[quote]doogie wrote:
I don’t know if you are honestly confused, or just full of shit. You specifically said, “Second of all, there has never been any real evidence that this has occurred. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Blacks have always had to be more qualified than their white counterparts just to be considered for the same positions.” Then you back track and say, “I never said that quotas didn’t exist.”
What about the welfare statistics pointed out above by Tommygun? He cited his source. Where did you get yours?
[/quote]
Do you actually read things in context, or do you just like to find things to argue about? I have NEVER said quotas didn’t exist! If you can find somewhere where I did say that, prove it! Otherwise STFU!
Second of all, there has never been any case by case examples where EVERY (read: EVERY) black person has gotten a job offer, entrance to school or accepted to an organization because of lowered standards or quotas. Maybe I should have put the word EVERY the first time to make the point perfectly clear.
What has been presented in the relatively few cases that get popularized in the media, are averages based on quotas established by an institution. Do you know what an average is? That means the entire population gets lumped into a data set. That means that those that are much higher get marginalized with those that are lower. Stupid statements that suggest that all blacks get everything based on lower standards and quotas and then using the very few examples to prove this does not reflect the total picture. The MAJORITY of cases does not reflect this. If it did, you would see way more black people in a variety of places.
As far as citing sources, tommygun did not cite any specific sources, he said that he got them from government websites. That’s not a specific source, that is a general statement. Do you know the difference? Obviously not. I got mine from government websites as well. Do you have any idea how many government websites exists? Obviously not. Or is it that you are willing to believe one person over another because it confirms what you want to believe? He could be right and I could be wrong or I could be right and he could be wrong or we both could be wrong. He said that this was a possibiity, so why is that a problem for you? Did you question HIM about specific sources? No, instead you accepted his statement at face value and wanted to question mine.
Bottom line is that all of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why is it that you refuse to discuss the article? Instead you want to spend your time nitpicking everything that I said or someone like me says. You are so busy pulling my statements out of the discussions that are taking place and trying to find fault that you are ignoring the topic that started this whole thing. Are you afraid that the article hits too close to home? What’s that smell? Oh yeah, it’s you and your bullshit.
BTW don’t bother to respond, I have nothing left to say to you. I will not get drawn into your game of me having to defend myself from you so you can feel like you won something. So flame on to your hearts content.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Serious question Prof. Why do you think you get more attention then normal and does it bother you?
I remember the Oggie incident. It was disturbing and seemed like stalking to me. I am a lot more private on the internet then most, pics included, because of similar reasons.
[/quote]
I honestly think one of the main reasons is that people simply listen to a lot of what I write. If no one was reading my posts, there wouldn’t be any jealousy for it which is where I see much of it coming from. I think the rest is other people’s insecurities. Many of these people wouldn’t stand out in a crowded room. They use the internet to be someone completely different. This has happened in some form since the first time I ever wrote anything in a discussion forum when I was in college. I think the perception of there being someone who actually has a clue what they are talking about and would intimidate some in real life threatens those types. This is how they lash out, because they wouldn’t do it if they were standing in front of that person in reality. It is the only explanation I have.
The same type of mentality that causes someone to get upset because someone got a compliment on their picture posted (something that only happens to a few that I have seen while specifically not happening to others…I will hold my thoughts as to why) is the same that causes someone to get upset because someone reads my posts.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I never see anyone…NOT ANYONE…else get called out for their profession. I mean, shit, anyone in the military could verify that with my military web address. I often wonder if it just pisses them off or what.
ALDurr wrote:
Hell ProfX, I’m waiting for them to doubt that I am a research scientist. Even though I have spoken about it at great lengths in the past.
THIS is funny.
ALDurr, as a “Research Scientist” how would you feel if the line:
“That is the difference between those of us who actually went to school for this and those of us who simply read something on the internet and think we are experts.”
got tossed at you?
Even better, I’ll give you three guesses who tossed it?
