Who killed him? The cops call it "random." But statistics point to a black man. But Sean Taylor's death is more than a crime.
Fox News' Jason Whitlock has become the African American version of Ahmed Chalabi. He says what the power elite need to hear to justify attack.When Jewish kids shot up Columbine, did Jewish reporters blame Jewish Hollywood for Satanic violent movies? What's up with Plantation Negros eager to blame societal violence on one small segment of society?KP said...
" hip hop is low hanging fruit and shallow analysis. when you can take hip hop to jail call me."
- rrrrinnnnnggggg ... rrrrinnnnnggggg
" hip hop is low hanging fruit and shallow analysis. when you can take hip hop to jail call me."
and here's an example of "Islam being taken to jail".
25 comments:
This is where black cultural critics lose me. Except for Cobb, when I look under the carapace of black conservatves they dont really believe in the primacy of the individual. They readily submit that the right to justice is legitimately undermined by perceived moral laxity. Given their outlook, the victims of past lynchings would have obviated their rights to due process if they spoke 'bad' English, wore unorthodox clothes, had kids out of wedlock, listened to rap music with explicit lyrics, or just appeared guilty after superficial examination of circumstantial evidence.
They overlook objective facts about economic instability and say that just getting married and reading a book to our kids will magically empower black families. As I've told my friend, Afronerd, 'man up' is not a policy proposal.
I have never seen or read of George Will being embarrassed after a young white male shot up a school or Cokie Roberts blushing after a young white woman seduced her male student at a middle school. In their willingness to totally subsume the person, the social critics share much with our mutual friend, Michael Fisher.
hip hop is low hanging fruit and shallow analysis. when you can take hip hop to jail call me.
KP
I just now posted about the imperative necessity of identifying and destroying false ideas. While I'm still axe-grinding about the attempt to revive eugenics, the parallels between that and what Big Sexy is perpetrating about hiphop seem pretty tight.
As allegedly independent agents within the consensus reality, one of the things each of us has to do in our lives is to discover, as far as possible, the grounds for believing what we are asked to believe. Theories of human nature are inherently controversial because they are socially constructed. This includes allegedly scientific theories of human nature. Whenever you see something presented under the rubric of human nature: science, technology, and life - question it ruthlessly.As allegedly independent agents within the consensus reality, one of the things each of us has to do in our lives is to discover, as far as possible, the grounds for believing what we are asked to believe. Theories of human nature are inherently controversial because they are socially constructed. This includes allegedly scientific theories of human nature. Whenever you see something presented under the rubric of human nature: science, technology, and life - question it ruthlessly.
Now I've got the NY Times and the WAPO on my eugenics critical watchlist. But since McClatchey along with FAUX pays dumbo's check, should they also go on the watch list because of the attack on hiphop?
Has his attack yet encompassed the corporate entities who have chiefly profited from the proliferation of destructive Rhyming and Posing(RaP)?
Bill O'Reilly (FAUX point man) for example, has been compelled to point the finger at the record labels rather than just the minstrel Bamas (sorry DV, but I'm just not sold on the greatness and artistry of most of this shyte) just like I'm not sold on the nutritional value of high fructose corn syrup as a preferred industrial substitute for sugar - itself one helluva drug.
I'm wondering if Whitlock has been tapped to pursue the fragmenting tactic by focusing with Cosby-ite myopia on only the Bamas instead of also dealing with the folks who select, edit, produce, publish, distribute, and principally profit from their toxic warez?
I didn't know Whitlock went to Fox News? Dang, did he really say that? He was cool when he was just on ESPN!
LOL KP!
DV
"When Jewish kids shot up Columbine, did Jewish reporters blame Jewish Hollywood for Satanic violent movies? What's up with Plantation Negros eager to blame societal violence on one small segment of society?"
First over 95% of the media is owned by white males many of which are Jewish. There were numerous news agencies blaming violent movies as the genisis for this event which via logic would mean owned by mostly white men and some of Jewish decent. Secondly, the rap, hip-hop, gangst music industry is over 95% white and mostly Jewish. Most of the big record corporations are white/Jewish controlled. Thus when the white/Jewsih controlled media writes/broadcast or supports protest against the rap,Hip-hop, gansta rap industry. It is really white/Jews against White/Jews in a nut shell my friend. Nothing more ..Nothing less! Because Jason Whitlock has no voice without them.
It is really white/Jews against White/Jews in a nut shell my friend. Nothing more ..Nothing less! Because Jason Whitlock has no voice without them.
Nicely put. It does beg the question, however, as to whether that's the propaganda effect on public consensus as well as the underlying nature of the dustup?
