‘The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb!’

I think where things go south is when we assign motives to folks for which we have little to no evidence to assign said motive.

Gina made the point that the ad was "poorly worded." That's a point we can discuss, and maybe not agree--but at least discuss productively.

Eric, on the other hand, thinks it unwise for a person to criticize a group of which he is not a member. There's an automatic assumption of ill will that is made--a motive assigned, based upon one's membership (or lack thereof) in a certain group.

Frankly, when those leaps of logic are made, there will be no common ground. That is why the most strident voices in all conversations racial will never be appeased or silenced. Because:

1. Motives of the worst kind are assigned. Points of disagreement can't be addressed, because there are much, much larger points of disagreement on a fundamental level.

2. Some in this conflict have financial and power-based motivations to keep the conflict going (A classic example: Jessie Jackson needs racial strife in order to continue his highly successful shakedown/extortion business).


So Gina...we come to our point of disagreement: "Was this ad poorly worded?" And though we may not agree on the answer, at least we can frame the question.

I seriously doubt that Eric and I could ever come to common ground on this issue. Barring some serious changes of mind...Too many motives have been questioned, and/or assigned, for that to take place.

 

You're a racist! Feel better now?

 

Unholy coffee-spewing laugh!

This thread needed that, thanks!

 

Black coffee at that.





(more coffee-spewing, if I timed it right)

 

HA!
Actually, it was very non-racist coffee. It was from beans grown in Uganda and is fair-trade, sold to me by a white person. I added cinnamon to make it Mexican-style and my half-Asian daughter brewed it. Actually the coffee pot (which is black) brewed it, but she put it in. :saint:

 

Good grief...if you ever market that stuff, just call it "Mutt."

All you need now is a Mongolian granddaughter, an Inuit 2nd cousin, and an Aborigine Uncle, and you'll have the complete set!!

 

And this makes it sound like it's just one side's fault, and that's just the black people.

What you say is true among SOME established black liberal voices. But you really think that there isn't a segmant of white society that always blames blacks, calling them the "revese" racists everytime something comes up, in addition to the old charges of them trying to get their money and other favors. (And notice, I said "segment". Blacks usually won't even be granted that much; with your disclaimer the rare exception).

THIS is precisely the problem, of why the race issue won't go away. Everyone sees ONLY the other side's problem. And it seems the conservatives are the ones doing most of the talking these past few decades (the so-called "backlash").

Quit the game already!

I say "it sounds/looks suspicious", which is not a definite judgment (like the ones you give), yet you're making it into a definite judgment. That's the way you think, so stop projecting it onto me.

You still haven't even spelled out your three steps, though rbell pretty much alluded to the final one. Why are you still hiding something, if you're tired of dishonesty?

Why don't you just go on and call blacks accursed demons since their wombs (ALL of them, apparently) are so "dangerous", and you believe this kind of rhetoric will somehow "solve" the problem!

Go on; turn over the card you have played face down on the table!

The problem is, you're proclaiming "judgment" on the wrong people. You're judging a people's sin by race, (that's the parameter that keep coming up) when the sin ultimately lies in individuals.

I do not disagree with what Gina said, so you assume that I think "nothing should be done about the problem", but we have no chance of addressing or solving the problem when we blame the wrong societal structure and ultimate cause for it. So it seems all you want to do is hurl insulting rhetoric at a community thinking that will solve the problem. Anyone who opposes this is then accused of not wanting to solve the problem.

And you can't even see why that would be insulting and inappropriate, and to a wide range of people who do not deserve insult.

This shows the irrational kneejerk reaction that keeps this stuff going on. One one hand, I'm being criticized for saying one group shouldn't criticize ANOTHER, and yet you keep throwing up a black lady who happened to agree with the criticism, whom neither I nor anyone else in these discussions has ever criticized, as if it proves your point.

I may not agree with her agreement with it, but I would certainly trust her concern better than some far removed political organization only waging a battle against their partisan opponents (and might not even care about those unborn), and from a movement full of people who still seem to think blacks are "lazy grasshoppers" (rationalized with more "statistical facts") and a whole bunch of other stuff.

People are outraged when their children get pregnant irresponsibly. But these are individuals, and they can try to teach them, but eventually, those kids are going to make their own decisions. And the prevailing climate in all of society, irregardless of race, is one of rampant fornication. Just throwing up some poster at one race is not going to fix that.

 

And as for "culture"; the issue "Mr. Honesty Judge" can't come out and tell us:

"Culture":

All "culture" is, is a group of people who learn/share HABITS from/with each other.
"Black culture" is too broad a category, as it covers many different people of all ages, classes and walks of life.