Hint: He’s right in that he didn’t actually “call me out” for my profession.[/quote]
Actually, statements like this have been tossed at me on here in a variety of different forms. I have been called a “young punk kid” by people that have no clue how old I am (chance are that I am either about their age or older). I have had people doubt that I’ve ever travelled outside the country before, even though that was part of my job for a while. I have had people doubt my level of education, experiences and knowledge even though I tell them that I am research scientist. I’ve had people doubt that I have ever touched a weight or even exercised before, even though I was a bodybuilder for a little over a year, I was a powerlifter for 7 years as well as a practicing martial artist for 20+ years. I’ve had people doubt that I have children, even though I do. I’ve had people twist my statements around to make it look like I said things that I didn’t to try to make me look like I am dumb and confused. The list goes on. The problem is that it has to do with what people are willing to believe about each other on an electronic forum. About the only thing that anyone seems to believe from me when I am on here is that I am a Black/African-American male. They only seem to believe that so they have an avenue to focus their stupidity, anger and prejudices.
I am not arguing any of the post that you have written. In fact, I am in agreement with most of what you have said. I appreciate your enlightened stance as well. I just want to point out a few things to clarify. When I used the phrase “white supremacy” or any variation thereof, it is not to suggest that that whites are actively promoting this. What it means is that based on the principles of “white supremacy” that caused most blacks to be in this country in the first place and the systematic destruction of them as a people has caused much of the problem that you are speaking about.
But a problem. One enormous problem is that black children are extremely disadvantaged when they come from a home without married parents. It has been estimated that the family income of black children rises by 81% with marriage. Yet we see blindlingly high rates of black children with no married parents, and the trend is headed downward.
And here is the thing - white privilege does not reinforce this problem.
I am not saying you disagree with the problems - we probably agree on much. I am merely suggesting that this problem - which I think may be perhaps the biggest in black culture - is not related to any disadvantage related to white privilege.
This society has reinforced this mentality over many, many generations. Most images of blacks throughout their existence in this country have been negative. All of the positive images have been removed to reinforce the superiority of whites over blacks.
You suggested that white privilege was not a concious effort on the part of whites to take advantage of race - but this statement suggests you think there is deliberate misrepresentation of the imagery of blacks to keep them down. How do you reconcile this?
Think about this, if you study world history using only sources from the USA, how is it that there are no references of how Africans affected civilization?
I can say confidently that when I studied world history, I got a survey of African civilizations. Did you not?
However, if you go to sources published outside the USA their are scores of publication referencing the contribution to civilization that africans have made? It is a systemic problem that has been reinforced by ignorance and misinformation.
There is absolutely no shortage these days of ‘multiculturalism’ - whatever its worth - in education. You won’t find Africa as a big part of any Western civlization studies, and for obvious reasons. That being said, I have a difficult time believing young black students don’t have access to learning about Africa.
Moreover, I am having a hard time seeing the connection between learning about ancient African contributions to civilization and the current status of black culture.
The fact that these kids have defeated themselves first illustrates this issue. I firmly believe that if we can fix this systemic issue by being completely truthful and honest, the situation that you are around would be significantly improved.
We agree on much, but I think being truthful and honest would remedy alot.
[/quote]
Thunder,
I think that we agree on many of the same things. I just want to clarify one thing though. In the begining of this country, there was a concentrated effort to eliminate positive images of non-whites. This was done to justify the demonic practice of slavery. You are less likely to want to enslave other humans if you are thinking they are actually human. Over the many, many years of this country, this thought process has gone from being conscious behavior to unconscious behavior. This is the dangerous conditioning from the past affecting the present. This is why I don’t believe that whites are active participants in this behavior and are actually victims of this conditioning as well. All of these things that you are seeing in the black community are a direct result of this process. White privilege is one of the outcomes of this process. So its not current whites actively keeping non-whites down, its the process that was put in place that has created the ability for white privilege to exist. This may not make much sense right now, but give it a chance to sink in further.
Also, to talk about understanding history. History is a source of pride for all people. It is a source of strength and inspiration. If the sources of history are not truly representing what your race has actually done and in fact has made it look like your people haven’t done anything worthwhile, then it affects you in a negative way. Do that for enough people in your race and it regenerates itself over the generations. Some of us have been lucky enough to escape it, but many of us are still trapped. This is what you are seeing on a daily basis.
