude showed the slightest hint of it!
(2) The only exclusion I’ve ever witnessed in my life was when blacks excluded whites. Remember when I asked my work friend whether I could attend her church with her and her family? Her response was, “Oh, no! You’re white! It’s a black church!”
(3) By contrast, I’ve seen hundreds, no thousands of efforts at outreach — some clumsy and maladroit, others slick and packaged with sophistication, some seemingly insincere (for instance to get out from under Jesse Jackson-style extortion), some without the slightest hint of insincerity. I’ve participated in bunches of these myself, all with the highest of ideals. If you really knew who I am, and who my parents are, you would never even have thought of calling me a racist.
(4) My colleague, who locked horns with BW some weeks back, told me: “They’re a closed circle; they won’t let ideas in, and will resist them viciously, with the most outrageous of accusations and sneering vitriol.” I said, “Nope. And I can prove it. You just watch.”
(5) Your ideas are, generally, 50-years outmoded. For support, all such ideas require, resort to the hyper-defensiveness we saw here, as well as a steady stream of references to the long ago past, irrelevant personal anecdotes, mystical flapdoodle (Dr. Llaila Afrika, for example), illegitimate mind-reading, misstatement of things I said, arguing around but not on the point, and on and on.
(6) One more characteristic of outmoded ideas, the “evidence” brought forward to support them generally actually supports the opposite conclusion (eg: Herneith’s example above; the constant resort to long, long past white misdeeds shows only how much better things are today in the realm of white states of mind, which has been the point for some time now, etc.) That kind of thing happened constantly. BW stepped into that one with his “different truths” point, which instantly invalidated nearly all the evil things he had said to me previously.
(7) This group is awash in Fortress Thinking. I described it above, but the Fortress in this group kept getting smaller and smaller as the cries to get rid of me grew ever more shrill. I thought that, surely, someone has to notice it! Nope. No one did. So, of course “You’ve put up with this ******* long enough!” But, still, apparently, this thread was alluring enough to attract nearly 800 posts! If they’d just let it sit, needless to say, I’d have gone away of my own accord. And you could have quietly banned me from appearing elsewhere.
(8) I knew, before coming here, that I had a mountain of evidence — both subjective and objective — to back up my claims, and figured that there would be a paucity of contradictory evidence (as was supported by the generally abysmal level of the arguments presented in opposition to mine) and that just had to be persuasive for someone here. It wasn’t.
(9) You are not, of course, the first people with whom we’ve tried to interact. You’re not even the 20th such group. Blogs tend to be like colonies. The regular participants form a group with some level of cohesion, based on some characteristic or other, and begin to speak and sound alike, turning gradually into an “amen chorus,” as I like to refer to it. You’ve been around here for at least seven years, and your conceptual center of gravity is “white people bad due to racism,” and variations on that theme. The walls of your fortress are made of that concept. So, I came in with the intent to attack the concept — because it’s incorrect — and see if I could affect the fortress, and maybe open the closed circle. I suspect that I was unsuccessful, but only time will tell.
• Will Herneith, for example, ever grow up and say something substantive? Hard to tell. I guess she’s young, because she hasn’t yet said one intelligent thing.
• Will resw77 get past his bitter pettiness so that he can possibly eventually be a worthwhile contributor to needed dialogues here and elsewhere? Also hard to tell.
• Kwamla and Matari seem so wrapped up in their deeply racist Dr. Afrika hooey, that I don’t know if there’s even a question of their being positive contributors elsewhere. Suffice it to say that Dr. Afrika is merely saying the same whackadoodle stuff that people like Madison Grant were saying in Abagond’s example book “The Passing of the Great Race” back in the 1920’s. Stuff which, if presented in reverse, in support of white superiority, would be laughed out of every public venue in the country.
• There’s hope for Gio. But, again, he’s a white dude from England!
• How about TruthSeeker? Well, there are some neurons firing there, but he can’t get out of his own way. His obsession with form over substance, then his increasing bitterness, do not bode well for him. A future of irrelevant pseudo-intellectual obscurity awaits him if he’s not careful.
• D, then? Nope. Again, unable to prevent him/herself from the bitterness that produces the mindless insults.
• How about Omnipresent. Maybe. Again, had trouble avoiding the mindless insults, and ducked in for a bit, then left altogether. Not much staying power, or just no time. Either way, an inconclusive record.
• Adonis…apparently just a flash-in-the pan. Tried one serious post, then gave it up and reverted to the mindless insults.
• King of Trouble is an interesting mix. Obviously an older person, he was able occasionally to slip out from the chains of the insult mindset and produce some intelligent posts. However, I gather he’s an older dude. Age mellows a man, and the future belongs to the young. v8driver was able to go into and the substantive, but again had trouble staying out the the personal anecdotes (his argument with his girlfriend) and the irrelevant (the declensions) However, he was able to maintain a civil, if tart, tongue. But, again, he’s a freakin’ white dude! As far as I could tell, the black people in this group had one speed: “righteous indignation” for no justifiable reason.
• There were bunches who were perfect: 100% mindless: Anne, mstoogood4yall, Herneith, mary burrell, ThatDeborahGirl, Drosera…never once said anything that wasn’t at worst howlingly stupid, or at best, pointless — apparently the women of this group self-select out of the more bruising exchanges? Sharina was the one exception, but she rarely addressed anything I said, and was too busy misstating something, or recoiling in, again, righteous indignation, at something she imagined I had said.
• BrothaWolf is an interesting case. He analyzes to a fine degree the completely unknowable — my racism, my alleged lying, my feelings of white superiority…for all these things he could have no way of knowing, he has divined elaborate proofs. He well and truly wasted his own time. I gather that he is an older dude as well, so there may not be much hope for him. I hope that’s not the case, because I really like him, and, I suspect, he has a grudging affection for me. I hasten to add that I can’t know that, but I just have a feeling. 🙂
• Now, Abagond, you, on the other hand, like me. Worse, you have a grudging admiration and respect for me as, obviously, an intellectual peer. When you aren’t stooping to delve into the mindless insults, you do have some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately, your Mindless-to-Interesting Ratio (Your: MIR) is about 90%. That doesn’t help you at all, but there is hope for you. I went back to a post of yours at what was, I presume, a more innocent time in your life. You were just returning from Jamaica (which explains the “British Commonwealth” influences!) and describing how beautiful the weather, the people, the women in particular and the entire trip were. (It might have been a bit of a faux pas to mention the beautiful women — I gather you were married at the time too. Just an observation. 🙂 ) It was a cheerful, lighthearted post, with humor and good fun, and no comments. I gather the audience hadn’t yet built up. I wondered to myself whether you saw the irony of that cheery, sunny post juxtaposed against the bitterness of today’s material, particularly in light of gigantic signs of black achievement and progress in the subsequent years, like a black freakin’ President(*), HUGE accumulations of black wealth (yes, with increases in wealth inequality among blacks, but that’s a bad as well as a good thing), and all the rest. So, as I said, you admire me — feel free to deny that publicly to stay on the good side of your group — and even grudgingly like me, because despite all the moronic accusations of racism and feelings of white superiority, you recognize that I came in here and treated everyone as equals. No exceptions.
So, half the reason I came here was to learn all that. The other half is for another post if this one gets through the censors and sees the light of day.
And, yes, Abagond, you owe me…If you re-read the Hitler thread as well as this thread, the Magical thread, and some of the open thread, I’ve given you lots and lots of material for future threads if you’re ever at a loss. You’re welcome.
Best,
— x
(*) Tell me you would have predicted that seven years ago!
LikeLike
OK , resw77…..i get what you are saying now
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
@resw77, the first part of your post is the usual brainless nitwittery I’ve come to expect from you.
However, the second part — the “white guilt” part — is, as usual, more irrelevant mind reading, therefore wrong on the very face of it. Sometimes, I think you might be trying to be a comedian: Every time I tell you you’re mind reading, your very next post contains rampant mind reading. Either you simply are not too bright, or you’re trying subtly to be funny. Quick hint: subtlety is pretty much lost on this crowd.Plus, you’re obviously suffering from delusions of self-importance, as well as a persecution complex, with an unhealthy level of paranoia, and a poor ability to rein in an obviously hot temper. You’re likely young, since such levels of immaturity are less common in people who’ve had to meet responsibilities in life (BrothaWolf being an exception that proves the rule). And you violated xPraetorius’ Second Law. You’re a mess! Or maybe just a silly dope. See? I can read minds too!
This has pretty much become the “Waiting for Gio” thread. Can’t stay that way for long!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
B. R. said:
xPraetorius:
Et tu, B. R.? I held out such hope for you! 🙂
Oh, well.
Best
— x
LikeLike
Well resw77 these are also the individuals quoting blacks that agree with that type of thinking. Hailing them as intelligent and insightful while ignoring or degrading equally insightful blacks that say otherwise.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Right, so you insult everyone who has disagreed with you and expect to have an intelligent conversation? You cannot be that stupid. Apparently you are just looking to get banned so you can go back to your blog and claim “victory”.
You do make some good points from time to time but unfortunately you seem to be incapable of discussing them in an intelligent, honest, civil manner. That is why I stopped talking to you except as moderator.
LikeLike
“• Will Herneith, for example, ever grow up and say something substantive? Hard to tell. I guess she’s young, because she hasn’t yet said one intelligent thing. ”
Nop, not in response to you buffoon! That post was one of the most comical I have read on this thread, all the more so as the comical aspects were unintentional. I nearly choked on my scrambled eggs when I read it. Anyone here know how to perform the Heimlich Manouvre on oneself? Thanks in advance!
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
My apologies to R_R! I missed him, because he hadn’t posted in a while — at least not that I saw.
However, thank you, sharina, for pointing out, what, all of the third occasionally dissenting voice?!? Whoo hoo! There’re three of us now! If you pull out everyone who’s posted only substanceless nonsense, that makes it about a three-on-three now! Three on our side; three on yours.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sharina said:
xPraetorius:
@Sharina, well there’s just no winning with you, is there? We can quote black people who agree with us, then we, if I’ve understood correctly, have to quote black people who don’t agree with us? Did I understand that correctly? If so, then I expect you to begin quoting, and hailing as intelligent and insightful people like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Charles Payne, Jason Riley, Larry Elder, and a million other black voices that agree with what I’m saying.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Childish behavior on display. Must be nice to be so delusional.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
@Abagond: My apologies for the intemperate post toward resw77. I presume that is the one that you’re referring to? I hope you do see that it simply matched in tone all of resw77’s posts directed toward me. However, if one does something wrong, it doesn’t make it right for the other to do something wrong. So, again, I apologize to you and resw77.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Probably should not respond to that as it breaks the rules for dealing with cyberbullies. Though I am not void of information to forward to the correct department to review.
LikeLike
@Abagond: I’m aware, now that you posted my other one, that I owe you the second half of the answer to your question: “Why am I here?”
I’m working on that off to the side in Notepad, so that I can keep up with my correspondence here.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
^^ Yet another pontifical soliloquy, full of criticisms from a guy who doesn’t take kindly to criticism.
And, Abagond, get your checkbook b/c you “owe” xpraetorius.
@Sharina
“Well resw77 these are also the individuals quoting blacks that agree with that type of thinking. Hailing them as intelligent and insightful while ignoring or degrading equally insightful blacks that say otherwise.”
“Ignoring” them is at least tolerable, but “degrading” them is not, as xpraetorius does with his name-calling instead of attempting to build well-reasoned rebuttals.
@ xpraetorius
I bring more actual FACTS and get my point across in a sentence than you do in one of your unending screeds.
You’re just jealous that Abagond’s blog attracts more attention than you’ll ever get…but this publicity stunt of yours will make matters worse b/c your few readers now see your childish antics, deceit and sheer arrogance.
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
” I hope you do see that it simply matched in tone all of resw77′s posts directed toward me. ”
Please. Don’t forget how our correspondence started on the “Was Hitler Evil” thread and who (you) started the personal attacks.
LikeLike
“Did I understand that correctly”—Nope which is not new as has been displayed well beyond the max in here. 🙂
But go on an continue to try to read my mind while complaining that others are reading minds.
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
I do take exception to one thing you said. You said: “You do make some good points from time to time but unfortunately you seem to be incapable of discussing them in an intelligent, honest, civil manner.”
I think, @Abagond, that you simply know this to be untrue. I think you realize that every time I bring out a point — any point — someone jumps in pretty quickly with the usual howl of “Racist!” (Either Kwamla, or one of the ladies can always be counted to jump in pretty quickly), or “Liar!” (sharina and resw77) I am sorry, but if there’s one thing that I know I’ve made clear, it’s that I’m just not okay with that. I think the fact that I’ve made it sufficiently clear, is likely why they do it, but there you have it.
Tell you what: For each post, like one from Sharina or Herneith that contains something pointless, I’ll respond only with “CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE” (Pronounced: “ko-MER-sus-li-mur-mo-mope,” It reads nicely like that, actually) — an acronym for: “Contains Mindless Insult(s), Racial Slur(s), Unknowable Speculation (Like Mind Reading), Misstatement Of Meaning, or Other Pointless Element. Then, there won’t be any tit-for-tat silliness.
