Tiki Barber for President!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you truly this dumb? The issue, once again, dear retarded one…IS CONTEXT. That means, NO, it does not take on that meaning every single time it is used and is based on CONTEXT.

Wait, did you read the word “CONTEXT”?

Wait, let me type it again…CONTEXT.

Get smarter. Try again.

You don’t want to understand, making anymore discussion useless. My response hasn’t changed.

Did you read that blog? What did you think of the comment of “black gentlemen”? Can you even comprehend it? Tell me what you think the social relevance is. Let me know if you can grasp it in any way at all.

I really want to know if you even get it.[/quote]

At the beginning of the thread, harris posted, basically, that

“If ANY white person calls ANY black person ‘articulate’, then it is racist and offensive under ANY circumstances and under ANY context.”

When asked to clarify, he stood by that statement. At that point, you chimed in agreeing with harris.

You agreed with harris at the beginning of the thread that ‘articulate’ is offensive REGARDLESS of context. So why are you now talking about context?

Either there is a pretty large inconsistency in your position, or you have changed topics and have not bothered to mention it to anyone else here.

262

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you truly this dumb? The issue, once again, dear retarded one…IS CONTEXT. That means, NO, it does not take on that meaning every single time it is used and is based on CONTEXT.

Wait, did you read the word “CONTEXT”?

Wait, let me type it again…CONTEXT.

Get smarter. Try again.

You don’t want to understand, making anymore discussion useless. My response hasn’t changed.

Did you read that blog? What did you think of the comment of “black gentlemen”? Can you even comprehend it? Tell me what you think the social relevance is. Let me know if you can grasp it in any way at all.

I really want to know if you even get it.

At the beginning of the thread, harris posted, basically, that

“If ANY white person calls ANY black person ‘articulate’, then it is racist and offensive under ANY circumstances and under ANY context.”

When asked to clarify, he stood by that statement. At that point, you chimed in agreeing with harris.

You agreed with harris at the beginning of the thread that ‘articulate’ is offensive REGARDLESS of context. So why are you now talking about context?

Either there is a pretty large inconsistency in your position, or you have changed topics and have not bothered to mention it to anyone else here.[/quote]

My position has been context. I have written this for pages throughout this thread. I agree with Harris that it can be perceived as an insult by minorities. I also acknowledge that some “non-minorities” may not be aware of this even though the social meaning should be clearly understood as saying a black person “speaks so well” has implications beyond just complimenting someone BECAUSE OF HISTORY. Therefore, if someone is truly unaware of the fact that it can be perceived as an insult, obviously they can’t be faulted for it even though it should be common knowledge by now what the root of it is and WHY. I also acknowledge that Headhunter seems to write many passages that question whether he may or may not be racist even though, as stated, I think he just likes to start shit…which is why Al Durr wrote what he did.

Is there anything else you are unclear on? If that doesn’t do it for you, what exactly will?

If spelling out my position for several pages does not clear things up, exactly what should have been written and why would you ignore several pages taken to explain this and act as if they didn’t exist?

Are you, or anyone else, still unclear as to the root of it? If so, why? Beyond that, if you are, why not listen?

263

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Are you truly this dumb? The issue, once again, dear retarded one…IS CONTEXT. That means, NO, it does not take on that meaning every single time it is used and is based on CONTEXT.

Wait, did you read the word “CONTEXT”?

Wait, let me type it again…CONTEXT.

Get smarter. Try again.

You don’t want to understand, making anymore discussion useless. My response hasn’t changed.

Did you read that blog? What did you think of the comment of “black gentlemen”? Can you even comprehend it? Tell me what you think the social relevance is. Let me know if you can grasp it in any way at all.

I really want to know if you even get it.[/quote]

So this is how Professor X ends - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Professor X says “you didn’t consider social usage”.

I show him that I did indeed consider social usage and re-posted where he ignored (as usual) my post.

And at no point has Professor X said “yeah, turns out you did discuss social usage after I had said you didn’t. Oops.”

How could anyone take you seriously when you make claims, then get shown that your claim are wrong, but you won’t acknowledge them?

By the way, as to your whining that you are discussing ‘context’ while we aren’t - social usage of a word like ‘articulate’ is part of context, so that is exactly what I have been referring to as well. And everyone here agrees with that. That was the whole point in showing you that ‘articulate’ was not used in the way you said it was - we did that to disprove that there was any inherent context attached to the social usage of the word that justified a call of racism. In sum, we have been looking at context too by showing you what ‘articulate’ looks like in social usage.