You are right in that being truthful and honest will go a long way in helping. Its starts with accurate history of self and others and building up that sense of pride, strength and inspiration. Once that happens, it expands to fixing our communities and ourselves. There are alot of us trying, but there is alot of hatred (both self- and outward) that has been ingrained into the psyche of America as a whole that creates a serious barrier to reaching this goal.
BTW, thank you for actually staying on topic and discussing it intellegently. The sharing of your personal experiences, has helped move this along in a positive way and I am glad that there are people like you actually trying to help.
Also hedo, when the following was written by pja in relation to Mad Titan getting compliments on his pictures posted:
This was only after possibly 3 people gave him compliments. Meanwhile, Caveman’s pictures have garnered so many views it is probably only followed by the ass thread and he isn’t even a regular participant of this forum. Where are the posts in outrage of his compliments? When you see things like that, do you just write it off as some strange occurance? I don’t. It is very uneven behavior.
They only seem to believe that so they have an avenue to focus their stupidity, anger and prejudices.[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, once I showed Prof. X that I didn’t just “read it off the internet” he just proceeded to question my real world experience. All without actually knowing the color of my skin or my race.
Actually, I was responding to his question. I wasn’t calling him out on anything. He knew what I was saying and I am pretty sure he’s not mad at me.[/quote]
I agree, but, he seemed aggrevated with me/accusatory of me. And between you, I, and ZEB, yours seemed like the only serious question of his occupation. I can’t account for every questioning of his occupation, however, I can justify this conclusion on these three posts. However, in the spirit of the thread, it may also be denial, or an error on Prof.'s perception of people questioning his profession, or an error on my perception of Prof.'s aggrevation. Damn.
They only seem to believe that so they have an avenue to focus their stupidity, anger and prejudices.
If it makes you feel better, once I showed Prof. X that I didn’t just “read it off the internet” he just proceeded to question my real world experience. All without actually knowing the color of my skin or my race.
[/quote]
That is because skin color means very little to me at all in my life. I have to deal with people from every culture on the planet as my job and bias simply doesn’t have a place. I am good with people when I meet them. On line, I am dealing directly with your mentality and I understand completely that I am often brash and arrogant. That serves a purpose as well very often because it cuts through surface bullshit very quickly when communicating through words alone. It gets my point across with even less effort.
Naturally, in a face to face setting, the psychological aspects of communication become more complex as visual cues and vocal alterations are added into the game. In that arena, often my physical presence or the tone of my voice alone is enough to give me the advantage. I change my attack depending on the fighting surface. You do it as well even if you pretend you don’t.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
I don’t know if you are honestly confused, or just full of shit. You specifically said, “Second of all, there has never been any real evidence that this has occurred. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Blacks have always had to be more qualified than their white counterparts just to be considered for the same positions.” Then you back track and say, “I never said that quotas didn’t exist.”
What about the welfare statistics pointed out above by Tommygun? He cited his source. Where did you get yours?
As far as citing sources, tommygun did not cite any specific sources, he said that he got them from government websites. That’s not a specific source, that is a general statement. Do you know the difference? Obviously not. I got mine from government websites as well. Do you have any idea how many government websites exists? Obviously not. Or is it that you are willing to believe one person over another because it confirms what you want to believe? He could be right and I could be wrong or I could be right and he could be wrong or we both could be wrong. He said that this was a possibiity, so why is that a problem for you? Did you question HIM about specific sources? No, instead you accepted his statement at face value and wanted to question mine.[/quote]
I obtained my welfare information from The US Department of Health and Human Services, which has the most recent and accurate data available regarding welfare.
Where did you obtain yours from?
According to their data, the average number of total monthly welfare recipients are [u]nowhere near[/u] 20 million people, let alone 15 million white people.
Here are the calendar years 2000-2004 and the average number of monthly TOTAL welfare recipients.
That is because skin color means very little to me at all in my life. I have to deal with people from every culture on the planet as my job and bias simply doesn’t have a place. I am good with people when I meet them. On line, I am dealing directly with your mentality and I understand completely that I am often brash and arrogant. That serves a purpose as well very often because it cuts through surface bullshit very quickly when communicating through words alone. It gets my point across with even less effort.