Nanakwame hit me up this morning with a link announcing that next week, New Scientist is going to hit a big lick against the genetic determinism camp. This would suggest that the anglo-dutch combine Reed-Elsevier comes down on a different side of the eugenics debate than the NYT/WAPO/Cold Spring Harbor. I think it quite important to discern and effectively exploit political differences within the TEP. At a bare minimum it's useful to know who are your enemies and who are your potential allies.
Only an ahistorical political bad actor would paint the entire TEP as his enemy and in the process deceive a lot of folk even less inclined than himself to think critically or to crack a muhfuggin book...,
cnulan...
"Question ruthlessly".
Thus, here we go again:
cnulan...
"The history books are as open to..."
Craig. Tell me this. Absent the "cognitive error" of identifying "ethnic groups" as separate species, would there be such a thing as "racism"?
Figure it out on your own Michael.
cnulan:
"Figure it out on your own Michael."
My pin-headed lack of intelligence won't let me.
Thus, once again, Craig:
Tell me this. Absent the "cognitive error" of identifying "ethnic groups" as separate species, would there be such a thing as "racism"?
Tell me this. Absent the "cognitive error" of identifying "ethnic groups" as separate species, would there be such a thing as "racism"?
Hell ... I'd like to know the answer to that my damn self.
I'm the blackest cat in any room, and I've never been a victim of "racism" in my life.
I've never been a victim of anything.
Look at me. Of what am I a victim?
Those that INSIST racism is not only real, but damn near EVERYTHING have yet to proffer cognitive liminal seratonin uptake explanations that would resolve the competing realities of supposed "victims", who are obviously blessed.
It's amazing how this father, son, brother and man's death is politicized. My brother ran track for U. Of M. and used to work out with Taylor and said he was an incredibly humble and nice guy. He also lived next door to his girlfriend. The super tragedy of the situation is he was shot in the femoral artery and died because he was brain dead due to loss of blood. The death would have easily been avoided if someone simply applied pressure to the wound to stop the bleeding. Sad, sad, sad.
"I'm the blackest cat in any room, and I've never been a victim of "racism" in my life."
DV, exactly how limited is your definition of the word victim? Does it require your conscious knowledge of victimization for you to have been victimized? Are you aure you have never been denied any priviledge whatsoever based on your skin color? Are you sure there is no tangible benefit that should have accrued to you that was interdicted by the application of R/WS to you or perhaps to one or more of your ancestors?
I understand the visceral need to believe in your own strength and I am in no way attempting to denigrate your obvious sense of self-worth. But does that need require you to put blinders on to the reality around you? Does it devalue a person to acknowledge that someone has taken somthing from them? Does the fact that you may have managed to recover from that loss mean that the loss never happened?
Can we at least interject a little logic into the arguement against the existance of R/WS? My wife brought up the very good point that just because a person has never been the victim of rape doesn't mean that rape doesn't happen. Even if we were to accept the premise that ou yourself have never been a "victim" of racism, does it follow logically that racism doesn't exist?
My wife brought up the very good point that just because a person has never been the victim of rape doesn't mean that rape doesn't happen.
Your analogy is off. It would have been logically correct if you said "just because I've never been raped, doesn't mean I've never been a victim of rape."
But the absurdity of that statement illustrates exactly the point DV is making.
Is it possible to be a victim of murder if you've never been murdered? Is it possible to be a victim of burglary if your house has never been robbed?
Why shouldn't victimization require your conscious knowledge? If it didn't, how do you know you are a victim?
But I suspect therein lies the rub. Those who want to be victims want to read victimization into anything and everything. It is their religion. Just like the devout Christian sees God in everything, the devout Victimologist sees victimization in everything, whether it's tangible or not.
Replacing faith in God with faith in GSWS.
II your analogy is off, Exodus is perfectly correct. Denmark Vesey may claim that he has never experienced racism/ be ignorant of its existence, but that does not mean racism./ GSWS does not exist.
"Why shouldn't victimization require your conscious knowledge? If it didn't, how do you know you are a victim?"
This is honestly the most absurd thing ever written. If one does not know that they are a slave does it mean that they are not a slave? Think carefully before you respond.
Anonymous,
Fair points, but they beg the ultimate question. Who must have "knowledge" or awareness of victimization for it to exist? In other words, whose thoughts bring this "system" into existence?
Perhaps this is the same existential question as "if the tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make noise?"
If the purported victim of an action does not believe herself to be a victim, how has victimization happened?
How is it possible to be a slave without knowing? If one is engaging in any act voluntarily, then that is not slavery, except the self-induced variety we find so prevalent these days.
Perhaps it is your argument that victimization has happened because a third party says so. A sort of vicarious victimhood if you will. Didn't Harriet Tubman once say that she could have freed more slaves if only she could have convinced them they were slaves?
Is it that you want to do the same?
You want to convince them they are slaves so you or someone other high priest of Victimology can be their savior?
