Tiki Barber for President!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Shall I offer you that crutch again?[/quote]

No, I actually thought it was a legitimate question.

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.

Right - and which of Harris or Professor X made the case that ‘articulate’ was made to such a degree a jaundiced view was appropriate?

Let’s see - one of the two posters I mentioned actually explicitly referred to people of a color not of his own as categorical ‘opponents’ - you think I am going to take his word for it?

If someone came in and made the case that they, yes specifically they, had a series of experiences that jaundiced their viewpoint, I’d be sympathetic to their story - and that comports with what I have said all along. But merely making the generalization that you get to call a man a racist for the mere use of the word without any reference to context at all? Nope. Doesn’t matter what color you are - not justified.

Our two other posters backing this theory failed to satisfy even the standard that you are proposing. Leveling the ‘racist’ charge is serious business, so it better be made with some substance before I will put my blind trust on a couple of posters.

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.

You are arguing my point for me, exactly. My argument is that instances are too individualized to be able to have the presumption of racism.

The problem is inherently one of repetition and history. Stop excluding that in your analysis and the discussion will start to make sense.

So where is the evidence, other than conjecture by Harris, and our resident Professor X, who tries to find a racist act every where he looks?

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.

Yes, and you keep assuming that this ‘multitude of times’ has happened without even considering questioning it. Oh, and being annoyed and having the justification to call someone a racist are two very distinct things.

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.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t - that isn’t what we were discussing. If the Grand Wizard of the KKK said it, yes, it is reasonable to infer it wasn’t a compliment. But both Pookie and I have tried to tell you, we aren’t talking about Headhunter - we are talking about Harris’ blanket statement.

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

Please. You say below the discussion is worthwhile and important, and yet you say the above? Maybe the role I am playing is engaging in an important discussion, and that is it?

Pathetic.

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.

Oh, wait - what role are you playing?

Seriously, that was exactly the point - Harris’ point went too far. And when people go too far, there is an argument that they have a different agenda. That is what we were trying to debate.

Race relations are not a trivial concern and the impact on the society and the economy are huge.

This just in…thanks, Vroom.

Finding ways to improve the situation, over time, is important. Understanding the issues as seen by both parties helps in that.

The usual conventional wisdom attempted to be passed off as original insight. Vroom, no one disagrees with this.

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.

And here is where you miss, yet again - I didn’t discount ‘group viewpoints’ as nonsense, I discounted Harris’ and Professor X’s version of what the group thinks.

Perhaps an important part of the discussion should be that automatically presuming racist attitudes when there is no legitimate context in which to do so actually perpetuates racism, because it continues to drive a wedge between race relations. How could different races ever get to a point where they can trust one another if one (or the other) has decided to default to believe the other race is acting in bad faith, even when the other race actor isn’t? There is no way to overcome that, because no compliment will ever be seen as true, no respect can ever be earned based on individual appreciation, and no ability to communicate forthrightly and candidly will ever be had. The presumption is not only irrational but it is actually counterproductive, if you truly want better race relations.

If I can never act in good faith to you, we’ll never live in peace. People of all races have a duty to begin the process of acting in good faith toward one another - and continuing use of past experiences is doing nothing but creating a crutch for antiquated distrust.

Want to help race relations? Stop assuming people are racists until they give you a bona fide - that is, bona fide - reason to think they are. Best medicine for race relations I can think of.

Is it easy medicine? No - you might have to lay to rest cheap, lazy presumptions that may actually be the result of some experiences you have had, but don’t have value any more. But it should be worth it, and no minority should think such presumptions are ok.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

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.[/quote]

And I am thankful you are not me either - I would be embarrased for myself if you were.

[harris447]

[quote]pookie wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

English? Yeah, I speak it.

Teach it, actually.

And, no, one doesn’t have to be “actively searching” for blah blah b;ah.

One just needs to have been told–repeatedly, and by many black people–that it is TAKEN AS AN INSULT.

And by the way, stop being dishonest – your definition of articulate is the third definition. The first two are:

1. uttered clearly in distinct syllables.
2. capable of speech; not speechless.