Quick HTML question: It seems that in a recent post the &0149; character — “•” — has behaved like an tag in an or block. Is this new? I don’t think it did it before, and it was how I was making bulleted lists.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
You started the personal attacks, resw77.
Here was what I said to you, about 95% through the “Hitler” thread: “I said in a previous post: “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”
This was wrong, and resw77 has corrected me. @resw77: I accept your correction.
Before that, the exchange was testy, but there were no personal attacks.
Right after I said the above — your very next post — you said, in response to Melody: “Melody is just like xpraetorius. Either they completely lack reading comprehension skills or they just read what they want and ignore the rest.” That was the first unjustifiable personal attack, and, more to the point, it was directly after I had — moments before! — accepted a correction from you!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I said:
xPraetorius:
Let’s try that again:
Quick HTML question: It seems that in a recent post the &0149; character — “•” — has behaved like an <LI> tag in an <OL> or <UL> block. Is this new? I don’t think it did it before, and it was how I was making bulleted lists.
Best,
– x”
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE
Best,
— x
LikeLike
To cut down all the bs the questions needs to be asked exactly why I called xPraetorius a liar? It was not because of any point he was making or had made. It was because he made several claims about ME. When asked to provide it he said and I quote “Correct. I have no problem doing that” but nothing at all but continuous whining about how he was called a liar by me and Resw77, yet refuses to acknowledge why he was called just that.
LikeLike
Also would like to take note that it is still xPraetorius who is making effort to engage me yet is talking about how he is going to respond to me. smh*
LikeLike
eh, what was that old adage vis a vis teeth, ‘ignore them and they’ll go away?”
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
Boo-hoo. Take a tissue.
The only one (other than once by Herneith) who referred to you as a “liar” is xpraetorius–and you did so INNUMERABLY. A simple search of the word “liar” on this page will prove this to be true.
AGAIN, all I did was point out your obvious lies (with evidence) only in response to your defensive claim that you “have never, not even one time, lied in all these proceedings. Not even once.”
You, on the other hand (without any evidence), have called me every name in the book and questioned my intelligence…but I don’t whine about it or respond with name-calling b/c I know what you say is untrue.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
I am not sure how well that applies in this situation. He has been ignored and yet every time I turn around he wants to try to engage me. At this point it is creepy.
LikeLike
@xpraetorius
“You started the personal attacks, resw77…’Melody is just like xpraetorius. Either they completely lack reading comprehension skills or they just read what they want and ignore the rest.’ ”
Not so. Well before that statement, you said of Abagond and me,
“It’s that kind of sloppiness or, dare I say it, laziness, that throws everything else you say into question.”
Why? B/c you couldn’t come up with a well-reasoned rebuttal to my statements.
LikeLike
Also v8driver most individuals would be clear in discerning when they are just going overboard. If a person is not engaging you then why continue to try to engage them. It is similar to the experience I had on the soap opera boards where the women failed to understand real from reel. They would attack you for anything and you not once needed mention their name. All they had to know about you or perceived from your comment that you shared a different view and you became the subject of trolling and massive cyberbullying. I had to literally report them to the owners of the message board, facebook, and even the police (they had begun posting my name on a hate facebook page). One of the other girls got her lawyer involved for fear it would ruin her business. The more they were ignored the worse they got.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
@resw77: the content to which I was referring was indeed sloppy. As for the rest, everything you have said falls under CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE, so I will, as Abagond has suggested, not respond to anymore of your inanity. If you see fit to post something substantive, something new to which I haven’t already responded, I’ll reply. Otherwise, please feel free to spout on.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@v8, it likes you. Say the magic words and get a cookie.
LikeLike
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
@sharina: since all your posts fall squarely under CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE, I am very happy to commit to you that I will ignore you in the future.
Let me state for the record, I have no desire whatsoever to engage you. very little could interest me less. Haven’t had any such desire for a looooooong time now, and I realize I should have come up with the concept of CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE a loooooooong time ago. 🙂
If, however, you do see fit to post something worth responding to, I’ll be happy to respond. In the meantime, please feel free to ignore me as well. Quick suggestion: if you simply want to say something peevish or nasty, and have the last word, that’s fine.. At the end of your post, simply put in a notation to the effect of “No x response” or the like, and I’ll ignore it. Sound like a deal?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@sharina,
I think it is called cognitive rigidity.
LikeLike
v8driver said:
xPraetorius:
I like the image, v8; particularly for what it really says. How’s the current pop song go? “You’re gonna miss me when I’m gone.”
(@all: Please feel free to fill in various creative variations on “No, we’re not.” at this point. 🙂 )
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Anne said:
xPraetorius:
Particularly ironic as I bask in the warm wave of cognitive flexibility that this bunch have demonstrated! 🙂
Oops…I mean: CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE
Best,
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
Of course, you don’t have to use the word “liar” to call someone a liar. “You lie,” or “You’re lying,” or “What you said is a lie,” or a million other ways work also; including phrases like intentional falsehood, intentionally misleading, etc. I don’t suppose you did those searches? I assume you mis-wrote when you told me that I referred to myself as a liar. I surely never meant to imply that. I’ve never once lied in any of these threads. Not once, ever.
Other than that, of course, CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@resw77:
This was just a few posts above:
sharina said:
xPraetorius:
@resw77: Even if sharina had correctly recalled the exchange to which she refers, which I doubt, since her record is poor in that regard, then she still would have no possible way to know whether I was lying, or merely mistaken.
This is one of the major, major, major flaws with this bunch. I have made several mistakes, or said some things less than clearly, or been imprecise, such that they were call-out-able things…However, this bunch, in full gotcha-fever really needed them to be “lies.” I’ve already posted so many demonstrations of good faith in this thread and the others — including once where I accepted your correction right out in public! — that I really ought not to have to deal with that silliness anymore.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xpraetorius
The wait is over. I edited in word but the format hasn’t copied over, so please forgive me.
[My reply: In America it happens in the exact opposite sequence. Our “leaders” trail the thinking of the populace generally by decades. Nowadays with high technology and instant communications, timeframes are more compressed, but the truth remains. In the 1800’s, disgust over slavery had been growing for decades before the Civil War. Today’s American government lags behind the public’s thinking significantly as well. ]
“Fair enough, but perhaps it is possible for the general public to lag behind with certain ideas as well.”
[My reply: Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation faced serious opposition, but again, the government was simply catching up to an idea whose time had come long before that. Make no mistake, though, slavery would have gone away on its own, whether or not there had been an American Civil War. It wasn’t even a solid component in the economic system. However, as others here have pointed out, the Civil War was about many things, but the trigger was “States’ Rights.” That’s why hucksters and frauds today howl, “Racism!” as soon as anyone suggests that the states ought to decide something for themselves. ]
“I yield to your superior knowledge on American history, something I am out of my depth with, but will try to keep up where I can.”
[My reply: Nope. They were already there for the most part; it’s just the “leaders” who hadn’t arrived yet. Don’t forget: slavery was no economic panacea for the slave owners or traders. Nor, again, was it a sound component in the American economic system, with any real future. It would have disappeared — and well before 1900…with or without the Civil War. ]
“See above 🙂 ”
Would they change their minds about slavery overnight? [My reply: They largely already had. ]
“Are there any historical accounts of this? Perhaps you maybe right, that society was starting to alter it’s outlook. Half a century earlier, the British Empire had abolished slave trading (did the abolition of owning slaves come much later?), so there was already change in the wind.”
Would they see the light the same way Abe Lincoln did? [My reply: Yes, they already had. Lincoln’s thinking regarding slavery is not that well-known. Did he see the Civil War as a way to end slavery? Certainly. However, it’s likely that he understood that slavery was a doomed institution and simply took advantage of the Civil War to “save the Union” and end slavery. Kind of a “while we’re at it, might as well see if we can get this done too” type of thing. Would Lincoln have gone to war over slavery if there had not been the States’ Right/secession movement? Probably not. Not to his discredit, though. He was a whole-hearted abolitionist, and likely would have worked through political channels to abolish slavery. ]
“Again, these sentiments mirror the global view from society in the above comments.”
Who does our thinking for us? [My reply: I hope we do. ]
“Yes, we do, on a personal level, but people can be easily influenced through manipulation of the facts. Perhaps this needs re-wording. Who makes all our decisions for us?”
The Government. Do we always agree with their policies and decisions to act upon certain things? No. Some policies are at the detriment to some groups, while favouring others. I could be cynical and go off topic and say that my Government looks after the self interests of the elite, because they are a powerful 1% of the population.
[My reply: I’d probably agree with you. But, I have less expertise about your government (You said you were British, right?) ]
“Yes I am to my discredit :)”
Ok, I digress. My point is, the Government may make decisions on my behalf, and the population in general has to process this, agree or disagree and either alter our worldview, or stick by our current mode of thinking. [My reply: Yes, considering that these decisions tend to be decades behind the times. 🙂 ) ]
“Nothing more to be said.”
I’ll ask you this. What are the advantages to the Government for striving to achieve racial equality? [My reply: First stability. Second, tax dollars. ]
“Exactly, no matter how a group or race of people is perceived, the Government has practical concerns that can’t be ignored.”
30-40 million black people, social unrest, embarrassing scandal hitting the news (Birmingham, Alabama, 1963) and the eyes of the world watching your country. [My reply: Not if you believe this group! None of that would have bothered the snarling, vicious white people this bunch says live here now, and lived here at that time. ]
“Ok, fair enough.”
Why, after 100 years, with many generations beyond slavery, are black people still suffering prejudice? [My reply: Closed circles; inadequate or dishonest communication. Also, people like this group here, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who whip up and embrace racial tension. Again, let’s be clear: any time there’s tension between races, there will be suspicion that becomes self-fulfilling, generating prejudice between the two races. ‘Til you get to a point where blacks talk only to blacks and tell each other how evil the whites are; while whites talk only to other whites and wonder what’s going on. Neither listens to the other. Look at the howls of accusation and vituperation with which this group greeted me. However, and it’s a big one, there are about 180 millions whites and 40 million blacks. Whenever there are racial tensions, it’s inevitable that the group with smaller numbers scream to the high heavens about racism and discrimination and privilege, and all that. If those numbers were reversed, might we simply be having the same discussion in reverse? I hope not. ]
“Perhaps you have to ask, do black people want racial harmony? Is it simpler to just give up looking at the long road ahead and be disheartened at the magnitude of the problem? Black people who have suffered years of racial abuse and then come to the realisation that they will never wake up from this nightmare. And they also see their children go through what they have all their life.
Maybe this is why some want the White race to make the first move. Make a grand gesture, but I know what you are going to say 🙂 Is what we are doing enough? Will the solution take both sides to work together mutually?”
Has the White race undergone a period of self examination, [My reply: Yes. In this same thread there is a long discussion — and even the occasional serious post from this crowd! — on (1) the long period of self-examination that whites have been undergoing to remove any prejudice whatsoever from their thinking, and (2) the vast reservoir of good will that whites hold toward blacks. You can search in this thread for the strings, “self-examination,” or “away from prejudice OF ANY KIND,” or “vast reservoir” for those exchanges. ] or was the White race forced to change at the self interests of the few? [My reply: Regardless of in whose interests it was, white people have been changing their viewpoint for centuries — again, away from prejudice of any kind. ]
Ok, I agree with the period of self examination, but have we progressed far enough to make racism miniscule?”
I hope this post doesn’t get shrouded in the ongoing tit-for-tat saga. It would be refreshing to have a discussion that includes all and that doesn’t degenerate into assertions made on individuals with insults flying around, otherwise I don’t see the point of this thread and will not waste anymore time.
Take care.
LikeLike
On a side note: Someone here posted a link telling of the 11-year old black kid genius, Carson Huey-You, who’s attending college for Physics. Heartwarming and sweet story. Of course, the only place I found that story — outside of the link in this conversation — was on the very right-wing site: “The College Fix.” I guess that personal anecdote proves the right-wing media aren’t racist! (Can’t call “The College Fix” “white media,” ’cause it’s not, but it is definitely right wing!)
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Sorry to all for the untidy response to x, I hope you are able to follow it. Can somebody enlighten me on how to format?
LikeLike
@ abagond
I know this thread is a platform for x to express his views, and at some point you made it a free-for-all for how people conduct their conversation, but is this constructive? What will this achieve? I know the reason you isolated x is because he derails threads, but he is not the only one guilty of that from what I have seen. The only thing x is guilty of is rising to the bait, which we all fall for from time to time.
I like a good debate, but cannot we return some form of structure and purpose to this thread? I have engaged with x in polite dialogue through posts on here and not once has he been rude to me. And we have different opinions on the current state of racial affairs.
The only ones that should comment are the ones that have something meaningful to contribute. My inbox is full of crap from people mirroring the same sentiments and not really adding anything. Are my posts too boring to respond to from other people, would they rather get excited over making more disparaging remarks about x? I do not like the clique like nature where people with dissenting views are ganged upon and ridiculed using personal remarks.