The "culture" you all are constantly badgering at (on all of these issues we argue over) is more accurately "ghetto culture", or "inner city youth culture", or perhaps "hip hop culture", or "gangsta culture". It's basically rebellious kids, like every group has. But you keep trying to name a skin color group. None of that stuff is inherent in a skin color.

Let's not forget all the other stuff beyond abortion: "90% of them switched to the Democrats to gain 'something for nothing'". Or "THEY are NOT like us".

You SAY it's about "culture", yet you constantly NAME races.
If you didn't do this, no one would be calling it racist.
So this little trick key word, the "culture" card, as I said, doesn't help you one bit.

I'm sure you all as conservatives despised Hillary's "It Takes a Village" concept, but then why when the issue is criticism of the people, does "community" seem to all of a sudden be held up as the way to go? (If some do wrong, judge the whole community).

http://listverse.com/2009/11/18/top-10-things-you-should-never-discuss-online/

 

But this is precisely why I say I say it is unwise for a person to criticize a group of which he is not a member!

Because they don't know each other's motives.

It's like "duh; isn't that obvious?

So misunderstanding erupt, blame is placed, and here we are.

And this is assuming other offensive things not already being said. When I see all the anger spewed at blacks; (including for "bad motives"); such as switching to the Democrats to gain "something for nothing", or "they're not like other people" (because of all the "crime"), then the motives are already suspect. That's not my doing.

And the conservatives here are the most egregious at judging motives, from all the "liberal" conspiracies, and the accusations of "dishonesty", and all the "You ARE what you ARE", taunting, etc. It's all that a few of you do.

As I have said all along, you all are doing every single thing you accuse others for, ten times over! This is from pointing at others so much. You can't even see yourself doing it too, so you continue to think it's all the big bad "liberals'" fault, or whichever other scapegoat.

This is why scripture says we should focus on our own behavior and esteem others higher than ourselves. But these whole discussions have been so devoid of scripture, it's like none of those admonitions even exist.

 

carpro, I've been looking up information on this and finding all sorts of disagreeing statements.

One says that Reverand Al Sharpton protests the sign. Another says he disagrees.

One says Alvida King agrees with it and made that statement, but had nothing to do with the sign.

Most places agree that the child's parent didn't want her daughter on the sign and was highly upset that she was on it.

The racial data on Soho says that the majority of residents are white and that blacks make up a tiny minority, less than Hispanics or Asians. The only race less represented is "other." (that in itself makes me wonder why on earth a sign with a message to blacks was placed there, but the person behind said it was to create controversy so perhaps that's it.)

Anyhoo...you seem to have been studying this out too. Do you have any links to major, trusted websites that sort out the truth behind the sign?

This isn't a trick question or a baiting one. I'm looking at info, you're looking at info...we may be looking at different info.

Where are you getting your info from? The only place I've accepted information from are ones I know from research to be reliable sources I would be able to use if I was writing a paper to be published. You may have done the same. I'd like to know what those are though so I can add them to stuff I've gathered on this topic.

That's it. I don't want to continue the discussion or anything and you can even pm the links. I seriously just want them to look at and add to my research links on this topic if they're decent ones I can use in writing research.

That's open to everyone with opposing views. I'd appreciate it!

 

Eric, since I cannot criticize anyone that isn't of my race, could you serve as a middleman, and tell folks my opinions?

I realize you have trouble distinguishing between the assignment of motive and the evaluation of empirical data...but I'll do my best to help you along.

It is your kind of thinking that has led to the ridiculous notion in our colleges that "because nonwhites are not empowered, they cannot be guilty of racism." This, of course, gives carte blanche for all sorts of behavior that is despicable for any group of folks to exhibit (including Caucasians).

Anyhow...just let me know if it's OK to hire a middleman to convey my concerns...or is that wrong as well?

And if it is wrong...do I have to celebrate everything? Maybe since I'm straight, and thus cannot criticize gay folks...do I have to march in a "gay pride" parade?

Man...relativism really stinks, when you start hashing out the details, doesn't it?

 

So the plot thickens...

Then what in the world is this about:

You gave us two choices. Since the "race" card is always condemned, then it seemed that "culture" was the answer. And I have heard that used in judgments of blacks before.

So if it's not culture, then are you saying it is race after all?

Yeah? Well what do you call this:

No kidding! So much "fact", but never a point.

Who's the king of innuendo around here? You know the game so well!

Oh, you've always acted like I did dispute them.