Kind of like what NOW did. Plenty of women were content with life, maybe with a gripe or two here and there. Then NOW came in and convinced women that they are ALL victims of a ubiquitous Global System of Male Supremacy and must fight this system everywhere it is to be found (which, conveniently enough, is everywhere). All because Gloria Steinem said so.
At what point does this vicarious victimization get called what it really is - vicarious inferiority complex?
"If the purported victim of an action does not believe herself to be a victim, how has victimization happened?"
Whether or not one believes himself to be a victim, does not mean victimization has not occurred.
"How is it possible to be a slave without knowing? If one is engaging in any act voluntarily, then that is not slavery, except the self-induced variety we find so prevalent these days."
Slavery by its very definition means involuntary servitude, so it is not possible to be a "voluntarily" slave (the term is oxymoronic). In addition, ignorance neither dismisses the fact that victimization has occurred/ is occurring.
"Perhaps it is your argument that victimization has happened because a third party says so. A sort of vicarious victimhood if you will."
You're engaging in the "play of semantics". Quite frankly one can be victimized without considering oneself a victim (hence the popular slogan: "I'm a survivor, not a victim"- this in no way dismisses the fact that victimization has occurred.
"Didn't Harriet Tubman once say that she could have freed more slaves if only she could have convinced them they were slaves?"
Read the above.
"Is it that you want to do the same? You want to convince them they are slaves so you or someone other high priest of Victimology can be their savior?"
Who's convincing anybody of anything/ trying to be their savior?
You're the one who tries desperately to convince everyone that women are victims of feminism, not me.
Your past experts from TSO:
"...Oh, because Steinem & Co. convinced women that having children is a horrible burden and work is the greatest thing a woman can ever do." Dina
And that black men are victims of the white feminists too-
Dina "Maybe you need to find a man and learn how to spot an attack on the Black man when you see one."
So who again is trying to be the savior for women and black men?
"Kind of like what NOW did. Plenty of women were content with life, maybe with a gripe or two here and there. Then NOW came in and convinced women that they are ALL victims of a ubiquitous Global System of Male Supremacy and must fight this system everywhere it is to be found (which, conveniently enough, is everywhere). All because Gloria Steinem said so." II
Plenty of women were content and plenty of women were not content which is why the feminist movement occurred. While Steinem may credited as the founder of "modern feminism", feminism occurred/ was occurring before she came about. Now you are arguing the same thing you are preaching against which is that women fell "victims" to the feminist (Steinem) movement.
"At what point does this vicarious victimization get called what it really is - vicarious inferiority complex?"
Labeling a problem does not suggest that one suffers from a "vicarious inferiority complex". Also if one has provided reasons to suggest victimization is occurring, then the burden would fall on the person with the differing view to provide compelling reasons that such victimization (racism, sexism, etc) does not exist.
Anonymous,
I continue to await your responses to my questions.
If a woman is raped, that does not make all women victims. If a Black person experiences bigotry, that does not make all Black people victims. If a homosexual is attacked, it doesn't mean all homosexuals are oppressed.
At what point do we get to be individuals who decide for ourselves how to interpret situations rather than have some sort of Book of Dreams that interprets all situations with an arrow pointing to racism?
I'm 5'2". Am I a victim because I have been deprived of the opportunity to play ball for the NBA and will never be afforded that opportunity?
What if I never wanted to play ball? Would I still be a victim of discrimination against short people since there is a systemic policy of depriving short people of the opportunity to play basketball? Global System of Tall Supremacy.
II
Exodus answered this question- "just because a person has never been the victim of rape doesn't mean that rape doesn't happen."
"If a woman is raped, that does not make all women victims. If a Black person experiences bigotry, that does not make all Black people victims. If a homosexual is attacked, it doesn't mean all homosexuals are oppressed."
II this question can be rephrased to ask: If a black person does not experience racism, does it mean that racism does not exist?
"At what point do we get to be individuals who decide for ourselves how to interpret situations rather than have some sort of Book of Dreams that interprets all situations with an arrow pointing to racism?"
Who is narrowly pointing everything to racism? And who designated the high priest status to you to point to feminism/ consumerism?
Do you fully comprehend the difference between the term victim and the term victimization?
And do you or do you not believe that anti-black racism is at root of the America society?
II this question can be rephrased to ask: If a black person does not experience racism, does it mean that racism does not exist?
Not for that person.
What if a Black person experiences what you call racism, but he calls it something else? Like say, jealousy. Is it still racism? Who gets to make the call?
And do you or do you not believe that anti-black racism is at root of the America society?
Interesting way to phrase the issue. There are all sorts of prejudices that are at the "root" of ALL societies. What is so unique about that?
racism can be tangible, it can also be the figment of someones imagination. neither cancels out the other!
