Tiki Barber for President!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]vroom wrote:

Thunderdolt, have you ever heard of the word “contradiction”?

Some things you seem to be saying and implying don’t jibe with other things you seem to be saying. People seize upon this… and it’s to be expected.[/quote]

Oh yeah? If that be true - feel free to point out the contradiction.

I have said till my hair hurts that I think that there are occasions when compliments are being used for not-so-nice reasons, but in the specific situation Harris brought up, the use of the word ‘articulate’ didn’t fit one of those situations categorically and that a racist presumption was unjustified.

A good example of when I think a compliment is technically made but is being in done in bad faith is, for example, when I refer to you as ‘genius’ in my posts. Clearly, I don’t think you are a genius, and there is sarcasm involved. And it is perfectly fair in that context to assume that I really don’t think you are a genius, based on context. You don’t have to think I actually complimented you, your instincts would be right, and fair enough.

General use of the word ‘articulate’ to describe a minority, as applied, in my view, does not fall under that for reasons explained. There you have the difference. There are plenty of situations where that may very well apply - see above - but not in the situation Harris described.

Got it?

Now, that is what I have been saying over and over - show me where I contradicted myself.

You think you are brilliant - go for it. And no need for a cowardly “if you don’t see it, I can’t explain it to you” - if it so obvious, it shouldn’t be that hard to do, genius.

142

[quote]vroom wrote:

And you wonder why I respond to you?

He’s talking about public speaking, not ability to speak and use words… Thunderdolt strikes again![/quote]

What a sad life of sophistry you must lead. That must just knock the chicks over dead, aye?

Tell me: if someone describes a speaker as ‘articulate’, what is you first instinct of what that means? Is it:

(a) He means the speaker has ordinary, basic speaking skills, nothing to write home about

(b) He means the speaker is above-average in terms of his speaking ability

And, regardless of whether it is broadcast to 2 people or 2000 people, how does it differ in substance than calling him a ‘good speaker’?

Both are compliments, both are used interchangeably. ‘Articulate’ doesn’t mean ‘ordinary grasp of basic communication skills’, nor does ‘good speaker’ - both mean, better than average.

143

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I have no problem whatsoever.As a matter of fact I think you’re as entertaining as it gets on the politics forums,and I choose to believe that you post what you do in order to stir things up.
Let’s think about the viewpoints you have postulated on some of the threads you and I have had discussions on.(And I’m going from memory here so please correct me if I err)

The most memorable one to me was where you waxed on about the total dominance of ‘European’ culture.You can substitute 'White"
in there,since you went on to tell us how Africa went to hell after the white man left since the Africans were incapable of doing the technologically advanced work of running power stations,if I recall.
We also discussed how you feel that Arabic,Chinese and Indian culture had contributed nothing to the intellectual upliftment of Man in general,and whatever you were willing to concede they had contributed,you attributed to the accident of there being one brilliant man at the time in those cultures surrounded by a sea of idiots.

Then there is the Caliph’s burning of the books in the name of Islam,an example you have trotted out a couple of times.This gets used to show us the complete lack of validity that Islam has as aworld religion.Because of course us Christians never burned any books.

So we have all other races,religions and generally anyone that isn’t a white,preferably Anglo,Christian,being portrayed as inferior.

So as I see it,when you post anything like the OP in this thread,the Dr.King thread and many others,everything that you have written before clouds the timbre of your post.

It has nothing to with content,and everything to do with intent.

But having said that,I enjoy what you bring to the forums and really believe you’re probably a nice guy and that you don’t honestly believe the vast majority of what you post.

So don’t stop!

If you read my posts carefully (I may not make it obvious enough), I say that it has primarily been European and especially British culture that has done the most to uplift the world. The British basically eliminated slavery anywhere within their reach, spread the ideas of the rights of man, and introduced capitalism wherever possible. No other culture has done as much for the world than the British (and Americans) and gotten the least thanks.

Nowhere do I see other cultures do things such as this. All I see are despots, tyrannies, and war lords. The world was a stagnant shitpit until the British and Americans came on the scene.

Do I think my culture is superior? Damn right I do! I’ll take it over cultures that put wives on funeral pyres, or eat their neighbors any day.

Does this make me a racist? Nope. Just grateful.

[/quote]

A question:since the Brits got cultured by the Romans and the Spaniards gave us the New World (Yes,yes,I know the Vikings got there first but they didn’t make it stick),does that mean you have a deep seated respect for Latin culture in all its guises?

144

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

(funny stuff)[/quote]

That actually made tediously wading through all the “vroom nuggets” worth it.