Naturally, in a face to face setting, the psychological aspects of communication become more complex as visual cues and vocal alterations are added into the game. In that arena, often my physical presence or the tone of my voice alone is enough to give me the advantage. I change my attack depending on the fighting service. You do it as well even if you pretend you don’t.[/quote]
As you should well know Prof., the debate itself often means more to me than the issues being discussed (That’s sometimes a privilege for one or both of us, I know.)
Also, I only change my “attack” based on the fighting surface when necessary. After all, why change the attack when it’s easier to change the surface? It really gets under the skin (NPI) of people who are brash, arrogant, and “have probably had at least some experience in more fields than most people on this board.”
[quote]lucasa wrote:
As you should well know Prof., the debate itself often means more to me than the issues being discussed (That’s sometimes a privilege for one or both of us, I know.)
Also, I only change my “attack” based on the fighting surface when necessary. After all, why change the attack when it’s easier to change the surface? It really gets under the skin (NPI) of people who are brash, arrogant, and “have probably had at least some experience in more fields than most people on this board.”[/quote]
Wow, it isn’t like you have provoked much emotion. Get under my skin? No, unless sand under foot is a major inconvenience.
I obtained my welfare information from The US Department of Health and Human Services, which has the most recent and accurate data available regarding welfare.
Where did you obtain yours from?
According to their data, the average number of total monthly welfare recipients are [u]nowhere near[/u] 20 million people, let alone 15 million white people.
Here are the calendar years 2000-2004 and the average number of monthly TOTAL welfare recipients.
According to the data that I have presented, the welfare information that you are disseminating appears to be inaccurate.
Again, where did you get your welfare information from?[/quote]
Tommy,
Those seem low – are those just the numbers of people who received checks, or are they the number of people covered in families that received checks? If the former, that makes more sense – otherwise it seems much too small a percentage of the population (currently estimated at just under 300 million total).
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bro, you still aren’t getting it. This thread is about the slanting of the system to the majority. I’m just saying that it is because of economics that the majority has privilege, not because of the color of their skin.
Lorisco, sorry man, but we aren’t talking about economic catering to the whims of the majority here.
We’re talking about social interactions between majority and minority segments of society, not how well served they are by products and services catering to them due to group sizes.[/quote]
So the reason that whites are the majority does not play into this topic?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Your statement showed that you don’t understand the difference between getting help and survival. In addition, your statement was a huge insult to the black community. Your statement indicated that the only reason blacks survived is because of the government programs. This is the same government that inacted slavery, separate but equal laws, Jim Crow, allowed lynchings to occur and discrimination. Blacks survived, DESPITE these things. Having 30-40 years of Affirmative Action programs was an added benefit, not the reason for survival. So, I can say that affirmative action did help black people, but it is not the reason we survived. You tried to prove some sort of point here, but failed miserably.
[/quote]
No, quite the contrary, if you have been paying attention. My position has always been that AA wasn’t needed and that blacks and other minorities have survived out of their own strength, determination and talent. So while you feel AA has helped, I believe blacks and other minorities would have succeeded regardless.
What are the rates per 1000. That would give us an equal measure to determine a higher frequency of those on welfare.
But don’t get me know, I believe that historically blacks have every reason to be in that position because of what they have experienced. So I’m not blaming the past on them. Just the current state of affairs. It is time for them to start and take full advantage of the opportunities that there are in the US and become successful. Welfare is just holding them back now.
No, not more blacks on welfare, a higher percentage of blacks of welfare.
On the contrary, it is a great point as most on the site probably don’t even know that there were black slave owners in this country. I don’t see how an offhand comment like “there are opportunists in the black community” would honestly convey that truth. But now that it is out there and we both agree is was fact, we can move on.
If I had made up my mind, why would I be taking with you about it?
My issue is that I don’t believe one political party is more pro minority than the other in DEED! They may be in rhetoric, but not in what they actually do.
So I agree that doing destructive things to your own people to prove anything is wrong, but I frequently hear blacks that are maligned for no other reason than being conservative. That is bogus!
Sorry, but I don’t know what MSM is?
Thank you for proving my point! It is not skin color but culture.
Not sure what this has to do with the current topic? There have been migrations to all countries of races different than was originally there. So none of those countries would have a system designed for other races either. So your example is biased and slanted.