But, again: please keep teling the world what black people think; French-Canadians are known throughout the world as Soul Brothers.

[Prince_Vegeta]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
pookie wrote:
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.

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.

English? Yeah, I speak it.

Teach it, actually.

And, no, one doesn’t have to be “actively searching” for blah blah b;ah.

One just needs to have been told–repeatedly, and by many black people–that it is TAKEN AS AN INSULT.

And by the way, stop being dishonest – your definition of articulate is the third definition. The first two are:

1. uttered clearly in distinct syllables.
2. capable of speech; not speechless.

But, again: please keep teling the world what black people think; French-Canadians are known throughout the world as Soul Brothers.

[/quote]

Toughen up.

[pookie]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
One just needs to have been told–repeatedly, and by many black people–that it is TAKEN AS AN INSULT.[/quote]

I guess you can take solace in the fact that there’s very little chance that you’ll ever be called articulate by anyone.

I also find it odd that it is quite easy to find article after article describing various black persons being referred to as ‘articulate.’ You’d expect a few of them to explain how offensive the term is to them, or the very least, have one of those ‘many black people’ write a letter to the editor to voice their outrage at being insulted thus.

But, again: please keep teling the world what black people think;

Where have I said anything about what black people think?

What I have said is that your initial blanket statement is much too broad in scope, and that if it is an accurate representation of how you’d see someone calling you articulate - no matter how remote the odds - you’re the one who has the problem, not them.

I’m sure that in some particular case, the tone or context could indicate that the person was acting in bad faith; but when asked to clarify, you clearly indicated that calling a black man ‘articulate’ in any context was insulting.

I hope you’ve written a scathing letter of reprimand to Jason Whitlock for his impertinent lack of respect towards Bill Cosby.

French-Canadians are known throughout the world as Soul Brothers.

Interesting view. Somehow I don’t think that publicly airing your prejudices will do much to bolster your credibility when discussing race relations.

[Edders]

[quote]pookie wrote:
harris447 wrote:

French-Canadians are known throughout the world as Soul Brothers.

Interesting view. Somehow I don’t think that publicly airing your prejudices will do much to bolster your credibility when discussing race relations.
[/quote]

Wahahaha OWNED!

[vroom]

[quote]Edders wrote:
Wahahaha OWNED!
[/quote]

Loser. When the grownups are talking they don’t need a cheering section. Thanks for playing.

–

Thunder, our lasts posts were crossed up timewise.

I will however say that the “great insights” you try to make fun of are simply motivations for being painstakingly clear and active on the topic, because it is important.

You seem to mistake my intent or purpose a lot of the time. It’s not that I think you don’t know race relations are important, but that at the risk of facing your futile insults I find it necessary to speak up.

I also think, whether or not you’ve appreciated it, or whether or not you and I argued at cross purposes, that I’ve been able to elucidate my points.

So, yes, if your only point is that in this particular case Harris might have overreacted (given NutHunters recent history of bigotry), then I don’t suppose we have any more reason to insult each other.

Sigh.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If someone came in and made the case that they, yes specifically they, had a series of experiences that jaundiced their viewpoint, I’d be sympathetic to their story - and that comports with what I have said all along. But merely making the generalization that you get to call a man a racist for the mere use of the word without any reference to context at all? Nope. Doesn’t matter what color you are - not justified.
[/quote]

Dumbest post in two pages of this thread. Who here has not been referring to CONTEXT? I know I have been mentioning it over and over again and even told you that you had no idea of the context of the situation. You went as far as to tell me how nice the person was which implies you simply made up a context for the situation instead of actually listening or asking for what the context actually was.

Bottom line, you haven’t give a shit at all about the context. You were too busy trying to pretend that my perception is wrong and that you needed to tell me what I have experienced in life.

To then write, "[quote]If someone came in and made the case that they, yes specifically they, had a series of experiences that jaundiced their viewpoint[/quote] makes everything else you wrote in this thread complete bullshit.