145

[quote]Ren wrote:

I was trying to imply the difference between say, me meeting prof x and then commenting how articulate he is (why the fuck I would need to say that I don’t know)[/quote]

Let’s use your theory. Where does it end? Draw me a line. What if in a private context I say a minority was ‘witty’? What is the sinister presumption there? What if I say he was ‘charismatic’? What is the nefarious presumption there? What ifs I say he was ‘brilliant’? What is the nefarious presumption there? And so forth.

You don’t have a good answer? Then maybe you are the one that need to evaluate whether your theory is sound.

What difference does it make? People comment on it any time someone speaks. Jason Whitlock said about Bill Cosby, regarding a public speaking. It was recently said about Obama Barack by a private interviewer and also about Tom Vilsack from a private interviewer. Should we presume that because they commented on good speaking in a non-public context, we should presume the interviewers are racist or something similar?

Oh, I get it fine - I just have an explanation that goes outside of buying into his bush-league nonsense and Vroom’s sycophantic bootlicking for brownie points.

146

Blah, blah, blah.

This has become the lamest thread EVER.

Who cares? Some unknown black…er…African American dude got called articulate, either intentionally or unintentionally implying something negative about him. You’ll have to excuse us white people. We haven’t learned how to properly compliment minorities in a PC manner.

Either way what was this thread supposed to have been about.

147

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
General use of the word ‘articulate’ to describe a minority, as applied, in my view, does not fall under that for reasons explained. There you have the difference. There are plenty of situations where that may very well apply - see above - but not in the situation Harris described.

Got it?

Now, that is what I have been saying over and over - show me where I contradicted myself.
[/quote]

Whether you wish to consider it a contradiction, you run into trouble when you move past what Harris said to claim that he must be mistaken about the word “articulate” in general.

In fact, he and others have expressly said that this is an issue in their view. This is where I’m going to take the word of the minority members instead of your blowhardedness, in general.

Got it? Dink.

[quote]
You think you are brilliant - go for it. And no need for a cowardly “if you don’t see it, I can’t explain it to you” - if it so obvious, it shouldn’t be that hard to do, genius.[/quote]

And what’s with your insecurity about intelligence? I’m not saying I’m smart when I say you are stupid…

148

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, I get it fine - I just have an explanation that goes outside of buying into his bush-league nonsense and Vroom’s sycophantic bootlicking for brownie points.[/quote]

Brownie points? Ahahahaha. You really need to work on your insults man. Can I lend you a crutch?

149

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why can’t we have an intelligent, articulate gentleman like this man for president? His list of accomplishments is stellar and he is a brilliant communicator.

There is very little as condescending as referring to a black man as “articulate.”

What if HH had said TB had flawless elocution? Is that condescending?

Though I often use the term articulate as a synonym for eloquent I often forget it’s original meaninging, capable of speech, which does come across as condescending depending on who it is directed at. Why shouln’t an intelligent, educated man be articulate? Eloquence is a different matter all together.

Sometimes I wish I was more spell-o-quent.[/quote]

Thank you.

I’ve been waiting for someone who understood basic fucking English to get this point.

There is a vast difference between calling someone articulate, which means you can string a couple of words together and get your point across, and eloquent, which Tiki has shown he is.

But back to your regularly scheduled program of white people telling black people how they feel.

150

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What a sad life of sophistry you must lead. That must just knock the chicks over dead, aye?
[/quote]
Oh yes, my life revolves around “impressing chicks” with my sophistry! Dink.

Are you in the running for pedant of the year or something. What you leave out of your little fucking logic diagram is the attitude or preconceptions of the person making the comment.

If you simply extract the words out of context, like a pedant, perhaps it does not. But if you read the post that contained the phrase, it was clarified as intending to mean ‘good public speaker’ instead of ‘good speaker’.

There are many additional qualities involved in public speaking, especially as the size of the crowd gets larger, above and beyond being articulate or eloquent. You can pretend otherwise, but working a crowd is different than being able to PRONOUNCE YOUR WORDS CLEARLY.

[quote]
Both are compliments, both are used interchangeably. ‘Articulate’ doesn’t mean ‘ordinary grasp of basic communication skills’, nor does ‘good speaker’ - both mean, better than average. [/quote]

Hey, like you’ve been trying to point out, compliments aren’t always compliments… so watch out that you don’t contradict yourself again.

Articulate has a variety of connotations as does an “unqualified” use of the term ‘good speaker’. Depending on the meaning in the mind of the speaker when they give the compliment, it may or may not actually be a compliment that isn’t also an insult.

How you can fail to grasp something so simple, the varied use and intention of words, the varied thoughts and expectations of those using the words, and thus the varied impact it can have on the recipient, is beyond me.