And yes, I read the little snippet in the random blog. So what? Why is that informative in the slightest?

You argue in bad faith - you can’t have a coherent discussion because you say things you won’t own up to. Now your flaws run both ways - you’ve always refused to read what other people write and you’ve made up their positions, but now you won’t even fess up to stuff you have written and try to misdirect from your actual text.

Regardless of what you arguing, whatever the topic - you should at least have the sack enough to own up to what you write. You write a post, I respond to that post, and then you pretend you never wrote it. You don’t own up to what you write, so there is little point in going forward.

264

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Edders wrote:
vroom wrote:

Your fatal flaw is assuming there is some collusion going on and then picking sides.

I’ve been reading these threads a long time.

  Not half as long as i have been  and you would have to be one of the biggest sheadheads in a quite a long time to come along, now fuck off back to class and perhaps you may learn how to be and train like a man but i doubt it.

please don’t post back, shithead.

[/quote]

I’ve looked over your posts and for the most part they are very unimpressive. Before calling me a shithead I suggest that you look in the mirror.

Are you angry that you’re from a tiny insignificant country? Now go put another shrimp on the barby and get out of here.

265

[quote]Edders wrote:

I’ve looked over your posts and for the most part they are very unimpressive.

[/quote]

          Hey shithead, you looked at all my 273 posts since this forum was changed in 02, well you have 140 odd since 06, guess that makes you the motor mouth.

          I have looked over your posts and they are all shit, you are a little boy who has yet not learnt how to train or watch your mouth.

          your posts reek of projection, look it up junior, that's you. Our country is quite large but we only have a small population base but have always punched above our weight. If you are American my experience's with American's has been excellent but thats not the issue is it shithead.

           I notice that you don't state where you are from, wouldn't happen to be France would it, you sound like a winging french women, from your first post you have been a turd, once a turd, always a turd, do you even train? 

         ramos nailed it on the head with one of his posts about shitheads like you who have driven away a lot of posters through your BS, now be a good boy and fuck off.
266

[quote]Professor X wrote:

One more tip…try to avoid telling people what they have experienced or how those experiences should be interpreted.

As a non-minority, I doubt anyone even attempts such a thing with you even though it happens to minorities on a regular basis it seems.

One more thing…if someone like “Edders” is in your corner…re-evaluate your corner.[/quote]

Points well taken. But I think what others are saying is that WORDS, to have any meaning for communication, must have a universal definition. If words mean different things to different people, communication becomes impossible.

Admittedly, english has many shades of meaning, and a lot is communicated through intonation. When the words are written, this intonation is not available. We then have to refer back to the main or universal definition.

For ex, when I say the word ‘chair’, we have all agreed that this word means ‘this thing’. Of course, for concretes, this is easy. But for abstractions such as Justice or God, we then have the problem of connecting our percepts with the particular concept (witness Plato’s Republic). Logical positivism takes all of this to an extreme, btw.

Being an English teacher, I presumed that Harris would know all of this. You are not faulted, as language and its uses is not your field. I therefore regret if you were offended by my original post.

You should be mad at Harris, btw. He knew better and got you into the middle of this.

267

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Edders wrote:

Hey shithead,[/quote]

Yes poopy pants?

No, just the last several and I couldn’t find anything that would support your big ego. There was however plenty of crap in them. Basically, you’re just not impressive.

Yes, but keep in mind your opinion sucks. You can’t even write one word on the current topic. You hop on this thread to bash me.

That is the mark of a TROLL!

You have a sad life…but then again you do live in Australia…ouch!

That’s funny coming from someone who seems to begin his posts with “shit head.”

If your theory holds true I can make at least some sense of the rest of this foolish post of yours.

LOL

Ha ha…Keep dreaming

Your country is very, very insignificant on the world stage. That happens to be a fact. You can rant and rave but nothing will be changing that anytime soon.

And to point out how insignificant australia is, let’s compare it to the state of California:

australia GNP: 654 billion

California: 1.5 trillion

(WOW australia is very, very insignificant for a country that is)

The economics lesson is free junior. I have plenty of “fun facts” for you keep writing back to me. australia is good for plenty of laughs.

No it’s not poopy pants.

(See the shit head again…are you projecting? Hey it was your idea)

There you go again projecting: “French woman” “shit head” “turd”

Are you really all of those things?