II racism is racism regardless of whether one wants to label it a form of jealousy, hatred, envy, etc. (this is not meant to be a play on semantics)
And do you or do you not believe that anti-black racism is at root of the America society?
Is that a yes or no?
II
Also who made you savior for women and black men?
"At what point do we get to be individuals who decide for ourselves how to interpret situations"
"You want to convince them they are slaves so you or someone other high priest of Victimology can be their savior?"
"Would I still be a victim of discrimination against short people since there is a systemic policy of depriving short people of the opportunity to play basketball? Global System of Tall Supremacy."
II, It's statements like these that make me wonder if we can ever really move forward. Intellectual Dishonesty is not a good tactic for an insurgent. Creating strawmen arguements like your savior statement above, are beneath your intelect. Tall people aren't typically jockeys or cast in the roles of munchkins in the Wizard of OZ; does that imply some sort of Global system of short supremacy?
At what point has anyone decided for you how to interpret a situation? You are always free to apply your own interpretation to any situation. Like say tomorrow morning you wake up and it's a cloudy day. You deduce from that phenomena that the sun has ceased to shine. You are more than welcome to conduct yourself accordingly based on your interpretation of the situation. How does that freedom of interpretation work out for you if it's not cloudy tomorrow?
Let's make it even easier for you. A Klansman points a gun at you and tells you he is going to kill your black ass if you don't get out of the mostly white small southern town you find yourself in. You interpret that situation to be completely harmless and decide to partake of the cuisine at the local diner. If you later find yourself shot up and hung out to dry, will your last thoughts be a celebration of your inalienable right of self interpretation?
It does not infringe on your individuality to live in the real world and deal with reality just like the rest of us. It does infringe on the rest of us when/if you decide to conduct yourself in a self destructive, or group destructive manner, based on a set of interpretations that you have independently decided trump the real, solid evidence of your senses.
Your major problem with concepts of R/Ws appear to be that you just simply do not want it to exist. That's a wonderful sentiment that I happen to share with you. The problem is that just because you and I wish it weren't so doesn't change the facts on the ground.
"At what point does this vicarious victimization get called what it really is - vicarious inferiority complex"
It really would help if you at least tried to comprehend a point I have been trying to make for some time. Work on just this simple statement of my position. Remember, your salvation is not my concern here, simply the exchange of ideas. You may be more able to enlighten me than I am to enlighten you.
Examination or acknowledgement of the existence of a GSWS does not imply or infer that the system has succeeded in esatblishing a universal practical application. In fact, the simple fact that we can identify and strive against such a system neccesitates the logical thought process that the system is not complete and perfect and can therefore be overcome. Further, there is no inherent inferiority contemplated by an examination of a GSWS, because the main premise behind the formation of said system is that it is founded on an ignorant and illogical premise and is itself a product of a displaced inferiority complex that is the main cause of the system coming into being.
Ex,
One thing I've found in philosophy, psychology, religion and other disciplines as the key to strength and mental health is the fundamental principle that nothing is personal. So, if someone yells at you at work, it's probably not about you, but about their fight with a spouse, lack of sleep because of stress, etc. When you're wife is annoyed about something and yells at you because you didn't put the toilet seat down, you can recognize that the issue is not the toilet seat. Right?
With regard to racism, I don't see how the "it's not personal" principle wouldn't apply. Even if someone says, "I hate you because you're Black", one must wonder what it is about Blackness that creates such an emotion in that person. Perhaps his girlfriend left him for a Black man and he feels a burning sense of inferiority, maybe he got hustled or whatever. But people take out their frustrations on others all the time. That's human nature unfortunately.
People who hate Asians are likely to be jealous of their success in education. People who hate Blacks are likely to be jealous of their dominance in all things worshipped in our society - strength, lack of fear, bravado, arts, sports, dating, etc. Etc., etc.
There are two ways to interpret any situation - one that victimizes you and one that empowers you. If you choose to interpret a situation as evidence of systemic White supremacy, then you are victimized by a system that is stacked against you, tears, crying, etc. Or, if you choose to interpret the situation as an encounter with someone who is jealous of you because you make them feel inferior, then you walk away affirmed in your own superiority.
You choose. It's up to you. If your philosophy works for you then, by all means, keep it.
Personally, I am not concerned about whether someone denied me something because I am a woman, of color, short, etc. Because I've been more than blessed.
And most people on this blog I can only assume are just as blessed, if not more blessed than I. Why they would choose to label themselves as victims when they are probably stunning examples of success in spite of being surrounded by a bunch of hyena player-haters all their lives is beyond me.
Who is more superior than someone who is surrounded by jealous, inferior, player haters and doesn't let the tyranny of the mediocre drag them down?
Post a Comment