I have a lot of respect for you and your blog is better than the childish battles that have been allowed to continue.
LikeLike
@ Gio
“The only thing x is guilty of is rising to the bait, which we all fall for from time to time.”—I disagree. That is not the only thing he is guilty of as he has aimlessly attacked people that did not attack him. In cases where people did, then it is what it is, but in cases where people did not….the question becomes what is his reasoning.
I am all for giving anyone a fair chance, but at what point do you loose that chance? Should anyone in here take countless ridicule of their intelligence or themselves as a being because one feels they are entitled to it?
Order needs to be restored but we first need to address the source of the disorder. One can have a difference of opinion, as there are others who do, but never has it been this level of disorder that I have seen.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
The whole mess has gone beyond disorder with posts not worth reading. I will except your assessment that maybe he has been quick to attack others, perhaps x is preempting, I dunno, I can’t read his mind, but from the barrage of slurs he may have become to expect a negative response.
The problem with this blog is that it things get taken to a personal level. I don’t know whether abagond has any co-moderators, but his time is obviously stretched with having to pay attention to all the contents of each posts and maybe taking action on those posts that generate the most negative responses.
Like yourself, I just want an adult, intelligent debate. I don’t entirely agree with x, but he does have some alternative insight into things (you might say from a white persons perspective) and if we are all here to share ideas to understand racism, then his views should be taken on board, whether right or wrong. We should be here to educate each other and compose responses where we either agree or disagree with our reasons. I don’t think x is racist, he has undergone enough erratic profiling by scrutinizing his arguments and reasonings and he has stuck by defending his opinions.
Anyway, why does the software of this blog highlight misspellings when there aren’t any, I keep double checking myself. And it is not a British/American difference, just obvious words that are common to both of us.
LikeLike
@Gio
“I have engaged with x in polite dialogue through posts on here and not once has he been rude to me.”
Good for you. But x attacked me first for offering a point of view with which he vehemently disagreed. Instead of countering with legitimate arguments, he made it personal.
“I do not like the clique like nature where people with dissenting views are ganged upon and ridiculed using personal remarks.”
I offer “dissenting views” all the time. See my many comments on numerous threads on this blog (e.g., Back to Africa, Margaret Thatcher, etc.). But no one ever “ganged up” on me or ridiculed me with personal remarks” unless it was x, a troll, etc. Why? Because I dissented with reasonable arguments, pointed to evidence when necessary, and was respectful…
X is getting challenged b/c he innumerably criticises and belittles other commenters on this blog, just scroll up and see for yourself.
He deserves every bit of the criticism he gets in return.
LikeLike
Gio said:
Sorry to all for the untidy response to x, I hope you are able to follow it. Can somebody enlighten me on how to format?
xPraetorius:
First a quick note on formatting:
• <b> before a word, </b> after a word will bold it.
• <i> before a word, </i> after a word will italicise it
• <blockquote> before a passage, </blockquote> after a passage will make it a quote.
• Also: <a href=”http://www.linkaddress.com”> before a word or words, </a> after a word or words will associate a hyperlink with that word or words.
• &strike;b> before a word or words, </strike> after a word or words will
strike throughthe word or words.Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Gio
“Like yourself, I just want an adult, intelligent debate. I don’t entirely agree with x, but he does have some alternative insight into things (you might say from a white persons perspective) and if we are all here to share ideas to understand racism, then his views should be taken on board, whether right or wrong. We should be here to educate each other and compose responses where we either agree or disagree with our reasons.”—I agree and like I said before..I don’t think he is racist but very naive in regards to racism.
As for this discussion I will be happy to talk about racism with you, but do not think bad of me if I ignore xprae because I don’t believe in giving people too many chances to do the right thing before I right them off.
I am curious to your take on why you believe racism is a big problem?
LikeLike
excuse my in and out I am in the middle of cooking dinner.
LikeLike
@ resw77
It is tiring the same back and forth, take him to task, challenge his reasoning. I may appear poor against is intellect, but I am trying to understand both sides of the coin. If you feel he is not contributing anymore, then ignore him, he will have to try harder. Personal attacks just make this whole blog like a school playing ground.
LikeLike
Sharina:
I am curious to your take on why you believe racism is a big problem?
@Sharina
Because that is the reality I have come to except. I feel as though I am not like other people. I don’t care whether you are gay, lesbian, man, woman, black or white, cares little to me, but I see so many people where these things bother or offend them. It seems as though being different in any capacity is fair game. And being of a different race is just fair game, just finding reasons to differentiate ourselves.
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
At this point, whatever, Gio. resw77’s and sharina’s recollections are wildly off-base, but it will require you to re-read the thread to understand why. I wouldn’t ask you to do that, unless you really want to. I’ll respond to you, and let the others fulminate at their leisure. Other than your posts, it’s all pretty much CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE anyway!
One quick point: resw77 said: “X is getting challenged b/c he innumerably criticises and belittles other commenters on this blog, just scroll up and see for yourself.” Of course, to scroll up would prove his point that I’m rude and abrupt. However, to scroll down from the top, taking all the posts in sequence, as they actually happened, would make my point that I never do anything more than respond to rudeness.
Sorry for the defensive sounding reply, but, as it turns out, I’m not the only one to recognize this and to remark upon it. So, I think you have accurately diagnosed the atmosphere around here, and that’s just the way it is. I don’t mind it, but to buck it, or even simply to be polite is to risk banishment. Abagond himself admitted that he banned someone who was unfailingly polite, but went off-topic. Well, truly, if that’s the case, then what’s the point of being polite?
It is Abagond’s blog, and like you, I came here for spirited, but much more elevated discussion / debate / heated argument than this group was able or willing to participate in.
So, two quick things: (1) I’m working on two big posts now… yours, and I promised the “second half” of the answer to Abagond’s question: Why am I here? Both are somewhat lengthy, so might take some time. And, (2) after my reply to you and Abagond, I think I can pretty much wrap up here. It seems plain that Abagond world is not ready to challenge any of its most cherished notions. I don’t mind that at all — it’s not my blog. And I have certain cherished notions to which I wouldn’t accept challenge (eg my daughter and son are the most beautiful and handsome children in the world 🙂 ). However, I’m pretty sure that a banishment is on the near horizon, and there’s no point in hanging around for it.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Gio
The question becomes how does one measure if racism is a big problem or not?
One could measure it based on our black president, but the issue becomes why was this man still the subject of racial ridicule? If racism was not an issue then he would simply be disliked on the sole bases of his policies and individual would not seek to use racial jokes or slurs in his direction.
One could also measure it based on Affirmative Action, but we would need to ask….who is it for? Affirmative action is not simply a black only program in which blacks are the sole beneficiary of it. How often do white women and handicapped benefit from this?
There is much to be argued but the question I have is…how many of these programs are solely for the benefit of black people? How many of these programs actually truly benefit black people? I would say none really benefit them. I would even go so far as to say they are there for the sole purpose of making it seem as if it does.
LikeLike
@Gio
” If you feel he is not contributing anymore, then ignore him, he will have to try harder. Personal attacks just make this whole blog like a school playing ground.”
My counterattacks on x are limited to this thread which Abagond designated to be wholly about him. If you have a problem, then Abagond has hundreds of other threads for you. This one is about x, and I have made my comments on this page about x.
If he wanted to address me about “adult” issues, he had ample opportunity on the “Was Hitler Evil” thread,but he has NOT responded to the serious comment I left him on that thread. Instead, he veered off into personal attacks b/c he couldn’t come up with a well-reasoned response (or whatever the reason was).
I chose not to ignore him and give him a taste of his own medicine, which I think has been working, if his whining and ranting is any indication.
If you want the “school playing ground” stuff to cease, then either go to another thread or tell your mate to behave.
LikeLike
@ Gio
” I feel as though I am not like other people.”—It is perfectly fine to be different.
“I don’t care whether you are gay, lesbian, man, woman, black or white, cares little to me, but I see so many people where these things bother or offend them. It seems as though being different in any capacity is fair game. And being of a different race is just fair game, just finding reasons to differentiate ourselves.”—Over time I have learned to care and treat people as individuals (regardless of any differences).
Here is an argument that keeps coming up lately….Al sharpton and jesse jackson do nothing but cause racial divide or the media causes racial divide, but the real question is…How can you cause a divide when there was none to begin with?
LikeLike
Gio said:
xPraetorius:
Some responses inline, in bold font, above. As I write this, my comments going back some time are “in moderation.” Fingers crossed!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
For someone who has no desire to respond to me. Someone please tell me why he is constantly and I mean constantly responding to my post that are to other people. I mean you have to be stupid to not notice the @ (not your name) or just desperate for any type of attention.
LikeLike
@ Gio
I no longer wish to discuss anything on this thread as I have officially become creeped out by you know who. His constant attempts to engage me have at this point become scary I need to distance myself from this type of harassment.
LikeLike
The constant lack of disregard for respect of an individual proves without a doubt what type of individual xprae is. How can any individual claim to want to have a adult conversation with out any tit-for-tat yet can not respect something as simple as to no longer to engage an individual when they have asked not once, but several times to no longer be engaged.
I asked this kindly and explained why I felt this way, but no matter what I am constantly being engaged as if my request meant nothing. I will at this point be taking further steps to have it be known that xprae is nothing more than a calculated cyberbully. I held off on this as I was truly hoping he would simply respect me and leave me alone, but that has yet to be the case. I will be sure to have this particular post unsubscribed as well so as to cut further contact.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Please no longer address Sharina or say anything about her of the form “Sharina is…”. You can still talk about her opinions.
LikeLike
Deleted comments by Sharina and xPraetorius because they are no longer allowed to talk to each other.
LikeLike
@Gio, I think the best way to not have your inbox full of stuff you don’t want to read is to unsubscribe from this thread. Then if you want to have a deeper conversation with a specific person without having to read contributions from the regular commenters who you deem childish, you can email them personally. You would probably learn more that way.
@sharina, I never liked that x thing. After the first couple comments on the Hitler post I realized it was here trying to start an argument. Since then I never took anything posted by it seriously. I remember reading the comments at the beginning of this mess and I know who I blame for this thing going on so long. I know the difference between presenting a dissenting opinion and baiting and argument. The second technique is only used to make the opponent look stupid. It gives the person planting the bait the excuse to say their opponent is stubborn, aggressive and resistant to new ideas. The problem with that technique is that you have to have the person engage in a conversation with you for it to work. Otherwise you are left sounding like a crazy person trying to get people’s attention. Anyway, bottom line. Take Gio’s advice and ignore.
LikeLike
Anne said:
xPtraetorius:
Well, Anne, you’re still 100%. You haven’t contributed anything substantive or constructive yet. You refer to a person as “it.” Is that supposed to pass for intelligent analysis? We got over that kind of immaturity after the second grade. The snark-fests, the silly, second-grade “it” thing, the refusal to engage, the shrieked accusations, the hyper-defensiveness, the mind-reading, the pseudo-intellectual nitwittery, and, of course, the old standby: “We’ve seen the likes of this before!” all support a hypothesis I had before coming in here.
Not to worry though, as soon as I give Abagond his answer (He posed the question: “Why are you here?”), I’ll finish up here and you can all crow about how you chased me out. I do, after all, like to leave ’em smiling! 🙂 (<– @resw77 — it's teed up for a snarkout from you.). I have some appointments this morning (watch the broadcast news), and then I'll continue on the rest of Abagond's response. It's longish, so is taking some time. Should be complete today, though, so if Abagond allows it through, today'll be the last you hear from me. It's about 8:30 my time now (ET), so if you want to start the xPraetorius departure countdown, that mean t-minus 15:30 and counting. (Yes, that is a clear violation of xPraetorius' Second Law.)
Best,
— x
LikeLike
I’ve been mindful of these tactics which have been on display quite frequently throughout all Abagond’s posts and comments and responses in this thread:
This is taken from his own blog and helps explain, I believe, much of his objectionable current behaviour carried on over here:
I personally regard many of these so called debating tactics in open honest debate to be puerile and infantile. But thats just my humble opinion 🙂
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
At last, Kwamla, we agree on something! If the baseless cheap shots were magically removed from this thread, only Gio’s and my posts — and several scattered others — would remain.
By the way: We developed the “Guide to Submitting Content” on our site largely with our experiences on this and other web sites in mind.
I would contest the characterization of this exchange as “open and honest.” Only Gio and I, and a couple of others, have been open and honest. Your description of the others’ name-calling, abuse, racial slurs, mind-reading snark-fests and evasions as “puerile and infantile” is, however accurate, if incomplete. 🙂
Don’t forget: T-minus 13:20:00 until xPraetorian departure! If, that is, Abagond allows the second half of my reason for being here through the iron curtain. Who knows, Abagond might decide to hasten it a bit. If he does, that’ll be a shame, but do pay attention to the broadcast news in upcoming weeks. I promise it’ll ring some bells with you.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Btw; we are now at T-minus 12:10:10 until I pull my self-banishment. A paraphrase comes to mind: “You can’t banish me, I quit!” (add image of man picking self up by the collar and tossing self out door.)