You actually believe that most minorities in this country have NOT experienced racism enough to be “jaundiced” by many situations that you may not be aware of? You aren’t even being truthful with yourself anymore. You claim on one hand that racism is still alive and well against minorities…but then claim any time a minority mentions a specific instance of it on this site that it is NOT racism…then you write that if a person had experienced something enough times to “jaundice” their viewpoint you would then be sympathetic towards it. Are you fucking insane? Which one is it?

Do you even know anymore, or are you too busy trying to tell people what they have experienced instead of simply listening to it?

[Headhunter]

Why can’t we have an intelligent, eloquent man like Tiki Barber for President? His list of accomplishments is outstanding: he graduated valedictorian from his high school, cum laude from college, pro football player, and is a regular on Fox. I’d vote for this fine man in a heartbeat.

Now, does everyone feel a smidgeon better?

[pookie]

Why can’t we have Tiki Barber for President? His accomplishments: he’s a college graduate, played pro football, and is a regular on Fox. I’d vote for this man.

Your 2nd version is still highly offensive; it reveals your surprise that a black man can be valedictorian or graduate magna cum laude. The use of words like “outstanding,” “eloquent” and “fine” simply pour salt into the wound. Have you learned nothing from this thread?

I propose this 3rd version, which should give even the most idiotic life-victims of this site quite a workout if they’re going to find something to be offended with.

[harris447]

[quote]pookie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
One just needs to have been told–repeatedly, and by many black people–that it is TAKEN AS AN INSULT.

I guess you can take solace in the fact that there’s very little chance that you’ll ever be called articulate by anyone.

I also find it odd that it is quite easy to find article after article describing various black persons being referred to as ‘articulate.’ You’d expect a few of them to explain how offensive the term is to them, or the very least, have one of those ‘many black people’ write a letter to the editor to voice their outrage at being insulted thus.

But, again: please keep teling the world what black people think;

Where have I said anything about what black people think?

What I have said is that your initial blanket statement is much too broad in scope, and that if it is an accurate representation of how you’d see someone calling you articulate - no matter how remote the odds - you’re the one who has the problem, not them.

I’m sure that in some particular case, the tone or context could indicate that the person was acting in bad faith; but when asked to clarify, you clearly indicated that calling a black man ‘articulate’ in any context was insulting.

I hope you’ve written a scathing letter of reprimand to Jason Whitlock for his impertinent lack of respect towards Bill Cosby.

French-Canadians are known throughout the world as Soul Brothers.

Interesting view. Somehow I don’t think that publicly airing your prejudices will do much to bolster your credibility when discussing race relations.
[/quote]

Love how you, once again, pick and choose your points to respond to.

[pookie]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Love how you, once again, pick and choose your points to respond to.[/quote]

Let’s make it simple then. What point would you like me to address?

[Professor_X]

[quote]pookie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Love how you, once again, pick and choose your points to respond to.

Let’s make it simple then. What point would you like me to address?[/quote]

I personally wouldn’t expect you to be able to respond to any of it with any amount of understanding worth reading. You have already shown you simply refuse to understand what people are saying. That makes any more comments from you a waste of internet bandwidth.

Save the internet.

[pookie]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally wouldn’t expect you to be able to respond to any of it with any amount of understanding worth reading.[/quote]

You say I cannot understand you well enough to be able to formulate a valid response. What’s the reason for that? Is it because I’m too dumb? Do I lack the required life experience to understand it? I can never experience your life (nor you, mine), yet I cannot accept that I should automatically defer to your experience on this particular question (the use of ‘articulate’ as a compliment) when there are countless examples in the written media and on TV, of the word being used as an adjective to compliment its recipient, no matter the race of either party involved.

If the word is offensive to you all the time, whatever the context, I have no problem with that. But your (and Harris’ claim) that the word is always offensive, to all blacks, is hard to accept.

I see in your recent reply to Thunderbolt that you’ve mentioned context. If Harris’ initial response is to be taken as true in the context of it being Headhunter calling Tiki Barber ‘articulate’; then I have no problem with that either. But when pressed for clarification, that is not what was said earlier.

You have already shown you simply refuse to understand what people are saying.

I understand what you’re saying perfectly. It’s not a matter of understanding. It’s a matter that I don’t feel I need to defer to your personal opinion as being right, when personal experience, not to mention plain old common sense, tells me it’s wrong.