By the way, I’m American and very proud of it. You on the other hand are from …(chuckle…) australia

(small “a” on purpose)

:wink:

If the posters were ego driven retards like yourself, then the forum is a better place.

You add nothing here, you only rant and rave and take away in order to feed your ego.

You are an insignificant poster living in an insignificant country.

Sorry but it had to be said.

[quote] now be a good boy and fuck off.
[/quote]

Nope, I think I’ll hang around and help others keep your little ego driven insignificant ass in line.

Write back soon if these Internet beatings are what you really crave. Oh and if you want to actually post something on topic that would be nice too tard boy.

Bye.

268

It’s very clear that professor x has not only NOT proven his point, but has run away from his actual argument that he posed at the beginning of this thread. But then again that’s what he always does when pushed on any topic.

269

[quote]Edders wrote:
You hop on this thread to bash me.

[/quote]

         Poor poor shithead, someone telling you the truth, you seemed quite happy to bash other people but again you have shown you can dish it out but can't take it shit head, whinge , whinge whing.
270

[quote]Edders wrote:

Nope, I think I’ll hang around and help others keep your little ego driven insignificant ass in line.

[/quote]

               others ?  shitheads, the majority of your posts have been bickering like a old women with people, you are the worst of all, at least Mr Pushups didn't complain that when people called him he didn't cower like a coward and state''i jump on this thread to bash him'' after he bashed other people, you shithead are a classic wimp, btw how's your training going?
271

There is only one thing I am still confused about with this thread.

We have concluded that

1.) The idea that ‘articulate’ is ALWAYS offensive to a black person, REGARDLESS of context is ridiculously false.

2.) Sometimes compliments are given with the purpose that the recipient is offended.

3.) Sometimes compliments are given sincerely yet the recipient still finds it offensive.

These three items are, IMO, common sense and did not need to spelled out. And after reading this entire thread, I believe that pretty much everyone agrees that those three items are true.

So… what exactly have you all been arguing about for 11 pages?

Has this whole thread been merely an exercise in miscommunication?

272

[quote]Edders wrote:

Write back soon if these Internet beatings are what you really crave.

[/quote]

     I will as soon as possible, what a beating it was shithead, it wounded me to the core, must go as i have a life unlike you Mr 140 posts of crap since 06, don't you have a life? you are a loser.

Don’t worry i’m sure you have a massive amount of crap post to go. Hope to hear from you soon shithead and this time try and have some orginal thoughts Mr Projection.

273

[quote]Edders wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Edders wrote:

Hey shithead,

Yes

[/quote]

Excellent shithead, finally developing some insight into your station in life bitch.

274

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
There is only one thing I am still confused about with this thread.

We have concluded that

1.) The idea that ‘articulate’ is ALWAYS offensive to a black person, REGARDLESS of context is ridiculously false.

2.) Sometimes compliments are given with the purpose that the recipient is offended.

3.) Sometimes compliments are given sincerely yet the recipient still finds it offensive.

These three items are, IMO, common sense and did not need to spelled out. And after reading this entire thread, I believe that pretty much everyone agrees that those three items are true.

So… what exactly have you all been arguing about for 11 pages?

Has this whole thread been merely an exercise in miscommunication?[/quote]

No, it has been more than that. I was told that my experiences don’t qualify. I was told that my perception is wrong. I was even told how the person I was speaking of was as far as personality even though none of that would be known to them.

The issue is simply that some people have the arrogance to tell others whether their perception is valid and even what they have experienced in life. Without that, there would have been no “debate”…so there is the problem. It is also one that won’t be fixed because the problem itself…is still bigotry.

275

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
There is only one thing I am still confused about with this thread.

We have concluded that

1.) The idea that ‘articulate’ is ALWAYS offensive to a black person, REGARDLESS of context is ridiculously false.

2.) Sometimes compliments are given with the purpose that the recipient is offended.

3.) Sometimes compliments are given sincerely yet the recipient still finds it offensive.

These three items are, IMO, common sense and did not need to spelled out. And after reading this entire thread, I believe that pretty much everyone agrees that those three items are true.

So… what exactly have you all been arguing about for 11 pages?

Has this whole thread been merely an exercise in miscommunication?[/quote]

I think that is about right - the initial claim at issue was whether the word warranted a categorical presumption of racism.

As for context - context can be supplied by

  1. Direct circumstances surrounding the compliment

  2. The individual’s experiences up to that point

  3. Other reasons to claim the presumption of racism is warranted - possibly unjustified that have to do with personal attitudes.