One more phrase comes to mind: “Let me make one thing perfectly clear…you won’t have old xPraetorius to kick around anymore!” (California gubernatorial election reference.) 🙂
You are gonna miss me when I’m gone!
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
You will have to rewrite or withdraw the comment that is in moderation: it is in answer to a comment of mine that I deleted before you posted yours.
LikeLike
@Abagond:
Please feel free to withdraw that comment. Any explanation as to why you didn’t allow the exchange?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
I deleted my comment because when I checked it turned out not to be true: I forgot that I deleted a comment of yours and Sharina last night. Correcting it would take too much rewriting, so I deleted it.
LikeLike
Anne said:
I pretty much agree with that, though I would say it is a spectrum, not either-or. Many commenters are serious but have trollish qualities. Thad, for example, was 80% serious, 20% troll. What makes X so despicable is that he is 10% serious and 90% troll. His “substantive arguments” are window dressing, a show of seriousness, an excuse to be here. Once you engage those arguments, he does not seriously discuss them, at least not with black commenters. Instead you just get insults and evasions.
I think he, like many white trolls, come here because something I said gets under their skin. So they feel this need to “prove” themselves right. Their interest, therefore, is in “winning” the argument at all costs, not in understanding different points of view, learning something or getting at the truth of things.
LikeLike
Ok.
By the way, other than the issues I mentioned in the comment you deleted, I have no huge complaints with your moderating.
Look: I realize I’m the annoying mosquito buzzing around your blog (resw77: “No, you’re the turd in the punchbowl!” HerWhoseNameICannotMention: “No, you’re the cockroach in the jello, but don’t respond to that!” BrothaWolf: “No, you’re the racist scum polluting us all with your presence!” TruthSeeker: “No, you’re the circular logic in our public square!” Kwamla:“No! You’re the melanin-sucking vampire, in our rich, vibrant, sincerity-sensing melanin ocean!”), 🙂 so I don’t expect any special treatment, but I thought that I could count on at least equal treatment here. (I know, I know, I teed it up again! 🙂 )
And, of course, T-minus 11:25:00 until xPraetorius self-banishment.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
Oh, please! You can’t be serious! I begged you all for serious engagement — numerous times — and got back almost nothing but vituperation, evasion, and more of the same baseless insults and jeers. Your comments in this post are just silly, Abagond. If I was 90% troll, it’s because I responded to 99% troll coming from this side! Sorry, but: “You’re a racist liar and we’ve seen your type before and you stink” does not constitute serious engagement from your readers. If you then insist that I simply should have allowed the gratuitous insults to pass by — as, I note, no one else here did — then my estimation of you just sank a whole lot lower. That you would even allow those claims to come from you is outrageous. ** Sheesh! **
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@Abagond: Oh, and “despicable?” You are joking, I hope! “Despicable?!?”
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
Get real. You are on a blog where racism is a big topic. People are allowed to call out racism. If you are NOT racist, as you claim, then defend yourself instead of being such a crybaby.
LikeLike
I too would agree with Ann here. It certainly explains xP’s made up opinion – supposedly from me?
By the way a nice example of “open and honest” debate from you too…xP
To quote you directly only a few comments ago where you said:
Which certainly, in my direct experience, also shows why Abagond’s characterisation of you is highly accurate:
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
(1) Do you honestly think I haven’t adequately defended myself? (2) People are allowed to call out racism, but (a) if there’s none to call out, it’s a fraudulent argument, as here, and (b) if you look around, you will see that it’s the very first resort around here. (c) Look around at the responses from your readers. “Racism!” is a crutch. You know it and I know it…You don’t have to admit it to me; in fact, feel free to deny it publicly, but if you answer that to yourself you know it’s true. (Yes, I cribbed words from your Joshua Solomon piece)
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Kwamla said:
xPraetorius:
Responses in line and in bold font. Now are you going to let me finish my response to Abagond’s question, so I can banish myself, or are you going to continue to make me bat back these inanities?
Best,
— x
LikeLike
Honestly, what does all these personal attacks achieve? Everyone has a right to defend themselves, but nobodies reputation is at stake here, this is a blog whereby we are all strangers and would not recognise each other in the street.
“He said this,accused me of this, I had to defend myself” blah, blah, blah. It is rather disappointing. If you look at this thread, it is just a wall of crap, pointless tit for tat, little substantial content and just interpersonal wars going on.
There is blame on both sides I’m afraid to say. Some of you have said that the only way to make steps to racial harmony is to have open discussions. So, what has happened so far, “You’re racist, blah blah blah, you fit the criteria of a racist from some arbitrary guidelines”.
So what if someone is racist, why not take them to task in a more rational way, actually learn something from the exchange? Abagond is a self-confessed racist, so why is there a tendency to have one rule for one and another for the dissenting outsider?
LikeLike
Anne:
@Gio, I think the best way to not have your inbox full of stuff you don’t want to read is to unsubscribe from this thread. Then if you want to have a deeper conversation with a specific person without having to read contributions from the regular commenters who you deem childish, you can email them personally. You would probably learn more that way.
@Anne
A good suggestion, but this just defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I subscribed to be notified of updates to this thread so I could keep up-to-date with posts that I would be interested in responding to. As Abagond has pointed out, email addresses in a public forum is forbidden and as far as I know there is no private message feature or mailbox.
The spirit and purpose of the blog is to have a lively exchange of ideas, from all parties. Yes, it has been great debating with x, but it would have been far better for others to contribute, fill in my blanks, give me other insights and give me something to think about.
The reality has been myself and x debating, with crap going on in between.
LikeLike
Gio said:
Sorry to all for the untidy response to x, I hope you are able to follow it. Can somebody enlighten me on how to format?
xPraetorius:
First a quick note on formatting:
• before a word, after a word will bold it.
• before a word, after a word will italicise it
•
after a passage will make it a quote.
• Also: before a word or words, after a word or words will associate a hyperlink with that word or words.
• &strike;b> before a word or words, after a word or words willstrike through the word or words.
Best,
@ Xpraetorius
Thanks for that, it never occurred to me to format with HTML tags. Might see if I can find some nice,pink fluffy backgrounds to go with my posts.
LikeLike
Sharina:
@ Gio
” I feel as though I am not like other people.”—It is perfectly fine to be different.
“I don’t care whether you are gay, lesbian, man, woman, black or white, cares little to me, but I see so many people where these things bother or offend them. It seems as though being different in any capacity is fair game. And being of a different race is just fair game, just finding reasons to differentiate ourselves.”—Over time I have learned to care and treat people as individuals (regardless of any differences).
To heighten emotions in their own self interests. To perpetuate hate/ dislike and exploit it s so they can sell their books and get more guest spots on political and news shows. All they are doing is taking advantage of a pre-existing problem that is like a powder keg waiting to explode. It just needs a few sparks to fly first.
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
They call you racist because that is how you come off. I have not taken a survey but I would guess that mostly it is because you talk down to black commenters and do not take what they say seriously – like they are children or something. You told ME what my Hitler post was about! You CORRECTED me when I disagreed. Wow. Not seeing blacks as equals means you are racist. No mind reading required: you actions stink of it. Maybe you are just an arrogant or classist prick, maybe it is not racism actually, but you are far more respectful to most white commenters. On top of that you trot out one racist trope after another – black presidents, race baiters, bootstraps, black crime stats (even though you say you do not believe in stats), most people on welfare are black (implied by your $12 trillion figure), etc.
LikeLike
@Gio
“If you look at this thread, it is just a wall of crap, pointless tit for tat, little substantial content and just interpersonal wars going on.”
Yeah, this thread is a “wall of crap” b/c it’s about your mate, xprae…if you want to discuss real issues, yet again, go to another thread.
If xprae wanted to debate real issues, yet again, he could have done so on another thread. Abagond designated this one to him b/c he kept going off topic with his usual personal attacks and pompous gibberish.
He clearly doesn’t want to debate, he wants to lecture and scoff at all dissenters.
“So, what has happened so far, ‘You’re racist, blah blah blah, you fit the criteria of a racist from some arbitrary guidelines'”
I never once called him or anyone else “racist.”
Get over defending your mate b/c he’s not innocent and got the treatment that he wants and deserves.
“Abagond is a self-confessed racist, so why is there a tendency to have one rule for one and another for the dissenting outsider?”
Abagond is honest, unlike not most other European Americans…
LikeLike
@ xPraetorius
As to “open honest debate” – it was hardly that on your side, even if you leave out all the insulting language. For you the issue was not “Who is right?” or “What is true?” but (paraphrase here) “Will any of them admit that I am right – or at least partly right?”
Further your own position was not falsifiable: you reject anecdote, statistic and study. What does that leave? Your subjective thought experiment – which at least three commenters pointed out leaves out institutional racism and another said was circular and subjective. No serious response to those objections that I saw, though maybe I missed or forgot something.
Further, your thought experiment assumes that middle class people of colour experience no racism. That is like most of my commenters, whose experiences you reject out of hand as atypical. How convenient.
You also dismiss all of history as if it has no important effect on the present. That is delusional.
You make racism a matter of personal intention, not unequal treatment. Again, not falsifiable except by telepathy.
You yourself said you could not tell whether a person, institution or culture is racist. Yet you assert that racism is no longer a big problem. How would you be able to tell, having already dismissed statistic, studies, personal experiences? You have defined racism with an eraser.
You say you are not racist, but cannot say how you know.
Whites 50 years did not think racism was a big problem – just like you. Yet you cannot tell us why you are right and they were wrong.
The reason your argument has so many holes is because you have never, never had to seriously argue it, except maybe with white people. That is like virgins debating about sex.
LikeLike
@agabond, I say we start a post where we debate different brands of sun screen. I personally think they are unnecessary because no one I know gets sunburned. And, on top of that, I believe that the sun has little or no,effect on human skin. After all I have never seen it’s effects in real time. I only read about it in books.
LikeLike
@ Anne
LMAO!! Good analogy!
LikeLike
@ xP
Deleted a comment in moderation where you talked about Sharina, the comment you posted at 2013/08/29 at 18:02:14 GMT.
LikeLike
resw77:
@Gio
“If you look at this thread, it is just a wall of crap, pointless tit for tat, little substantial content and just interpersonal wars going on.”
Yeah, this thread is a “wall of crap” b/c it’s about your mate, xprae…if you want to discuss real issues, yet again, go to another thread.
If xprae wanted to debate real issues, yet again, he could have done so on another thread. Abagond designated this one to him b/c he kept going off topic with his usual personal attacks and pompous gibberish.
He clearly doesn’t want to debate, he wants to lecture and scoff at all dissenters.
“So, what has happened so far, ‘You’re racist, blah blah blah, you fit the criteria of a racist from some arbitrary guidelines’”
I never once called him or anyone else “racist.” I was not addressing you personally, but why feel the need to vindicate yourself?
Get over defending your mate b/c he’s not innocent and got the treatment that he wants and deserves.
I am not defending anyone, I am calling all of you on your behaviour and am not excusing anyone
Why is he my mate? Is it because we are not tearing strips out of each other yet? I’ve made it clear I don’t agree with him on some aspects. </b?
Abagond is a self-confessed racist, so why is there a tendency to have one rule for one and another for the dissenting outsider?
Abagond is honest, unlike not most other European Americans…
A bold assumption, does that mean being honest about being the same way as something you detest ok? Are we witch hunting people who are in denial about being racist? If anyone is to declare that they were racist against blacks, would you look beyond this and engage them in conversation or would you scrutinize them?
LikeLike
abagond said:
xPraetorius:
@Abagond: Thanks for your mostly excellent post. I replied, inline, in bold font.
Best:
— x
LikeLike
resw77 said:
xPraetorius:
@resw77: Up, or rather down, to your usual standards, I see.
Best,
— x
LikeLike
@ Gio
I promised I would not comment any longer on this thread and I am breaking my rule but I will respond to this.
“So what if someone is racist, why not take them to task in a more rational way, actually learn something from the exchange?”—The truth of the matter is it has been done. At this point people are just like whatever. I would honestly stay out of it at this point and debate as you normally would with people who want that. You getting in the middle and chastising is making it look like you are taking a side. especially when those commenter are not the ones doing what you are accusing them of.
LikeLike
Anne said:
LikeLike
@ sharina
Sharina honey, I am not taking sides. What I say applies to everyone. I have come into this late where the accusations were already going back and forth. I was just hoping for a good lively exchange, but the damage has been done. Sharina, you are extremely patient with people and from what I have seen you have been the most diplomatic.
I didn’t want to fall into any traps when debating with x, and I just wanted an honest exchange of ideas. The only reason I challenged him was because I disagreed with his assertion that racism was not a big problem.
I just think there is so much bitterness that has stemmed from personal experiences that it makes it so much difficult to talk about issues in a frank nature.
I see so many intelligent people on this board with excellent ideas just getting involved with pointless tit for tat.