That makes any more comments from you a waste of internet bandwidth.

Save the internet.

What would you say to cutting out the smartass remarks, from both sides, and actually discussing our divergence of opinion?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Who here has not been referring to CONTEXT? [/quote]

Well, specifically me, Pookie, and Harris initially. Let me guess - reading problems again?

Bottom line, you haven’t give a shit at all about the context. You were too busy trying to pretend that my perception is wrong and that you needed to tell me what I have experienced in life.

Well, in your case, yes - your credibility is basically zilch in such matters. Any person who begins his initial assumption that a person of a different color than him is an ‘opponent’ - I don’t trust your ‘perception’ any further than I can throw it, given not only your ridiculous ‘opponent’ comment plus your general history of nursing an enormous persecution complex and looking for racist acts in every conceivable situation.

Show me a minority who comes to this argument with ‘clean hands’, and the discussion possibly takes a different angle. That person is not you.

To then write, "If someone came in and made the case that they, yes specifically they, had a series of experiences that jaundiced their viewpoint makes everything else you wrote in this thread complete bullshit.

Can’t possibly be, because as I have stated, someone could make the case, but [/i]you[/i] haven’t. And likely you can’t, because you have ‘cried wolf’ too many times for someone like me to take you seriously.

Plus, I think the ‘experiences’ necessary would have to be pretty damn high and sustained before I would think it was ok to level a charge of racism at someone. Just as I would say a white man is not justified in being prejudicial towards blacks because of a few situations where blacks treated him poorly or talked down to him, the same is true for my standard for blacks. So yes, experience can provide context, but the threshold - just as it would for whites - would be quite high.

You actually believe that most minorities in this country have NOT experienced racism enough to be “jaundiced” by many situations that you may not be aware of?

Stop wasting my time with yet another strawman. What is ‘many situations’? We aren’t talking about many situations - learn to read. There are all kinds of situations we could look at. My point is that in this situation - the one Harris brought up - no one has justified a ‘jaundiced’ threshold, least of all your dumb ass.

You aren’t even being truthful with yourself anymore. You claim on one hand that racism is still alive and well against minorities…but then claim [/quote]any time[quote] a minority mentions a specific instance of it on this site that it is NOT racism…

Christ Almighty, again with the straw man. Dead serious - when you went through school, did you read the textbooks this poorly?

…then you write that if a person had experienced something enough times to “jaundice” their viewpoint you would then be sympathetic towards it. Are you fucking insane? Which one is it?

It’s the one you didn’t make up for me, jackass - and go read my posts. I believe it is wrong to presume a racist act in the absence of context to show it. Someone can say that context is provided by their previous experiences, but I won’t automatically assume those experiences are there or rise to the level that they are entitled to be sufficiently ‘jaundiced’ to assume an otherwise neutral statement to be racist.

Plus - and read this carefully - I really, really won’t believe that someone’s experiences have sufficiently ‘jaundiced’ them if I have a good reason to think they may have a different, completely unrelated reason why they are presuming a racist act. A perfect example would be you - I am not going to take your word for it because of your glaring past of assuming other races are ‘opponents’ (classy) and that more than anything, you crave victimhood because of the attention it affords you.

Do you even know anymore, or are you too busy trying to tell people what they have experienced instead of simply listening to it?

I couldn’t possibly tell people what their experiences are - but I can sure decide for myself whether I believe them.

[Professor_X]

[quote]pookie wrote:
You say I cannot understand you well enough to be able to formulate a valid response. [/quote]

No, that isn’t what I wrote. I wrote you REFUSE to understand. Whether you actually CAN understand it has yet to be seen.

[quote]
What’s the reason for that? Is it because I’m too dumb? Do I lack the required life experience to understand it? I can never experience your life (nor you, mine), yet I cannot accept that I should automatically defer to your experience on this particular question (the use of ‘articulate’ as a compliment) when there are countless examples in the written media and on TV, of the word being used as an adjective to compliment its recipient, no matter the race of either party involved.[/quote]

Why would my experience mirror some random experience you may have known where some racist/culturalist act has not occurred? Are we talking about some random occurrence that can happen to anyone? No, we are specifically talking about the experiences of many minorities and specifically an experience I have had. Who gives a flying shit what YOU have experienced in that regard? Unless you are a minority, that means absolutely nothing within the context of what we are discussing.