You are in denial. You have no fucking way to know whether or not any one single utterance really is complimentary or not, without looking at the context of the compliment to try to see what it meant and what the speaker was implying by it.

If you would stop trying to tell the world how everyone uses every word in the English language (because there are always variations in connotations which may or may not closely resemble the actual denotation) then I’d stop disagreeing with you when you try to draw what appear to be universal conclusions about whether or not a particular word or phrase can be an insult.

However, trying to get some of you pedants to see these issues is probably like trying to get a water buffalo to tap dance.

151

[quote]harris447 wrote:
There is a vast difference between calling someone articulate, which means you can string a couple of words together and get your point across, and eloquent, which Tiki has shown he is.[/quote]

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

‘Articulate’, the VERB, has the meaning of ‘pronouncing words distinctly’. ‘Articulate’, the ADJECTIVE, such as used in a compliment, means ‘fluent and clear in speech’. Not everyone who can articulate a few sentences can be said to be articulate.

You really have to be actively searching for ways to feel insulted to think that someone who calls you ‘articulate’ is expressing surprise that you can even talk.

Note that the other idiot took offence at ‘eloquent’ which apparently you have no problem with. I guess you could just be offended because people look at you and save some time.

152

[quote]vroom wrote:

Whether you wish to consider it a contradiction, you run into trouble when you move past what Harris said to claim that he must be mistaken about the word “articulate” in general.[/quote]

Well, genius, that isn’t a contradiction.

Good, he and anyone else can say it is an issue in their view. And I argue that they are not justified in making it an issue in the way the do. And you can go with anyone’s view you want - personally, I am not quite the puppet to political correctness you are, and if I think a minority has it wrong on the merits, I say so - I won’t just be a spineless cipher.

So, do I take Harris’ and Professor X’s ‘word for it’? No, because a glaring responsibility to common sense prevents me from indulging in what I think to be a flawed approach on the merits.

153

[quote]pookie wrote:
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
[/quote]

I’ve got a fairly good dictionary…

adj.

  1. having joints (bzzzzt)
  2. made up of distinct syllables or words that have meaning, as in human speech
  3. able to speak
  4. expressing oneself easily and clearly
  5. well formulated; clearly presented

There is room in there for insult depending on how it was meant, if you are willing to step beyond discussion of any one particular instance.

154

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, genius, that isn’t a contradiction.
[/quote]

Damn, you are a slow one.

The contradiction is that you claim you really do see that compliments aren’t always compliments, but that you can’t see that “articulate” isn’t necessarily always a compliment.

So, when you go to the general and exclude one particular compliment from ever being an insult, you contradict your statement claiming that you actually understand that compliments (all of them) can be insults.

It has nothing to do with being a spineless cipher. It has to do with having an ability to understand subtleties in meaning and subtleties in the minds of people making statements.

So, compliments can be insults, but only when it isn’t potentially interpreted by minorities as an insult, because then they are being hypersensitive instead of detecting a racial bias that still exists in society, right?

I actually wish you were right.

Here’s a compliment. Judging by your avatar, you are a snappy dresser.

155

[quote]vroom wrote:

Oh yes, my life revolves around “impressing chicks” with my sophistry! Dink.[/quote]

Well, honestly - what else could you possibly impress them with?

It is always a treat when the most pedantic poster on T-Nation levels the charge at someone else.

Seriously - no one has ever said that tone, context, and all that wasn’t important in judging the merits of the compliment. We keep going back to square one with your pathetic assumptions. That wasn’t what we got started on - we were talking about the compliment on its face, the mere statement alone as satisfying the presumption of racist intent. There isn’t a person here who believes that a compliment dripping with sarcasm isn’t a real compliment. I beg you - do better.

Who said any different, Vroom?

And this is where it ends, by your own theory. Read very carefully, Vroom:

Yes, exactly, there are many varied uses and intentions of words, depending on the speaker’s intent. There most certainly is a varied impact on listeners. That is exactly what I have been suggesting all along, because…

…if there is a variety of ways a word can be delivered, which there are, why must the automatic presumption be that of a racist intent in the absence of a context that actually suggests a racist intent???

If a white man just strolls up with no sarcasm or venom in his voice and says “Tiki Barber is articulate” - as in, there is no context by which the listener can measure an obvious sinister intent - what is the justification for assuming he is a racist?

I argue that there is no justification. Not without some indication of context or tone. You getting this? My point is that all these contexts, tones, inflections, etc. are necessary to supply the inference of racism, but you can’t just presume it without them.