Take care hun. xx
LikeLike
“I was not addressing you personally, but why feel the need to vindicate yourself?”
I told you b/c your previous comment seemed to suggest that you incorrectly assumed everyone was calling xprae a racist. But, a simple search for that word on this page will clearly show that xprae used it far more than anyone else.
“I am not defending anyone, I am calling all of you on your behaviour and am not excusing anyone”
Gio, perhaps you forgot the little lecture(s) you gave me and others above (BUT NOT xprae!), and perhaps you forgot when you said, “I do not like the clique like nature where people with dissenting views are ganged upon and ridiculed using personal remarks.”
Yes, it indeed appears you were defending your mate. If you were not, then give him equal treatment and lambaste him for initiating all of this. Here’s your chance.
“A bold assumption, does that mean being honest about being the same way as something you detest ok?”
Whether you like it or not, Americans (and Brits, etc.) were born and bred in a white supremacist society and it’s extremely rare that any American (Brit, etc.) can avoid that without complete isolation. And so, unless someone has spent the majority of one’s life in complete isolation, then it’s extremely likely one has racist views in some manner..
“Are we witch hunting people who are in denial about being racist?”
I don’t know who “we” are, but I don’t hunt anyone. Nor do I expect anyone to want to admit one is racist. But, empirical EVIDENCE proves that Americans (at least most of them) are racist. And xprae can cry “racism is dead” until the cows come home, but there is no evidence to back that claim.
“If anyone is to declare that they were racist against blacks, would you look beyond this and engage them in conversation or would you scrutinize them?”
Again, whether they declare it or not, I’m not naive or ignorant enough to think otherwise. Yes, some people can surely look past race, and treat all with respect, but that does not mean they are not racist in some manner.
But I think you have some serious misunderstandings regarding Abagond’s opinion about racism. Hopefully he will clarify them.
LikeLike
“””Like yourself, I just want an adult, intelligent debate. I don’t entirely agree with x, but he does have some alternative insight into things (you might say from a white persons perspective) and if we are all here to share ideas to understand racism, then his views should be taken on board, whether right or wrong. We should be here to educate each other and compose responses where we either agree or disagree with our reasons. I don’t think x is racist, he has undergone enough erratic profiling by scrutinizing his arguments and reasonings and he has stuck by defending his opinions””.
I don;t think x has presented any alternative insight, in my opinion, x insights are ignorant garbage, all his opinions are not researched, x never listens to any alternative positions, x insults and is very condescending, and in my opinion, x has shown himself to hold unchecked racist thoughts, such as his idea that slavery was the best thing to happen to blacks, just as one example of many.
I think your comments, just as calling another commenter “honey” and “hun” are also very condescending and sexist…and your accusations are getting to be almost as good as x’s. My advice, try reading around Abagonds blog first, there are many excellent posts and comments, instead of jumping into this post.
LikeLike
If you don’t mind my interjection for a moment, I also think the “honey” and “hun” labels seemed really off and discomforting. It really does sound belittling. Did anything good even come out of this thread?
LikeLike
@Gio, you are absolutely correct, if one is not racist, they should not feel the need to go through the effort of arguing that they are not racist. Very good observation.
LikeLike
@ Gio: Hun, honey. wtf? That is really insulting.
LikeLike
@ Gio
It is not his “dissenting views” that gets so many people upset. It is his insulting manner and his bald-face lying. Randy has pretty much the same views yet does not generate even 10% of the animus. Because he knows how to be respectful most of the time.
X is pretty intelligent and has an amazingly thick hide, despite his stupid crybaby act. He even makes some good points. He COULD make an excellent commenter. But he has not chosen to use his powers for good. Instead he just kicks sand in people’s faces and then, when they will not give him the time of day, he calls them mean and close-minded.
As a troll he is in the top 10% for this blog. You can look at all the commentary on this blog and see for yourself. Only five commenters have asked to have all their comments deleted and only one was a troll.
LikeLike
@ xP
This is YOUR misreading of my Hitler post. You have never been able to support it from what I said in the post itself. INSTEAD you just TOLD me that that is what my post was about despite my disagreement. Wow. And this is your idea of “open honest debate”?
LikeLike
@ xP
1. You are right: it was presumptuous. I have no way of knowing something like that. You could have argued with tons of black people, just not in an open setting where they could speak their minds without fear of retribution. Like, say, talking to black employees. Or, you could have talked to plenty of blacks in an open setting but learned nothing new from it. Like here.
2. You are going to have to get over this R-word thing. White people use it to silence any serious talk about racism, making it costly to call out racism. If whites are truly as unracist as they say they are, then the word should not upset them so much.
LikeLike
Herneith set a new low for substanceless dreck. Not surprising. I knew she wasn’t as dumb as she sounded. No, she’s a lot dumber.
I post as I find. One must meet buffoonery with buffoonery after all! Beside, who’s dumber? The poster of such stupidity or the person responding to such nonsense?
LikeLike
@Gen, yes. X left..
LikeLike
Your attention, please…your attention, please xPraetorius has not yet left the building, but see below for the very last post. There’s a little something for everyone in it. 🙂
(Couple quick notes: Even as I write this, I see that the defenestration of Gio has begun as well!
And, Abagond, if you think I’m completely off-base about your Hitler post, then you need to re-read it. Believe me, I’m not the only one to have concluded what I concluded. I mentioned to you that you’ve had a readership in the past several days that, perhaps, you never dreamed you’d have, and I was not kidding. I noticed in your most recent posts, that despite the obvious fact that you couldn’t possibly know it – you couldn’t resist calling me a liar again! Your backhanded compliments notwithstanding, your last posts on this thread are incorrect and tone-deaf.)
Be all that as it may… 🙂
@Abagond:
As promised, here is the second half of my reason for being here. And, yes, to great cheers and fanfare, it will be my swan song. 🙂 For those of you who don’t care to know the reason, you can skip to the very last paragraph, where I extend to you, my Abagondian family, all my farewell wishes.
As you might have read, I have close ties with some people who are very high up in government and some in mass media, most especially the broadcast media. Some of those contacts are, as a matter of fact, members of our little think tank. As you further might have guessed, I’m a writer and keen (you might disagree 🙂 ) observer of current events, both domestically and internationally.
I proposed a project to some of my media contacts, in which my colleagues and I would address the topic of race, by jumping feet-first into the very belly of the race grievance industry. Well, as you can guess, there are some presuppositions in that little phrase itself. First and foremost: that there is a race grievance industry in the first place – beyond charlatans and buffoons like Al Sharpton, that is. We found that to be amply clear.
For the purposes of the project – a book (or books) and upcoming broadcast(s) on a major news network – we wanted to test (definitely not confirm) our pre-existing notion, which was a simple one: the American race grievance industry consists mostly of a bunch of “closed circles;” people talking largely to themselves, and simply gathering together in a large collection of small, medium and large “amen choruses” to confirm each other’s notions about race, race relations, white people, black people, etc.
My colleague, whom you and your readers know as “the petite black woman,” insisted the worst about the race grievance industry. I figured that assessment was too bleak, so we endeavored to try to measure, to the extent possible, (1) whether the closed circle hypothesis was correct, and (2) whether the closed circles were openable.
Our approach was to go to the various blogs in various different ways, and to confront the readers with dissenting points of view pertaining to race; specifically: the hypothesis that “white racism is not a big problem in America today.” (Some of you might be familiar with that phrase.) We presented ourselves using ID’s that indicated nothing about any of us, then eventually divulged who we truly were. My colleague who confronted “BrothaWolf” is, indeed, a petite black woman. I am, indeed, a largish white guy. We lied about nothing, and were scrupulous to attack only content and ideas at first, but then to dive right in if we came under personal attack.
We searched really hard for valid, hard-to-refute counter arguments to our core hypothesis.
We selected 30 blogs that seemed to encourage lively discussion, and also seemed to permit dissent to some extent. Your blog made the cut, because of the occasional dissenting viewpoint. Others had recommended it to us, and Abagond, over the years, has adopted an academic style that indicates a certain elevated level of education. You seemed to present the possibility of lively discussion, but the level of the exchange that came from your readers was almost never elevated. I thought there were several who could hang in there, but I appear to have been mistaken.
Furthermore, we approached each blog with a different tone. You and BrothaWolf got the “Combative and Assertive.” approach. We tried “Kind and Gentle,” “Sarcastic but Respectful,” “Egghead and Scholarly,” and “Unfailingly Respectful.” The point was to see what achieved the best results in terms of producing a fruitful debate, with serious debaters. In such debate, we hoped to see whether we could get anyone (1) to engage seriously, (2) to acknowledge at the very least that dissenters might simply have a different perspective.
I have achieved my purpose here, having gathered quite a bit of material; both for the project and for online analysis and commentary. I hope you were able to recognize that I spent a good deal of my time prompting your readers and commenters down various paths to try to get them to respond to certain things. That’s why we thought that your stable of readers might not be the best informed out there. Your commenters were the most stubborn about not even engaging. However, their response, and non-response, to certain prompts were both blog-worthy. Other blogs had at least some readers who wanted to take a hack at some of our prompts.
Interestingly, the approach that achieved the best results in terms of generating debate was “Egghead and Scholarly.” The worst was “Unfailingly Respectful!” Those who demanded respectful dialogue the loudest were the ones least willing to engage in it!
“Combative and Assertive,” “Kind and Gentle” and “Sarcastic but Respectful” were in the middle. It should be noted that none of these approaches generated a whole lot of serious debate. All were within a few percentage points of each other. The point: it seems pretty sure that any approach that appeared to dissent with some closely held ideas was going to meet with a wall of defensive opposition that sometimes was verbally quite violent, culminating in several posted death threats, and/or wishes that the dissenter would die.
Nothing changed any of that whether it was my colleague or I, when we divulged who we were, the vituperation continued. Occasionally there was a pause when my colleague revealed herself, as well as confusion and denial. For my colleague, the commenters added abuse. “How,” they wondered aloud, “could a black woman allow herself to fall in with racists like us?!?”
In that vein, in every blog, the women self-selected out of the actual debate, contenting themselves mostly with drive-by snark. That caught my colleague and me off-guard.
One interesting objection to our viewpoint was the odd, self-contradictory assertion that somehow we were unable to see how others could hold other points of view.
Of the substanceless objections posited ostensibly to counter what we were saying, we were able to categorize the most common. They were:
• Gratuitous insults
• Racial slurs
• Tries too hard to be clever
• I had covered it bunch of times before (this one is understandable, since not everyone read all entries.)
• Wrong on the face of it
• Statement is unknowable by the one making it
• Mind reading
• Pseudo-intellectual poppycock
• Personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent, meant to prove a point across entire peoples
• Even if it were true, it doesn’t affect the argument one way or another. Shorthand: So what! “Arguments” that never even came close to passing the “So what” test were common.
… and last but not least:
• Why? Because You say so? Who the heck are YOU to make that determination?
Many presented as “fact” that which was either unknowable, unprovable, patently ridiculous (the Dr. Llaila Afrika stuff) or false on the face of it. To which the only proper response could be: “Why? Because you say so?!? Who the heck are you?!?”
Interestingly, most of the opposing argumentation that centered on “facts” – ie things that could be verified – used demonstrably incorrect facts – typically exaggerated out of all proportion to support a point. For example: the estimates of deaths due to the slave trade, sales of the Madison Grant book (the real number was approx. 17,000 – not “millions” or even 1.5 million), crime statistics. This last, as well as welfare statistics, were some of the most abused notions. People frequently cited the statistic that “there is more white crime than black crime.” Of course per capita black crime is hugely more common than white crime. And yes, welfare does go mostly to poor white people. But, it goes vastly disproportionately per capita to black and brown people. Bottom line, it overwhelmingly net takes money out of white hands and places it into non-white hands. When confronted with these corrections, the holders of the erroneous or incomplete knowledge showed no change in any core beliefs based on these erroneous beliefs.
All interlocutors on all the blogs played generally fast and loose with language. Accusations of racism, lying, and all sorts of other evils, indicating again that the person making the accusation had insider knowledge into the inner workings of our researchers’ minds were extremely common. As I mentioned to someone here, that in particular was the impetus for some of the phrases in the “Guidelines for Comments.”
We searched also for the “White Supremacist” web sites that black people said were ubiquitous on the web. These sites were full of the same irrationality as the black web sites, but were far fewer in number. Nor were the white sites as organized, established or, seemingly, in contact with others of their kind! On one white racist site, we clicked on all the blog’s “Links of Interest,” and all were defunct. We understood this to be a result of the climate in this country. Sites like yours, Abagond, though packed with the same casual, breezy, racist generalizations, assumptions and unsubstantiatable conclusions as the white sites – in photographic negative – meet with no social condemnation from any of American officialdom – to the contrary, many are celebrated and encouraged! – while the white racist sites meet with near universal condemnation, including from the American Department of Justice, which declared the people who run such sites to be terrorists! Note: we did not engage the people in the white supremacist web sites. First: they’re scary; second: no one doubts that they’re kooks anyway; third: it was out of scope for the project.