Then where have I ever complained about her or criticized her? Where have I even mentioned her, on my own, even? You show your ignorance more and more; making up stuff out of thin air.
All I have ever criticized in these discussions were the organization that put the billboard out (and I haven't even dwelled on them that much), and mostly, you and your crew here with some of these broad statements about blacks. Need I remind you of "they all switched to the Democrats...to get something for nothing"?

I wouldn't have thought much about the original slogan, if it were not for stuff like this.

Here, she just recites the slogan. I question that organization for that, not her!
If she wants to parrot that, then maybe she simply doesn't put such criticism together with conservative generalizations of blacks (which is my focus), or maybe she just doesn't care, because she's favors whatever it takes to address the problem.

This is the same thing with Cosby. You assumed I was so against him, and I never was. I'm the one saying criticism should be coming from within the community. Some of you have claimed in places that there is none at all. (As an excuse to why you're taking it upon yourselves to do it). So this lady actually goes against some of your arguments, not mine.

Now, you're just outright lying. You were trying to get me to call you a racist. You accuse me of "innuendo", while tossing out tons of innuendo yourself, that you won't ever explain. If you openly proclaim 90% of the black race turned to the Democrats just to gain free welfare programs, then why do you care what someone might think of you, anyway?
Just more distraction for you to play accusing prosecutor, instead of being on the spotlight yourself with your statements.

I asked you what "answers" you want from us, and since we are unable to give you what you want, then it must be time for you to spit it out already. But you won't. You beat around and around the mulberry bush, and the closest you come is giving us two "choices": race vs culture. But I apparently got even that wrong.

It should be obvious we're unable to tell you what you want to hear, so give us the "straight answer" already. What are you hiding?
You could at least start by providing these sources you are now referring to. I'd rather hear those than your interpretation of things anyway.

 

But you're not evaluating. At least one of you is just tossing this stuff out endlessly with no point, and then he and others make these outrageous sweeping statements about the entire race elsewhere.

You seem to be taking such personal offense, but I never questioned your motives personally. I was debating others, and you jumped in on their side. And what I was saying was that it is BETTER not to criticize other groups. You keep twisting this into stuff like "cannot criticize anyone that isn't of my race", or "never" criticize.
And also ignored is how I specified UNTIL THIS RESENTMENT BLOWS OVER. Such qualification is ALWAYS ignored in the responses. The counterarguments (with their broad language) won't work when such details are present.

You yourself just showed why it is better not too. Misunderstanding.
I also forgot to mention (the main point in that response) "the ad was 'poorly worded'." Why might it have been poorly worded? Because some outsiders criticizing a community do not know what might offend. So they put out this statement, and it happens to offend. They don't realize that calling the whole race's wombs "dangerous" would be insulting. For anyone. It ain't them; it's someone else they're implicating. They're so politically driven, that sort of thing they don't consider anyway.
The offended people, as I said before, do not know where these people are coming from. They do not know their motives. They see others in the conservative movement who have said offensive things, so it doesn't sit well.

This is so simple to understand, but all you two do is misconstrue everything I say to support your case that some "card" is being played on you. If you don't like the card, then don't deal it in the first place.
That's the other reason I say this trans-racial criticism is not wise. Your side is still jumpy on it too. So just people's reactions to this stuff set you off.

How in the world do you figure that? Where have I said anything pertaining to whether nonwhites can be racist?
But of course, you read so much stuff in my messages I didn't actually write.
Right here in the very same breath as accusing me of "assigning motives".

Now if I had said something like whites should criticize blacks, but blacks can criticize whites, then you would have a case on that. (Maybe I shouldn't provide ideas for more words to put in my mouth).

Of course, that's all anyone is trying to do: justify some wrong.
You're the one exaggerating my stance on people criticizing their own group. Your comrade thinks I condemn the black lady who agreed with the slogan, even though I didn't, as well as people expecting me to be against Cosby, but I wasn't. So with that inner criticism in the community, there won't be any "carte blanche" for all sorts of despicable behavior.

Where are you getting all this stuff from? It must be coming from you own heads, because it isn't coming from me.

Just a bunch of facetious sarcasm, based all on premises you have basically made up.

 

You apparently never had a case, except for baiting.

 

Eric, sorry to disappoint you, ol' buddy, but I'm a-typing away with a big smile on my face.

Apparently, there will be no grounds for agreement between us, on much of anything.

But I'm far too blessed to get upset at a post on an internet board.

I do find it humorous at your copious use of terms like "your side." All this time, I thought we were supposed to only criticize "our own side." And per Dr. King's speech, I thought the goal was to get beyond "sides."

Oh well. It is convenient to keep a bit of double-standard for times such as this, eh?

I believe I'll bow out now, as we appear to be headed in circles. Good day.