Harris’ point was that you don’t need tone or context to assume the guy is acting with racist intent - the fact that he said it is enough to justify the racist claim.

No one anywhere on this thread has said that a compliment can only be a compliment. What we were talking about - before you swooped in and started trying to tell us we were talking about something else - was that without a legitimate context, without a legitimate reason, without a legitimate tone, it is faulty to presume that a white man calling a black man ‘articulate’ has a racist mindset in doing so. As in, you need more than the mere statement before you can infer racism.

This isn’t difficult. My argument is dirt simple.

156

Do you speak English motherfucker?

157

[quote]vroom wrote:

The contradiction is that you claim you really do see that compliments aren’t always compliments, but that you can’t see that “articulate” isn’t necessarily always a compliment.[/quote]

This has become comical. Of course it is not always a compliment! I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

Of course I think the word ‘articulate’ can be an insult, but the context has to be there in order to infer it. You can’t just take an otherwise neutral statement and make a ton of irrational assumptions out of it. See my lengthy post above.

Where do you come up with these ridiculous assumptions? How could you possibly decide that I think ‘articulate’ could never be said with sarcasm or with racist intent? Yeesh, that is pure idiocy.

So again, you fail to demonstrate the ‘contradiction!’ you were so giddy over - it is based on a position you made up that I simply don’t believe. Anyone of basic intelligence reading my posts could see I never said ‘articulate’ could never, ever, under any circumstances, be an insult. Geez.

No, in your case, it has to do with being a spineless cipher.

You claim to be a ‘master of subtleties’, but you can’t even get basic assumptions right. Stop advertising your expertise in thinking through the ‘nuances’ - you have post after post that proves you wrong.

Let’s see - you are neither witty nor all that sharp. What is left, Vroom?

158

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, honestly - what else could you possibly impress them with?
[/quote]
Shall I offer you that crutch again?

Got dictionary?

And this is where you discount that which you have already conceded. If a person or a people are regularly regaled with a compliment that is not a compliment, then they will look upon it with a jaundiced view in the future as well.

Again, you discount that which you have supposedly conceded. That there may very well be a racial bias such that this person is surprised when there is no cause for surprise – especially depending on the connotation the recipient has in mind at the time.

You keep going back to a single instance to make your point. It is difficult to take one instance, out of context, and make a clear case for it. The problem is inherently one of repetition and history. Stop excluding that in your analysis and the discussion will start to make sense.

Again, anyone who has received a certain “compliment” a multitude of times is perfectly within their right to have a hair trigger for that compliment in the future. They might be mistaken at times, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t earned the right to be annoyed.

I’m not sure you’ll see the difference here, but it’s significant.

It depends on the connotation that was attached during receipt. A wise speaker will be more adept at knowing that certain connotations can be incorrectly applied and be sure to add context to avoid them.

Coming from Headhunter, it is very easy to assume an intent to inflame via bigotry or racism. His posts are rife with such material. The fact that he may have been quoting someone else or that someone else may have made similar comments is not immediately apparent.

Headhunter has such a context. By your argument I’d say it is very safe to assume insult in this case based on his recent bigoted posting history.

It’s also very possible that he does such things just to evoke a response and get people like you to jump in and chastise people for calling him on it.

Who’s game are you playing and what role do you have in it?

Do I think Harris might have been a bit sweeping in his statement upon entering the thread? Sure. Do I think the discussion is an important one? Certainly.

Race relations are not a trivial concern and the impact on the society and the economy are huge. Finding ways to improve the situation, over time, is important. Understanding the issues as seen by both parties helps in that.

Don’t be so quick to discount group viewpoints as nonsense. In some ways perception is reality… especially in that people will react to what they perceive whether you feel they should or they should not.

159

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Where do you come up with these ridiculous assumptions? How could you possibly decide that I think ‘articulate’ could never be said with sarcasm or with racist intent? Yeesh, that is pure idiocy.
[/quote]

I see you’ve answered your own question…

I keep being surprised by you. You attack in directions that are just off or inappropriate.

Nowhere do I claim to be a genius or the master of anything.

From your point of view I may be wrong, but standing up for something, even if wrong, does not make someone spineless. Your characterizations are just off in some way.

[quote]
Let’s see - you are neither witty nor all that sharp. What is left, Vroom?[/quote]

I’m not claiming to be smart, or witty, or anything else you might try to suggest I’ve claimed. However, I will claim to be thankful I’m not you.

160

[quote]vroom wrote:
Do I think Harris might have been a bit sweeping in his statement upon entering the thread? Sure.[/quote]

Finally. Glad to see your brain managed a little spasm of activity that allowed you to grasp the point.