That was just a brief overview. I left a lot out, because the project is ongoing. Also, I’m not the one to explain the project’s charter; that should come from the project manager. And, you might ask, why tell us all this? Because part of the project scope was to inform the blog owners and readers when we had finished observing and interacting with them. We have no objection to letting anyone know what we’re doing. Soon enough there will be a public announcement. Not a big one, but something to let anyone who’s paying attention know that it’s moving forward.
The project is ongoing at other locations. Others of our group, under different ID’s, are engaging other bloggers and their readership as I write this. This is why our own blog has remained quiet for the past few days. Not for long, though. However, during all this back and forth, we have all been feeding content and findings to the broadcast media. I’m trying to obtain the okay to make this a permanent effort, in the sense of ongoing funding. I’m close to closing that deal. Wish me luck! This is why I’ve suggested that you watch the broadcast media, in case you might recognize some of our own back-and-forth from this very blog. Not to worry, no names were used; not even web addresses.
I had to chuckle at Abagond’s assertion that he’d collect ants and study them. Looks as though the ants were studying you right back!
Anyway, time for bed! It was fun, everybody…I leave with the very best wishes for all of you, and no rancor in my heart whatsoever, despite your lack of adequate breeding ( 🙂 Just kidding!!!). I depart with only affection for every one of you, including, BrothaWolf, resw77, Adonis, Kwamla, D, Matari, B. R. Anne, Dresora, Frank M, Harry Coverston, Herneith, King (of Trouble), v8driver, Bad Wolf, Anon Ymous, Kiwi, Paige, Uncle Milton, Gio, Da Jokah, and all the rest. Apologies to those whom I missed(*)! I know I’m in danger of violating my own Second Law(**), but I’m very pleased to provide you with the opportunity to do the “Don’t let the door hit your [backside] on the way out” comments, and variations on the theme. Again, I repeat my sincerest (@Kwamla, please feel free to use your Melanin-based Sincerity Verification Device!(***)) wish for all of you: May you all have nothing less than happiness, great good health, prosperity, and a long, richly rewarding, fulfilling life, crammed with love, laughter, and ceaseless joy; a life free from worry or anxiety of any kind.
T-minus 1:35:00 until Final xPraetorian Self-Banishment! 🙂
Best,
– x
(*) And one whom I missed on purpose in order to provide no reason to moderate this out of the blog. I wish that person all the very best too.
(**) You’re never as big on others’ radar screens as you think you are.
(***) Sorry! Couldn’t resist!
LikeLike
@ Gio
I don’t believe i said you were taking side, but I will kindly re-quote it for you so that you can read exactly what it is I said.
“You getting in the middle and chastising is making it look like you are taking a side.”
Now there is an old saying that I will like to quote….A hit dog will holla.
LikeLike
exactly.
LikeLike
@ xPraertorius
You are such a prick.
As a self-confessed troll, you are banned.
LikeLike
Gen and Mary Burrell:
@Gen @Mary Burell
You may assume it is condescending, however you are very wrong. I would like to think I am friends with Sharina, why don’t you ask her if she was offended?
Don’t jump to conclusions next time.
LikeLike
@resw77
Appearances can be deceiving, I was lambasting everybody including x, and he is not my mate or somebody I can reign in. He didn’t listen anyway, and now that he has been banned it is no longer an issue.
I look forward to conversing with you in future debates. Take care.
LikeLike
@Abagond,
Have you ever had a troll like this before? New experiences all the time, eh?
@Kiwi,
I wouldn’t worry about it. It is a Pyrrhic victory.
LikeLike
@ Abagond,
In the light of @xP’s now self proclaimed exile and your official explicit ban enforcement. Something which we all knew, on both sides sooner or later, was going to happen. I would like to offer up a suggestion:
You may already have something like this in mind but I’ll put it out there all the same…
My suggestion is this: That at some point you do a post on @xP’s thread with a title like – @xP Troll Extraordinare: What did we learn?
Basically something like an epitaph, a final resting place. A place which would allow closure and bring out a more:
“open and honest” discussion on how many of us now feel about having been subjected to (without prior consent or knowledge) a consciously orchestrated and premeditated social experiment…
Some type of response like this I think needs to be addressed before the next Troll emerges with the idea of doing something x10 what @xP did on your blog….
LikeLike
@Abagond,
What happened to your promise?
You’ve deleted my comment I placed here (and in the open thread) without explanation again. Why?
LikeLike
thank gawd that’s over, not to beat the dead horse into pulp but
“But, [welfare] goes vastly disproportionately per capita to black and brown people. Bottom line, it overwhelmingly net takes money out of white hands and places it into non-white hands”
kind of sums up his philosophy, america is for white people only.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla
Sorry! My mistake. It has been restored.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Apologies accepted! 🙂
LikeLike
@ Abagond,
What’s your view about my suggestion?
LikeLike
@ Kwamla
Thanks, I will keep that idea in mind. Right now I feel kind of ill from the whole thing. Something of a post-mortem by commenters will probably take place here.
I should have suspected something was up when he copied the whole Hitler thread to his blog, and without even asking. Apparently he was afraid I would delete it – but why would that concern him? That thread, I thought, made him look like a fool.
Also I should have suspected something from how, even as a troll, he was an outlier: like how there was no true passion behind his arguments, like how he could spend so much time at it. Both those point to him getting paid to do it.
It was also strange how he did not object to this thread. It takes an amazingly thick skin to do that. He also did not object to anything I said in the post. Human vanity on his part and human erring on mine would suggest that some disagreement would be likely. It was not as if the post were a glowing review of him or something.
It now makes more sense of :
– Why he did not know who Tim Wise was. Or know much about Stormfront.
– Why he kept misinterpreting my Hitler post
– Why his arguments seemed like window dressing
On the other hand, he is such a liar I do not even know if I believe his banishment story. It could have been a face-saving exit since it seemed like I was not going to ban him.
It does support ThatDeborahGirl’s idea that it was No Slappz – he would be a likely recruit.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
No, never had a troll like this. See my comment above to Kwamla for how he was strange even apart from his banishment story.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
Right: to a white racist money spent on black people is always a “waste”, a “drain”. Because blacks are not seen as Real People.
LikeLike
“No, never had a troll like this.”
*********
My guess is that we’d have a lot less fewer trolls taking up residence (and time) here if we could only learn to refuse to engage them in a serious manner.
Shunning and ignoring are powerful tools … after it becomes obviously clear a commenter is:
unwilling to learn or concede anything,
an attention person seeking with a disruptive agenda,
a racist troll.
Why feed idiots who exist only to pontificate BS endlessly?
How are we advantaged by doing this?
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thats probably a good and valid assessment and explains his uncaring, unfeeling and non-empathetic style of reasoning and debate.
Ironically, only someone with racist tendencies would involve, or agree to be involved in such an unethical or immoral project or experiment like this. That he was being paid or seeking funding to take it further I honestly don’t doubt. Its quite plausible in the light of many things I’ve uncovered some of these white elite groups get involved in.
(my last comment on your Hitler thread provides a good illustration of such a group)
Even just reading his farewell comment shows how unusually smug and confident he seemed about his time spent here. Though he was happy to boast about his Christian convictions his presence and behaviour here contained some aspects of a missionary zeal. So this too may have been a strong part in it.
However, I can, quite understandably, emphasise with the psychological impact of how you must feel having been subjected to this onslaught. Who wouldn’t feel this way after such an attack?
So, yes…I can understand that you would rather take time to recover first.
Its been a learning experience I think for all of us who comment here too…
But definitely one we can all confidently recover from….
LikeLike
I dont think there was anything wrong on your part Abagond , he was getting broken down slowly but surly , only in his mind he wasnt…he was making it some kind of study project, hence the false thick skin
Kwamla uncovered his concervative agenda that I didnt know and that really explains it…
Concervatives in the last administratin tanked this country worse than ever in our history, it was a flawed study project with a flawed view on racism
I mean which media are they in touch with ? Faux news ?
Hey X …get your up bop chops together, chump
LikeLike
@ Gio
“Appearances can be deceiving, I was lambasting everybody including x, and he is not my mate or somebody I can reign in. He didn’t listen anyway, and now that he has been banned it is no longer an issue.”
No one here is as confused. As I previously mentioned, you had ample opportunity to specifically direct one of your lectures at xprae, just like you specifically lectured Sharina and me. Instead, you tried to convince us that xprae was, in your words, “polite.”
Again, I don’t need to be lectured about how to handle someone like xprae. He got what he wanted (attention), and I got what I wanted (his departure). Things went exactly as planned.
Aside from this, I see that you were at least able to recognise that he “deflected” from facts and could not “counter with opposing documentation.” And because you’ve expressed your open-mindedness and willingness to exchange ideas, I too look forward to discussing other matters with you in the future.
Cheers!
LikeLike
yeah dude he just took huge chunks of your blog and pasted it up there
LikeLike
some type of megalomania whatever i think it’s some mental health goin on there
LikeLike
XP posted his “initial findings” on his blog, apparently the first of several reports. If you engaged him, your name is probably in it with some remarks about you (remarks which first appeared here). Here it is in all its douchely glory:
LikeLike
^^ Relevant tropes that he uses in his report:
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads up.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I would say more I found on his blog before he p*ssed me off but you might delete this for me even talking about him so I will not say.
LikeLike
it had like 0 comments on it a bout 2 hrs ago i checked it out of morbid curiousity
LikeLike
Abagond,
I am sorry you got rolled by XP but Anne did mention not to feed the troll…
that’s why I stick with my policy of Not engaging with people who Truly don’t come here to share a POV but to disrupt or preach about how much “black people suck” or are just plainly blinded by their hatred and want to just drop their racist drivel into the atmosphere (KayKKK)
not interested in hearing that type of negativity on this blog….I can listen to that conversation in the real world by going next door and talking to my Puerto Rican neighbor whose daughter married a black American and mom has yet to get over it. (daughter was dating white American prior and mom was overjoyed)
Personal experience and individuality will Guarantee that people will see the same issues differently… but certain topics are irrefutable — and white privilege in America/world and how racism/ Eurocentric mindsets have affected society(s), is one of them.
Most of your race realists come to this blog to preach or disrupt, only a few will attempt to hold a real conversation or they’ll wrap it up pretty, disguised as an intellectual observation or analysis to back up their race “realistic” viewpoints (Heyy Randy) but God knows that every subject does NOT need to be a debated and analyzed to damm death.
This guy xPraetorius came to your site because his is Dead…he has barely any traffic on his site, and my opinion, gets his kicks by going to other peoples blogs in order to get the interaction and mental stimulation that he cannot get on his Own site… so he was using you…
but I see he’s managed to recruit Riverside Bob as a commenter, so maybe XP’s readership might just increase — he needs to send you a “referral fee” for assisting him with marketing.
LikeLike
@abagond
“XP posted his “initial findings” on his blog, apparently the first of several reports. If you engaged him, your name is probably in it with some remarks about you (remarks which first appeared here). Here it is in all its douchely glory:
http://praetori.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/wading-into-the-race-grievance-industry-some-initial-findings/ ”
Thanks but I don’t care to read it nor even visit his blog.
LikeLike
isnt it straw man for him to be for all intents and purposes a agitprop agent provocateur by useing the argument some other entity is a ‘race baiter’ when he just hangs the hitler thing out there i mean that obviously has some something just built into the picture, all the overhead of history, tryin to stir ish up you know what i mean complete hypocrisy and that order of the xpeople over there is just like some wierd cult or secret society he’s trying to purport i find it grossly offensive personally besides his poor manners
LikeLike
i guess he’s calling me a ‘leftie’ he did call me out by my avatar
LikeLike
@ Sharina
You can say whatever you want about him now. Your vow of silence is lifted since he is banned. Just stay within normal comment guidelines (no calls for violence, racial slurs, etc)
LikeLike
@ Abagond
“no calls for violence, racial slurs, etc)”—Of course not. lol
He will be back but very likely under a different name. He told riverside_Rob that if he every needed him for back up to just ask and he would come.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
No. It is not just you. It happens to me all the time. Part of it is that they do not WANT to understand what you are saying. Part of it is that they are viewing you and everything that comes out of your mouth through stereotypes. The stereotypes in their heads are louder than your voice. It drowns out your words so that they can only hear some of them. Like talking through a waterfall or a bad phone connection. So long as it is ONLY whitewashed people who do not understand you, you are expressing yourself clearly enough.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
“For example, xPraetorius literally believes that you were defending Hitler when in fact you were just criticizing white Americans similarly to how they criticize Hitler. “—-Another reader on his blog pointed out that to him and he proceeded to tell him how wrong he was. I noticed only one reader seemed to agree with him. Then again 1 to 2 commenters per post isn’t really much to brag about.
I am curious on why the attacks seems to only have been on this blog and brothawolf’s considering Abagond is not the only one out their commenting on such matters?
LikeLike
@ Linda
Yes, Anne did warn me, several times.