The real question is how these countries (including the US) deal with these new races that were not originally here. How they allow them to integrate into their society or exclude them. That is the issue. The idea that they would have other races that are not currently living there as part of their plan is asinine.
All countries were designed to benefit the races that were originally there or conquered. So the only races that have a litigate grievance in this area in the US would be native Americans. Those that came after that time don’t count in the plan, as they weren’t part of the original group.
What are you talking about? Cultural traits or behavior not acceptable in the modern workplace? Until you define what black behavior is or white behavior, I can’t respond to it.
And your posts Illustrate a bias And prejudice. That, I might add, is not shared by all blacks in “your community”.
When you make legitimate points that I feel are valid, I will agree with you. Until then, I’m not going to just agree with you to make you feel better.
Just because I’m not black doesn’t men I don’t have a valid perspective. And yes, I know there are Latinos and black who disagree with my position, but they have a different experience. And I’m ok with that. I’m not the one who was accusing you of being uneducated because you have a different opinion.
What do you mean blacks that did follow the norm?
As for myself, I feel comfortable there so that is probably a factor in them accepting me. Just like a black going to a white church. If they feel comfortable with that environment, then I believe they will be accepted. Same as a Latino church (accept the language thing).
Dude you are trippin! My comment had no relation to the mental capacity of blacks and you know it. My comment is related to the difference of perception and approach. Just like the two of us. We have different approaches, but that doesn’t make either of us lack mental capacity. We are just trying to understand the other persons position.
I have a number of friends of many races. I treat them as being my brothers and sisters. So please don’t attribute a prejudice comment to my posts that I did not make nor intend.
I obtained my welfare information from The US Department of Health and Human Services, which has the most recent and accurate data available regarding welfare.
Where did you obtain yours from?
According to their data, the average number of total monthly welfare recipients are [u]nowhere near[/u] 20 million people, let alone 15 million white people.
Here are the calendar years 2000-2004 and the average number of monthly TOTAL welfare recipients.
According to the data that I have presented, the welfare information that you are disseminating appears to be inaccurate.
Again, where did you get your welfare information from?
Tommy,
Those seem low – are those just the numbers of people who received checks, or are they the number of people covered in families that received checks? If the former, that makes more sense – otherwise it seems much too small a percentage of the population (currently estimated at just under 300 million total).[/quote]
BB,
Those are the actual number of individuals who receive welfare every month. In the context of the welfare data, recipient = individual person.
The average number of families who receive welfare every month are obviously less.
The government’s welfare data shows the number of families receiving welfare as well as the number of recipients (individuals) receiving welfare. Thus, if one familiy has 4 people receiving welfare, the family would be counted as one “family” for family data, and the 4 family members would be counted as 4 “recipients” for the recipent data.
In June 2005, 1,895,756 families received welfare and 4,449,811 individuals received welfare. The estimated US population in July 2005 was 296,410,404. Thus, only 1.5% of the US population was on welfare in June 2005.
Furthermore, the allegation that there are more white people (15 million) on welfare than black people (5 million) is inaccurate, and I am interested to know where those figures came from, because they are not from The US Department of Health and Human Services.
Wow, 1.5% is a much smaller number than I would have guessed, given the official poverty numbers. Of course, I don’t really know how/if the qualifications for meeting the definition of “poverty” overlap with the qualifications needed to receive welfare.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wow, 1.5% is a much smaller number than I would have guessed, given the official poverty numbers. Of course, I don’t really know how/if the qualifications for meeting the definition of “poverty” overlap with the qualifications needed to receive welfare.[/quote]
It would imply there are far fewer people on welfare who might actually need it than believed.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Wow, 1.5% is a much smaller number than I would have guessed, given the official poverty numbers. Of course, I don’t really know how/if the qualifications for meeting the definition of “poverty” overlap with the qualifications needed to receive welfare.
Professor X wrote:
It would imply there are far fewer people on welfare who might actually need it than believed.[/quote]
Or it might be a very restrictive definition of welfare. Or it might point to the fact that poverty statistics miss a lot of income (it’s amazing that year over year people at or below the poverty level consume more than they have in income – it can’t just be credit cards year after year). There are many possible explanations – we’d need to look at the data more.