The question at stake is regardless of where the context being supplied comes from, is it rational? Can people challenge the the context? And can that challenge be done in good faith?

Some of us think you can, others think that you must take the context - wherever it comes from - to be valid, and challenging it is off-limits. And some of us are convinced that too many contexts are supplied by #3 above, and less by #1 and #2.

276

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The issue is simply that some people have the arrogance to tell others whether their perception is valid and even what they have experienced in life. Without that, there would have been no “debate”…so there is the problem. It is also one that won’t be fixed because the problem itself…is still bigotry.[/quote]

It is not arrogance to tell someone that their perception may be erroneous. If each person’s perception is as valid as another’s contradictory perception, then reality itself contains contradictions. Since this cannnot be, reality is then determined by the observer.

This is solipsism of the worst sort. This philosophy makes knowledge and language meaningless, as each person could not communicate anything.

277

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, it has been more than that. I was told that my experiences don’t qualify. I was told that my perception is wrong. I was even told how the person I was speaking of was as far as personality even though none of that would be known to them.[/quote]

Stop distorting everything you read. You’re entitled to all your perceptions and experience. As is everyone else. What you were told repeatedly, is that your perception and experience is not sufficient to convince anyone that ‘articulate’ is offensive to a majority of blacks. We need more evidence before we accept your assertion. Unfortunately, you’re unable to provide any support for it.

It is telling in itself that all the examples you have proposed to try and back up your assertion have been word other than ‘articulate’. ‘Speaks so well’, ‘boy’, ‘black gentleman’, etc. None of the words were the one that sparked this whole debate.

You were unable to find a single example, anywhere, where ‘articulate’ was used in a derogatory way; while being shown the actual opposite: example after example of it being used in a complimentary way toward members of all races by authors of all races.

Common usage simply reflects and support the view that ‘articulate’ is, in nearly all instances, paid out as a compliment regardless of the races of the parties involved.

You really need to learn to admit when you’re wrong about an issue. It happens. Even to you. Posting the equivalent of a tamper tantrum will not sway anyone this side of 14 years old.

What about your own arrogance in presuming that we should all defer to your perception and experience in this case? Being a minority yourself does not give you a divine right to settle the question.

You can offer your perception and experience for us to consider, but if you’re going to have us believe that we can’t use ‘articulate’ to compliment a black man, we’ll need more than that.

Why? Because, again, common usage of the word tells us you’re wrong.

And before you chalk that up to arrogance or bigotry, consider that our debate so far has shown 100% support for the use of the word as a compliment and not a single example of the opposite.

We claim A and offer example after example. You say B, but are unable to back it up in anyway. And we should defer to your judgment? And it is us who are arrogant?

I’ve heard of weak claims before, but you, you have no claim at all.

You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. In reality, it makes you look like an immature guy who’s so bent on sticking to his guns that he’ll go looking for any excuses to explain why his views keep being rejected.

So if you labeling us bigots and racists is necessary for you to save face, well then, go right ahead. Two wrongs still don’t make you right.

278

[quote]pookie wrote:
(text) [/quote]

Good stuff, and I would add that perhaps 60% of the posts here were spent gassing about how critics were somehow under the belief that a compliment could never be an insult ever - this, despite the fact that common sense dictates otherwise and the critics expressly acknowledged that they didn’t in fact think that.

Also interesting - several seized on Headhunter for saying what he said, citing what they had learned from his previous posts. Headhunter says he isn’t acting racist, but others won’t believe him and they claim it is because of what he had said and done earlier.

Regardless of the merits of that w/r/t Headhunter, they didn’t take Headhunter at his word and decided he was something other than what he was claiming. How can that be, if you are supposed to take a poster at face value and not question them based on stuff they have posted in that past?

279

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

So what if I’m a little turd from a backwater country, at least I can play big shot on the Internet.[/quote]

Well I can’t disagree with you there. But you better not try it in real life…but then you know that huh?

lol

280

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Also interesting - several seized on Headhunter for saying what he said, citing what they had learned from his previous posts. Headhunter says he isn’t acting racist, but others won’t believe him and they claim it is because of what he had said and done earlier.[/quote]

Good points. Although I’m pretty sure HH doesn’t care much whether anyone thinks he’s racist or not. He likes to stir the pot to get reactions. On that point the guy who likes to call himself “professor” is probably right.

I can just imagine HeadHunter sitting at home, reading this thread and laughing his ass off.