This needed to be explained?

[quote]

If the word is offensive to you all the time, whatever the context, I have no problem with that. But your (and Harris’ claim) that the word is always offensive, to all blacks, is hard to accept.[/quote]

Wait a second, dumbass. Who said “all of the time”? Has that been MY stance in this thread? Go back, read it again, and respond with some sort of truthful sense…if you even have the ability.

I see in your recent reply to Thunderbolt that you’ve mentioned context.

Again, dumbass, my position from the start has been CONTEXT. If you could actually understand what I wrote, you would know that. I guess that proves you can NOT understand instead of simply that you refuse to.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, specifically me, Pookie, and Harris initially. Let me guess - reading problems again?[/quote]

This is funny. This coming from someone whose main stance in this thread has been nothing but contradiction? I just pointed it out to you in the last post to you. I guess it didn’t sink in.

[quote]
Well, in your case, yes - your credibility is basically zilch in such matters. Any person who begins his initial assumption that a person of a different color than him is an ‘opponent’ - I don’t trust your ‘perception’ any further than I can throw it, given not only your ridiculous ‘opponent’ comment plus your general history of nursing an enormous persecution complex and looking for racist acts in every conceivable situation.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. If you truly gathered from that previous post that “any person of a different color” is an opponent, you clearly can NOT comprehend what is written. That isn’t what was implied at all and isn’t what I wrote. I DARE you to post the exact quote and show me where it states this.

This debate goes no further until you stop lying.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This is funny. This coming from someone whose main stance in this thread has been nothing but contradiction? I just pointed it out to you in the last post to you. I guess it didn’t sink in.[/quote]

Well, let’s see - since I took you remark and explained it, the above paragraph makes no sense. Where is the contradiction? I don’t believe anyone should imply racist action without appropriate context, and while sometimes context can be supplied by personal experience, I am not going to to automatically assume the experience provides the necessary context. And given that the compliment is used over and over and over again without complaint - by blacks towards blacks even - the idea that the ‘jaundiced view’ exists as a given just doesn’t make any sense.

So - where again is the contradiction?

Isn’t there some thread where 15 year old weightlifters need you to tell them how awesome you are? The adults are talking here.

[quoteYou can’t be serious. If you truly gathered from that previous post that “any person of a different color” is an opponent, you clearly can NOT comprehend what is written.[/quote]

Hilariously, we have written over and over on your use of the word ‘opponent’, and now you come out and try to defend it? Can’t unring that bell, Professor. And given your desperation for victimhood, it makes perfect sense that you think everyone else is an ‘opponent’.

[quote]That isn’t what was implied at all and isn’t what I wrote. I DARE you to post the exact quote and show me where it states this.

This debate goes no further until you stop lying.[/quote]

Feeling under pressure to explain yourself now, Prof? By the way, this debate goes on as long as someone wants to intelligently discuss the issues - you have proven you aren’t up to it.

[Headhunter]

Tiki,

Being a football player, if you’re reading this, come in and mediate here. We NEED you!!

[vroom]

Once again it appears that a certain dynamic duo doesn’t have the ability to understand the concept of living a life with the breeze at your back instead of in your face.

I think the reason these two reject the concept is because they are unable to fathom the fact that for some people the situation is ever present, ever a consideration, while for others it simply does not exist.

Never having noticed it, it simply does not exist to them.

Agreeing that minorities have a different subjective experience every day, and while growing up, and then denying them the ability to determine whether or not phrases or compliments are the result of racial bias seems to be a contradiction itself.

Are these clowns suggesting that minorities are unable to or incompetent with respect to judging what they are living through?

Nope, no contradiction and no arrogance around here…

There are world views that are different than yours and simultaneously are also as correct as yours. I don’t know if that will fit in your tiny little craniums, but try to stuff it in there.