Understanding Racism;[[Detroit November 21)

[vetalalumni]

And if anyone would have suggested to place a similarily slanted racist view on this website, in favor of the white [[or melanin challenged), they would have been banned. How this continues to go on here is beyond my scope of understanding.

Seeking parity?

[Stosh]

Seeking parity?

Nope. Seeking sanity perhaps. It's a damn shame that some people need to promote their divisive shit. And it's even sadder that you seem to think it's OK.

[Retroit]

The biggest threat to the "black collective" comes not from white people, but from blacks themselves. Who are committing the crimes in Detroit? Who are killing the black people? Who are running - and running down - the city? Isn't it time for a "psycho-analysis on the system" of black society's self-destruction?

I'm afraid this black woman is putting her intelligence to misuse if she is trying to convince black people that white people believe in white supremacy. Just because some old fart in 1973 was racist does not mean that it is a prevalent belief today.

I hope she gives black people some advice on how they can help themselves, instead of how they should sit around and continue to blame white people for everything that is wrong in the "black collective".

[LouHat]

I think I'm going to let this simmer for a bit, but I must acknowledge a palpable sense of anticipation.

[Zacha341]

You make some good points.

However, white supremacist organizations and collectives DO exist - and no longer wear white sheets and funny hats. They are diffused into the population. But, I am not interested in getting gigged up about this woman's promotion of black supremacy and the rhetoric therein either.

Especially where in the case of Welsing who quantifies melanin as a standard of value and inherent enlightenment as her core premise. A premise which if taken to its full outworking is divisive not only between black and white, but also within the black community it claims rescue.

Bottom line, all black people are not alike - and are not all going to believe her doctrine of world view. Thus, are these, pardon the pun "unenlightened" black people conspirators against the uh, eh-hmm "cause". What must be done with them under the Welsing plan? Could her plan or "orthodoxy" ever become mainstreamed or would it always be marginalized to the "smarter" few??

Again, bottom line we are not monolithic - believing the same thing. Thus, thinkers like Wesling, who deem to espouse "what is good for us" often end up condescending and further diving the black community into those who possess "special" knowledge and wisdom from those who "pathetically" do not.

While at the same time is she really willing to engage in a discussion of the validity of said "knowledge", premises and specifics of what she is promoting?

The biggest threat to the "black collective" comes not from white people, but from blacks themselves. Who are committing the crimes in Detroit? Who are killing the black people? Who are running - and running down - the city? Isn't it time for a "psycho-analysis on the system" of black society's self-destruction?

I'm afraid this black woman is putting her intelligence to misuse if she is trying to convince black people that white people believe in white supremacy. Just because some old fart in 1973 was racist does not mean that it is a prevalent belief today.

I hope she gives black people some advice on how they can help themselves, instead of how they should sit around and continue to blame white people for everything that is wrong in the "black collective".

[vetalalumni]

... People like that just destabilize society. Kind of like the SDS and the various Panther parties did. These groups did no favors to society at large. People like the good doctor never left the 60's. There was some good that came from the revolutionary movements, but it seems leftovers like her hang their hats on the worst segments of that philosophical time. There's obvious examples of that type of people in government now, and in the past, and it's also obvious how well that has worked... not. Seems as if the point is lost in the translation.

Good, now you've made your own argument.

...
As far as the bannings mentioned, I know that will never happen. I suppose it's best to keep the board the way it is. Good luck with the revolutionary world view guys. It's worked so well over the past 40+ years. Keep up the revolutionary struggle... Power to the people and all that.

And now, with the pessimism and acquiescing aside [[first two sentences), conclude with reliable ridicule [[again)?

Take note that Retroit and Zacha341 make arguments specific to the subject matter of this thread. I have not [[yet) made any such arguments.

[Stosh]

Good, now you've made your own argument.

Try expanding a little bit on this, if you will.

And now, with the pessimism and acquiescing aside [[first two sentences), conclude with reliable ridicule [[again)?

You are confusing ridicule with sarcasm, there IS a difference.

Take note that Retroit and Zacha341 make arguments specific to the subject matter of this thread. I have not [[yet) made any such arguments.

Then I think that you should attempt to make those arguments, if you can.

Funny thing is, in reviewing another, more reasonable thread by BSX, you stated, in between the predictable snarky personal attacks you seem to be famous for, stated that :

In the United States of America, "individual pride" does not have to alienate others

But yet it does, when one goes out of the way to make it so. which was my whole point all along.

[Retroit]

Holy sh!t, you guys, can't you stick to the gawdam topic?!!!

Thank you, Zacha341, for restoring my faith that there are actually people on this board that can have an intelligent conversation!!!

I put Wesling in the same category as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They make their living from fanning the flames of racism. If variations in skin color did not exist, these people would be out of a job. Fortunately for them, they have followers like Blacksoulx.

[vetalalumni]

Try expanding a little bit on this, if you will.

Your views [[arguments) on the actual subject matter of the thread were not clearly stated. You then made it clear.

You are confusing ridicule with sarcasm, there IS a difference.

My bad. Sarcasm it is [[was).

... I think that you should attempt to make those arguments, if you can.

Will do after a little further consideration.

Funny thing is, in reviewing another, more reasonable thread by BSX, you stated, in between the predictable snarky personal attacks ...

Thanks for that advice. I will work on not making predictable, snarky personal attacks.

But yet it does, when one goes out of the way to make it so. which was my whole point all along.

Q1 - How can someone espousing [[what you believe to be) inferior arguments alienate [[you) in the end unless you allow for it?

Q2 - Does that question [[Q1) qualify as making a predictable, snarky personal attack? If yes, can you help me too understand how Q1 could be phrased without alienating [[you)?

We've made this thread about you and me. I'll take the blame and apologize because my original question [["seeking parity") alienated you.

[vetalalumni]

Nope. Seeking sanity perhaps. It's a damn shame that some people need to promote their divisive shit. And it's even sadder that you seem to think it's OK.

My bad, Stosh. You would certainly know. Let us call it off so no one gets hurt..

[Stosh]

My bad, Stosh. You would certainly know. Let us call it off so no one gets hurt..

That's a curious word phrasing. Pray tell explain exactly how it is I should know that?

[vetalalumni]

That's a curious word phrasing. Pray tell explain exactly how it is I should know that?

Do you perceive? How do you "know" the intentions of any given poster? Reading minds qualifies as a superstition. Stick to what you "know".

[Stosh]

Do you perceive? How do you "know" the intentions of any given poster? Reading minds qualifies as a superstition. Stick to what you "know".

Originally Posted by Stosh
And if anyone would have suggested to place a similarily slanted racist view on this website, in favor of the white [[or melanin challenged), they would have been banned. How this continues to go on here is beyond my scope of understanding.

Seeking parity?

[vetalalumni]

Ooohhhh, I get it. You misunderstand parity.

OK, here goes [[the question - not an assumption) -

Do you seek parity? Meaning, do you want not to suffer potential banishment for an inspired presentation? Do you want to "do you"? What do you want to say [[write) that may warrant banishment?

Well, the onus is upon you. Are you about to bring morality into the discussion.

Otherwise, why come here to DYes? Simply to complain? Come on Stosh, you are being unclear.