LikeLike
@everyone, I want to take part in the postmortem. First, yes Linda, I can now say I told you so. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. Second, Kiwi look up the term cognitive rigidity because I didn’t just throw it out there for jokes. It is a real thing that causes miscommunication between people. I think commenters who behave like x may have that problem. Finally, I actually followed the link to his blog and ironies of ironies I found this little gem waiting for me on the about page…..
“For those who sign on with us here at Praetori, there is extraordinary freedom of expression, with the single caveat that I have to approve the post before it goes out there. I have to be okay with the post’s conclusions, and with the way the writer has expressed those conclusions. Numerous times I’ve had ummm… “spirited” meetings with contributors whom I have required to defend their offerings. Some of those pieces have made it to our pages, some have not. Many have made it only after extensive re-write.”
I can’t say enough how happy I am to see he was eventually blocked. There are so many constructive things this blog can accomplish without these distractions. I understand the purpose of this blog and I know it is not to breed hatred towards anyone. It is meant as a catharsis for dealing with things that bother us so that we can go back into the world with a better attitude. Stay positive, agabond.
LikeLike
Please tell me the confusion is over and i can enjoy this lovely blog once more?
LikeLike
My apologies, it was not my intention to appear one sided, I meant to “lecture” in a general manner, not in a direct manner. That sounds rather arrogant on my behalf, but that is not how I was trying to come across. So I am sorry about that. Yes, you are right, you don’t need to be lectured on how to handle someone, I was just trying offer the thread some meaningful structure.
At the end of the day it was just some clandestine social experiment. I have also seen his own blog where he was reported on his findings. He didn’t even have the decency to inform any of us or ask permission to mention our screen names. I got played too, but part of me hoped he was really partaking to have a serious discussion. I guess not.
Take care.
LikeLike
I posted a couple of farewell limericks on his latest post on the ‘race grievance industry’. I suggested he write a post on real life pleasures such as obscene limericks. Maybe he will.
LikeLike
@Herneith,
He already deleted your comment, LOL, I wish I could have read it.
LikeLike
Well thank God that crapfest is over. It was causing lots of confusion. I wondered for the longest time, if these post don’t apply, why get offended? When he made some statement on the Hitler thread about blacks being cannibels,that didn’t offend me. Because I am not a cannibal. I believe x pretorious, was angry because these things struck a nerve. To quote Sharina and my late grandmother, “A hit dog will holler” or “The guilty dog barks first. X praetorious,did a a lot of barking. He started on Brotha Wolf’s blog, making problems, when Brotha Wolf did a post on Paula Deeen. This was where I first saw his commentary, I felt bad for Wolf, because x praetorious was trolling the hell out of his blog. Then he comes to Abagond’s blog and makes trouble. I knew it was going to be trouble. I get that there needs to be diversity of opinions and we don’t need to be in lock step and have a herd mentality. I understand that. But x praetorious, had no desire to learn or understand. I hate when white people or anyone does that. When people are coming together to discuss their experiences,and whites dismiss that, I feel it is disrespectful. Even Randy, who is racist as hell, is a gentleman. But x praetorious was arrogant and pedantic as hell, my eyes were glazing over trying to read his comments. Anyway, I am glad he is gone.
LikeLike
@ Mary Burrell
Yes, you are correct when x was posturing he had already dismissed arguments against his “Racism is not a big problem” theory. He was not here to learn, but just to enforce his own worldview ideas. He could not even scale the word “big”, just a subjective opinion that he felt it was not a big problem and we had to trust his belief. External sources were out of play and we had to play by his own rules, that we had to reason with his own opinion.
To say this was just some social experiment, he did get very emotional, but he will just say that was part of his pre-defined characteristic.
Anyway, should we pay too much attention to him? We are still talking about him after his banishment. He is the main topic of discussion, why does he deserve this assiduity?
LikeLike
Gio:
To say this was just some social experiment, he did get very emotional, but he will just say that was part of his pre-defined characteristic.
He did – I have to say, I cant see where. The only time I saw a glimpse of ’emotion’ was when he talked about being ousted from his job due to Affirmative Action but, this was quickly put in check when I probed about it. Was that true I ask myself or, was the dismissive response because he couldnt be ar$ed to make up a further back story.
There was NO emotional investment that I could see.
LikeLike
@ Gio: Agreed, It history and in the past. We should not give power to this by still talking about this. But he did play us.
LikeLike
@ Gio
“Anyway, should we pay too much attention to him? We are still talking about him after his banishment. He is the main topic of discussion, why does he deserve this assiduity?”—I agree that we should not dwell on him, but there is some cause for concern in regards to this.
For starters I believe this may just open the door to more trolls. The question becomes how do we deal with this. What are the key signs to immediately spot a troll? I for one thought he was misunderstood and may have wanted to discuss things but went about it the wrong way. I should have really went with my first instincts. He used a common trick that other trollers and cyberbullies I have ran into use and that should have been a clear indication for me.
LikeLike
@ Sharina: Experience is the best teacher.
LikeLike
@ mary burrell
Oh yes it is! That and always listen to Anne the first time around. LOL
LikeLike
I just heard the news. I expected that it would happen sooner or later.
xPraetorius, all who are under that banner, are nothing but a pack of self-absorbed jackals ready to pray upon sites like Abagond’s and my own just to assert their conservative flack just for shear amusement.
(I’m just going to revert to xPrae as he even though he claims to be “a group of people.”)
LikeLike
I think a copyright statement on this blog might deter people from stealing Abagond’s work the way that x has done.
LikeLike
@ Sharina: I cosigned with Anne the first time she suggested ignore the troll. But, even when a commenter was talking to someone else, he still had to get his dig in. That was childish. But it’s gone now. I’m done.
LikeLike
Omg the bad news bear is gone? Oh happy day! I gotta be honest, scrolling passed his tiresome ramblings in the various threads got a little annoying.
LikeLike
Mary Burrell writes:
“Even Randy, who is racist as hell, is a gentleman[….]”
– – –
LMAO! Mary Burrell you’re a pistol (bet that’s a phrase you haven’t heard in a while)!
LikeLike
@ Fiamma: I do get that from time to time. LOL.
LikeLike
Yay, I was given a “nice” to get a mention 🙂
I hate to give the jerk shine, but I think it’s important to say….
I know people already said it…..but I told ya so. I been through this hundreds of time a with all types of racists and they end with the same result. That’s why I did NOT engage with him, but rather criticize his tactics for trying to have a “debate” (If you wanna call it that)
1.Using sweet words, (his happened to be his vocabs)
2.Touting his “intelligence”
3. Pretending he is “open minded” and willing to “understand”
and in the end it RESULTED in the SAME racist trope when they either “lose” a debate or get emotional. Before running tail-between-legs, they give one last bark before disappearing into the unknown.
1.Belittling the person/group
2.Ignoring the person/group
3.Isulting the person/group
4,Proclaim everyone is “out to get them”
Same old thing, different story.
Another thing that I think VERY important
thank you @vanishing point for mentioning this
It is VERY important. Abagond, I know you said it wasn’t a big deal that x ran off with your “Hitler” article. but this is plagiarizing in my books. He basically took what you had written and reversed it in his words and did the same with the commenters. (I think that was REALLY jacked up and lowest of the low) Especially since some commenters were really engaging with him in a nice manner and he basically gave them the middle finger and dipped. Next time Abagond/Brothawolf/other bloggers start copyrighting/trademarking/consenting your work, you guys may not think about it, but people will take “gold mines” like this into their work for profit/recognition. Explaining why X came here in the first place,(Lying about looking for blogs to debate. Psssh *eye roll) his blog was dead and he needed leverage.(Racism) but sadly, he will not get what he wants, b/c in order to be a good debater/writer you must be open to BOTH sides and not bias.
I’m sorry, though I did not really engage with him, I’m pretty steamed he twisted his opinion on me for his entertainment, but he actually LIED is what gets me. But I will say this:
X, you will NOT get far with plagiarizing and shock jocking people’s work into your own. As a artist, this is considered THE WORST thing to do, especially with literature. That is a slime ball move. You are not creative and using lies/twist will not get you far into a career or have your work taken seriously. Especially the dead zone you call a blog, maybe not piggy back off of people and think for yourself. If you are curious just say that you are instead of being pig headed. Deleting people off your blog who YOU stole from, makes you a big baby that thinks everyone is a big mean poopy pants when they say “meanie” things to you. I may be “mindless” but at least I don’t lack originality.
————— And NO, you may not take my/THIS post without MY PERMISSION/CONSENT. Thank you.————-
LikeLike
wow he finally gone, * celebrates* Sharina u can finally come out now u don’t have to worry about him anymore lol. *sigh* I know another one will pop up again, I shall enjoy this time while it lasts.
LikeLike
Abagond, I don’t know what I wrote is considered “flaming” and you might delete it,*Shrugs shoulder* (It is what it is. LOL) but I still believe this is important for everyone.
I may be silent or a little overanalyzed with some things, but anything art related with negativity. Uh-uh! I will NOT have that and you WILL get checked! I respect heavily, everyone’s creativity/individuality, but I don’t appreciate when people’s stuff get belittled without proper info. Not cool
LikeLike
He already deleted your comment, LOL, I wish I could have read it.
I sent xfartorius a couple of filthy limericks but he deleted them! I suggested he do an in depth post on obscene limericks. That would have been infinitely more interesting than the usual crud he writes. I guess he was of a different mind. Anywho, here’s a sampling:
There once was a man from Bonaire,
who was doing his wife on the stair,
when the banister broke,
he doubled his stroke,
and finished her off in midair.
There was a old man from Calcutta,
Who was found lying dead in a gutter,
The heat from the sun,
Burned a hole in his bum,
And melted his bollocks like butter.
LikeLike
Now we know. Once he copied a posting or tow and all the comments to his blog without permission, he should have been given a warning then banned after that.
LikeLike
So much I could say, but it would be long-winded tripe, so I’m just going to cosign Drosera and leave it at that.
LikeLike
X Praetorious, Riverside Bob, and da jokah, are like those monsters in mythology, where you cut the head off and they sprout another one. They are hydra-headed monsters. I wonder what part of the body do you have to stick the sword in to kill the monster. Some really astute commenter who can just shut them down. It is Abagond with the sword who can kill the monster. Just banish it. But the demon will always come back disguised as something else, to torment us in our village of Abagondland.
LikeLike
vanishing point.
“I think a copyright statement on this blog might deter people from stealing Abagond’s work the way that x has done.”
that would depend largely on wordpress’ concept of intelectual property ownership eg facebook ‘claims’ all copy and media posted there
but they say just say ‘copyright’ somewhere and that is it, idk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ mary
Rofl, I think u gotta stick the sword in the monsters heart. Knight abagond is probably not going to ban all of them, so I guess we just gotta ignore them.
LikeLike
@mstoogood4yall: I thought you had to stick the sword in the heart, but Abagond is the knight to kill the monster. LOL! Just having a little fun.
LikeLike
@ mstoogood4yall: Yeah, I think you are right. Da Jokah, is causing much mischief and mayhem. “Don’t feed the trolls.”
LikeLike
@ Mary
I am just glad you are commenting again. 🙂
As for Da Jokah…kind of thought he was churchs and surprisingly he has gotten bold lately. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Sharina: I mentioned earlier in that I thought Da Jokah was Church’s Chicken. But, unfortunately there will be more of them.
LikeLike
FYI there are further posts by xP on his blog in which he comments on stuff here to himself:
LikeLike
@ Abagond: So is he talking to himself? He highjacked your blog.
LikeLike
He is an arrogant tool, carrying out a social experiment which involves toying with genuine people’s feelings.
So X, if you are reading this then I wish to cease any kind of correspondence with yourself. I was hoping to carry on the debate with yourself in the same spirit as before, but I don’t wish to contribute to your experiment whereby you don’t have the decency to ask all concerned for their permission, especially Abagond’s blog where you have ripped out content to suit your purpose.
LikeLike
@ Gio : X needs to remember the rule of karma. It will avenge.
LikeLike
This just speaks to this individual’s character, he is just not a nice person. He is in a bad place, otherwise why would he do something so mean? He is just an unhappy person.
LikeLike
Where’s Randy?
LikeLike
^ he busy right now….http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ftv3i-0dmr8/TM8YIukkhtI/AAAAAAAADKY/f5-OigF-wGA/s1600/troll_poortvliet.jpg
LikeLike
@mstoogood4yall: Hehee!
LikeLike
@ mary burrell
He is closely monitoring the thread, he emailed me to have a little cry
LikeLike
@ Gio; That is sick, Tell me this isn’t sick? Something is wrong with that man.
LikeLike
@ mary burrell
He is sick, he is trying to break down my response while making assumptions about myself. What a moron. What a naive individual to think that a race of people is exaggerating their suffering to benefit financially. Isn’t that his main argument, that a race of people are taking advantage of the grievance industry to further themselves? I feel sick that I ever thought he could be serious about exchanging ideas, just a fucking experiment to him.
LikeLike
I honestly feel that he is just mentally unstable. This is not and I repeat this is not the first post of abagond’s he has taken and just commented on to himself disputing things the commenters says and not engaging them. Any post he piggybacks on then he has written about and is talking to himself about.
LikeLike
This is funny…who on this thread mentioned anything about democrats or republicans? He is trying to argue something on this and I am just like…wow he is not only talking to himself but making up our arguments for us. LOL
LikeLike
@Sharina, I agree, he seems to be mentally unstable, talking to himself, and also, imagining a huge audience where there is none. Even the facebook likes is zero.
LikeLike
mary burrell
Mary, I’m a monster to you? We’re minorities here. We’re trying to share our culture with you. You’re being racist.
LikeLike
I guess I am an old man somehow I knew those up 30’s were going to do me in. I guess I am more mellow then when I was in my teens in lower twenties.
Agabond, you let xPraetorious turn me into an old man. If I live to make it to 40 it will be hard to forgive you, JK ;-p
If I were half the punk I used to be I would take a flame thrower to your blog X. You’ve just got to love the movie “Scent of a Woman”. I might just rename myself Old Man King of Trouble.
LikeLike
X has posted three more of his reports: He has been reading this thread since being banned and responding on his own blog. Herneith and Brothawolf commented on his first report, but he censored them.
LikeLike
I simple told him he was a narcissistic jerk, or something like that.
LikeLike
simply*
LikeLike
I dont know what all the fuss is about, everybody did what they had to, from Linda’s aproach to Sharinas , and all in between…
Without some people seriosly engaging Mr X, we would never have discovered his real leanings and motives. Forget his jive study, he kind of hinted at it all along , and started throwing names around like Riley, Limbaugh…Kwamla finaly studied his site and noticed its concervative leanings, and, there it is right there.
Welcome to the new aproach of conservative whites in denial about racism …I dont call X racist, I call him naive, in denial
When the real more serious questions were asked, X, who does have stamina, impressivly tried to answer everyone, he started to duck them and only draw a line through everything and say “nope”…is that an answer? He wouldnt address some good questions by some people, more concentrating on the tit for tat…by not answering these questions, he leaves a lot to be desired
The thing is, many attitudes and opinions on this blog have started to get challengable , like interracial sex attitudes…quite a few people can only quote the civlil rights defences of the late 60’s , but, get shook up if someone comes from out of the box thinking, and Mr X did come at it unlike no slaps, Thor Daddy, who was out of the box also, but , not as in depth as Mr X, X knew how to shroud his agenda in some interesting truths and facts, that could challenge some type of thinking…all far right concervatives and far left liberals can throw in huge amounts of truth and then manipulate it towards there agenda…it just took a while to start to see where Mr X was really coming from and its the tired agenda of white people who are in denial of the legacy of slavery in the Americas , from shipping millions of black Africans over and trying to dismiss, destroy and bury their cultures…
Mr X keeps saying its not like it was 50 years ago, but, cultural assasination is in serious affect now…like his five points that want a black person to act white..
See I can fully agree with him that there are serious changes in the USA in 50 years, compared to Brazil, you see black Americans much more integrated into the system, but, the cultural assasination continues in a big way…and if you think about it, most complaints about racism I hear on the blog are from observations of the media and how it represents black Americans and that is most definitly a cultural manifestation, and a true complaint to have.
But, people cant defend Mr X bringing in Malcolm X, they need to stop quoting others and bring in new fresh ways to deal with whatever ways “conservatives who are in denial about white racism in America” in 2013,will be trying to throw down the pike, and understand their nature and how they may differ from straight up racists , or race realists , I suggest to you this is slightly differant from that
Mr X was a major league baseball player, and an amateur musician…I give people credit for their aceivements, but, in the end, his real agenda became known , which is why, after listening to him,thanks to the people who did engage him, I could state I cant get with his opinions about white racism not being in affect in America today…at the very least, I have to say white denial of racism in the Americas is in motion
And, Mr X isnt any lower or frustrating to deal with for me, as some of the opinions about interracial sex…or just people who get queasy about seeing their type of ethnicity with a white person…I mean I hope you all wretch…or nasty opinions on Brazilian Afro diasporic culture that has bare booty…., so he is just aother think tank with an agenda…he certainly didnt lead anybody down the promised land
so, I dont think this was any big deal to be breathing a sigh of releif that Mr X is gone…people ought to be learning from his aproach and tweaking their antenna for this kind of logic coming down the pike in the future…after all, Faux news is watching him
LikeLike
Likr I said…mentally unstable. Let him read and lurk. Perhaps he will learn something.
LikeLike
Please note that xPraetorius intends to return:
Emphasis mine.
More:
LikeLike
Gee, the megalomaniac has even warned you in advance. Will you be able to spot the troll under the bridge?
LikeLike
part 12? he must really have some writer’s block
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, let them bring it, Abagond,because , now, after breaking down the real leanings and agenda of Mr X, and his tank, it will be easiar to defend against him…
This is why I say these white people in denial of racism , and quite a few of them fall into the conservative mode with evangelical leanings (no offence to evangelicles on here), will keep changing their aproach and semantics…which is why I say debates on semantical terms like sub sahara Africa, are not productive, because the racisrts , and whites in denial about racism, are just morphing their aproach into something else and that can throw you a curve for a minute (he was a major league pitcher )…but, once you adjust to the curve ball, its slice and dice
And , silly @ss bs quibbles about interracial sex , ancient terms like “feild n egro” “house n egro” , etc, only wilt in front of some of the new aproaches these types of people will be throwing out there in the future…it will take spot on logic relating to 2013 that will function against this mentality, not riding on quotations and logic that was apropriate for the late 60’s…people are going to have to do some actual work to come up with their own original thinking to counter their logic…or just end up looking flustered
LikeLike
xP said:
If anyone had any doubt that xPraetorius was not interested in serious discussion, his intention to use a sock puppet is solid proof of it.
LikeLike
@ jefe
I need to think about that, find out more about how the WordPress spam filter works. I have a few ideas of my own. It is unfortunate that dicks like him exist.
LikeLike
the issue is he’s pirating your signal due to lack of audience of his own!
LikeLike
X has an unusual way of publishing his findings, I have never known a study to be so personal. Good luck with the publish, you might be lucky and it may contain 10% of your findings. Hello AG player. I’m gonna mind read, your study wont be taken seriously.
LikeLike
I knew this would happen, I am not surprised.
LikeLike
Is it me, or is x obsessed with defaming anti-racism when it comes from POC?
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf: You would be correct in your observation sir.
LikeLike
@B.R.
It is not that simple. People like X are not ignorant or in denial or even unaware.
They know exactly what they are doing and they understand perfectly the rhetoric they are perpetuating.
They think they’re smarter than any person of color living. They think that our issues with white people are merely complaints – sort of like when you have bad service in a restaurant – a minor inconvenience, but nothing that really matters. In the grand scheme of things, people of color are foreign, frightening and only worth of their derision.
People like X want to cloak their desire for, at best our subservience or at worst, our extermination. They swear up and down that they have a point, but their only point is that anyone who is not white is less than human.
There’s nothing ignorant about this. It is pure evil.
I wrote several posts about X but I did not address or engage him at all. I addressed my comments to Abagond.
X replied – I can hear you, you know.
I knew. I simply did not care.
LikeLike
X is still at it:
LikeLike
I left dear old XFartorious a couple of posts that goes thus:
Do you have multiple personalities? You keep referring to ‘we’. Is your name Legion? You sound like a minion of Satan. Whatever ails you, go take some meds, better yet, hie yourself off to the nearest mental hospital. Your obsessiveness is bordering on creepiness. Get thee behind me Beelzebub. I take that back, Beelzebub has nothing on you! GFYSA!
Do you have a job? You seem to have lots of time on your hands as you are able to post reams of nonsense. Perhaps you are the world’s fastest typer if you do have a job. Perhaps you also suffer from OCD! If you suffer from OCD, do you clean obsessively? Carry on with the jokes! George Carlin you ain’t but you come in a distant second. Tally ho and away you go!!
Oh I forgot:
Hugs!!!!!ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Strangely enough my comments were immediately thrown into moderation! Gee, I wonder why?
LikeLike
I took this from his blog
“Sharina was constantly trying to make the point that there were countless hidden incidents of white-on-black racism everywhere.”
This hilarious because I actually made the claim that he did not know and no one really knew. Not once in the argument he is highlighting did I make the claim white-on-black racism is everywhere. He makes up and interpret bs as he goes.
LikeLike
@ Herneith
I got by with a post but I am certain they will be deleted.
LikeLike
gfysa?
LikeLike
my gawd that all was like forever ago
LikeLike
I never understood why so many people were drawn into his discordant discourse. You guys have him a high. Whenever he made a remark to me, I just rolled my eyes and ignored him. So, he just got bored with me and dropped me.
Was this the first major troll that some of the readers here experienced before?
LikeLike
As i thought, the loon deleted my posts. It’s a good thing I posted them here! He’s more the poorer for it. Who else can speak sense to this tool but I ? Oh well, maybe someone will be able to get through to Fartorius but I doubt it, sheesh!
gfysa?
This acronym basically alludes to what this goof can do to himself since full blown cussing isn’t allowed here. Use your imagination!
LikeLike
@ jefe
For me I will say yes. I mean on some level I want to pick and laugh at him, but on another I need to walk away because he is…well crazy.
LikeLike
Was this the first major troll that some of the readers here experienced before?
No he wasn’t, but he is the most persistently stupid one! Sometimes you must engage stupidity with stupidity. Seriously debating them gives them the thrills they are seeking. You cannot have a serious debate because they keep changing the goal posts or babble incessantly via a key board. X took the cake with his reams of nonsense. One can ignore as you choose to do or mock them between waiting for paint to dry or taking a break from housework in general. That is the importance I give them. On second thought, house work and paint drying is useful, they are not.
LikeLike
^ To mock or not to mock… that is the question…
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
or to take arms against a sea of babble,
and, by opposing, end them.
LikeLike
I personally find it strange that he continues to do post on this. I figured if his attempt was a success he would not need to. The even stranger part of it is he forgets what he said and is constantly trying to push you to debate on something anything. He will even make upa side of the ddebate for you to be on. He really should seek help because I have to wonder if he will eventually become a danger to others.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
My Black Knight picture at the top of the post turned out to be far more true that I ever imagined!
LikeLike
@Sharina
Exactly, just like those people in the subway station that talk to themselves. Engage them at your peril.
LikeLike
XPrae is lurking. He is now attempting to debate the following.
“Very few that you know of. Which goes back to you considering something rare when you don’t have a clue how rare or regular it really is. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that happened in the scope of the Martin situation that just did not get the media attention. And other posters can correct me but each incident happened maybe a mouth apart?”
“^ To mock or not to mock… that is the question…
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
or to take arms against a sea of babble,
and, by opposing, end them.”
“I never understood why so many people were drawn into his discordant discourse. You guys have him a high. Whenever he made a remark to me, I just rolled my eyes and ignored him. So, he just got bored with me and dropped me.
Was this the first major troll that some of the readers here experienced before?”
All of which is he filling in the blanks for. This quote will probably be on another one of his threads. ROFL
LikeLike
What is up with XPrae? Why is he on here if he doesn’t like Black people?
LikeLike
[…] I introduced to a crowd of commenters at Abagond’s blog a simple little thought exercise (here). I […]
LikeLike
Wow. Just wow. To spend your whole life playing with yourself. And for what?
LikeLike
Sh*ts and giggles?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So because I believe that you killed my cousin, that must mean it is the truth?
In the real world (i.e., western society), things have to be witnessed, measured or otherwise substantiated in order to be considered “evidence.” xPraetorius threw around the word “evidence” multiple times on this thread without providing any. Irrelevant examples, personal beliefs, etc. do not automatically constitute as “evidence” in western society.
resw77,
I apologize for taking four years to respond LOL. I just discovered your reply.
What I was trying to say, but didn’t come out the way I’d hoped, was that you can’t argue with what’s objective. You can have opinions. But some people believe their opinions as indisputable facts.
xPrae’s whole act revolves about his definitive right wing views that he obtained from like-minded sources in which he declares them to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They deny the impacts of racism in the past and today. Yet, they still show their racism somehow or another. And like xPrae, many loathe being called racist, but having no qualms acting or sounding racist.
But overall, xPrae’s theme has revolved around the denial of racism’s impacts.
The belief that blacks and whites are on equal footing.
Black racism is just as bad or worse than white racism.
Most people on welfare are black.
The right is right. Nuff said.
Anything and everything just mentioned is worth repeating over and over again.
As a side note, I found out a couple of weeks ago that he still has it out for me and Abagond, calling us the ‘new racists’.
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
It seems he is painting me with the same brush as my most extreme commenters. Or, and this is just as likely, he reads my blog with such a heavy ideological lens that he reading what he expects to see, not what I actually wrote.
LikeLike
A loon is as a loon does!
LikeLike
A certified nutter.
LikeLike