January 20, 2005

Two wrongs do not make a right, but it does produce equality.

Can racism be a cure for racism? Some say no. Yet, analogously, how can snake venom be a cure for snake bites? How can counter violence be a cure for a violent attack? How can kidnapping a person and holding him against his will be a cure for the wrongs a person commits against another in the form of a crime? How can setting a controlled forest fire help prevent and cure out of control forest fires? How can injecting people with a virus help prevent people from contracting the virus? If a leg was broken and healed without being set properly, the re-breaking of the leg is required to reset it so that it can heal properly.

The truth is that the effects of racism cannot be offset without the practice of racism. Inequality was created from unequal treatment of equal peoples. The only way to undo the effects of unequal treatment is to reverse the unequal treatment. Mathematically, inequalities are created when an equation that was once equal is manipulated asymmetrically. In other words, one side is treated out of balance with the other, changing the equality to an inequality. A fundamental rule of mathematics is that in order to maintain equality, both sides must be treated equally. Thus, the only cure for inequality is to go forward with reversing the unequal treatment of sides. That is the only solution that logic provides.

In my own life, I practice discrimination. Any thing that I have of value I try to share that with another black person. I know many wonderful white people, but none of my best friends are white. I believe in targeting black people with for the sharing of all the things that I feel have value and worth. It is not that there are not white people who do not merit this sharing, but rather, that the inequality will never be broken unless discrimination is done to favor black peoples. If one accepts the proposition that blacks must pull themselves up their bootstraps, then they are promoting black racism and discrimination in favor of our people to do just that. Others argue towards individualism and that individuals should succeed or fail ignoring collective membership. However, historical white racism was a collective action that had a collective racial effect and thus requires a collective counter action.

I object to the notion that equality can be restored without focusing on race, which some people call or see as being racist. If a person has a broken leg, it does not make sense to treat each limb equally, if the goal is to cure or heal the breakage. A competent physician would target the limb that was broken for treatment, thus giving it attention and effort not provided to the other. When there is a specific ailment on should not seek a general treatment, but rather, a specific treatment. The idea that we can somehow effectively treat past racism with a colorblind solution is illogical, as I demonstrated mathematically. It is a concept that is the creation of a white supremacy nation that continues not to be contemporary with the true realities of the problem and cure of black problems in this nation. Whites cannot accept it when they too must assume some burdens in providing the cures for past racism (such as Affirmative Action), which means by default that they can accept that blacks continue to suffer from the effects of past and present white racism.

In conclusion, although many white people allow themselves to feel normalized by highlighting and pointing out black racism, it is not the same phenomenon as white racism. Racism and discrimination, done carefully and strategically, that moves an inequality towards equality is a logical and good thing. On the other hand, racism and discrimination that augments inequality, which white racism does, is a bad and illogical thing. They only way that this would not be true is if one assumes that the premise that the races are equal in capacities is actually false. Then the whole logical theory does not hold water for those who believe that that genetics keeps blacks from being able to perform equally to whites in the type of behaviors and achievements that create income and wealth


At 12:37 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Noah, your reasoning and logic (i.e. reasoning that is based on strict, self-evident logic and not emotion or ridiculous, eyes-closed absolutes) is far too clear... far too sound... You know people have an aversion to logic. (Those people who would beg to disagree with you - us.)

Racism is racism. PERIOD!! They told you!
Just as a crime is a crime. A murder is the same as a one or two punch fight. Self-defense doesn't matter. It's still "wrong". Thou shalt not kill... EVER! Thou shalt not fight... EVER!

There was a clean slate established in the 60's after the Civil Rights Movement. lol

What's funny about the reasoning (actual the poor rationalE... because it's simply not rational) is that there are some opponents of say Affirmative Action who somehow can or will say that it was okay in someway at first but now it has gone too far... outlived its usefulness. Well, that's fine but there's the little problem of what constitutes what made it okay at one time and not okay now.

And, for those who will dare say it was always wrong then the logic you've clear presented blatantly exposes the irrationality of that kind of reasoning.

Now, mind you, Affirmative Action is anemic at best as a policy prescription when juxtaposed to the centuries worth of weight placed on the one side of the equation. But one thing is conspicuously absent in anti-AA assessments. The opponents dare not make a full, fair and accurate accounting of White privilege and preference, not only in the past - which AA couldn't match if it went on for the next 1000 years - but the built-in preferences Whites get in over-predominant was that extend out of the most blatant and purposely racist practices of the past.

But, Noah, you're suppose to turn a blind eye to all that and just focus on what Whites are concerned about. They are the agenda setters when it comes to that and so the mindless follow suit.

Now, I can perfectly respect a range of arguments against AA. As I said, I think it's anemic at best. So I'm not wedded to it as if it's a cure-all Black Salvo. It would be interesting to look at other models for addressing systemic racism. I believe British or other world models made no bones about calling their AA "positive racism".

Regardless, whatever ones opinion is the logical facts are there. They can't just be arbitrarily dismissed as so many would prefer.

A White msg board poster I'm acquainted with posed an excellent question for AA detractors that I have yet seen addressed either directly to him or elsewhere:

When did Black people become full responsible for all their living conditions and everything, every socio-political force that comes to bear in creating them given that we are just one or two generations removed from America's Apartheid?

Note: If you agree there is still racism, especially institutional racism... then the idea that Black people are completely "responsible" their situation and "You Can't Blame The White Man, etc., etc." is an exaggeration. It's an attempt, regardless of motivation (good or bad), to be less than truthful.

I say, let's deal with the whole truth, use pure logic and let the chips fall where they may.

At 3:02 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

One thing is interesting to note here Noah since Affirmative Action is the only so-called form of reverse-discrimination. If the U-Michigan case is any indication then people aren’t even being truthful about that. Not a single person who pretends to be all about merit has said anything about the lack of it when White students get admitted when they have lower GPA’s and test scores. That was exactly the case in the UM case. (It’s also ironic how Blacks virtually got all the negative attention from that.)

I’ve cited this in a number of places and by all appearances these figures seem to be a Show Stopper. That is, those who vehemently argue against AA and label it flatly as (reverse) discrimination... They either completely leave the conversation/debate or clearly evade the truth-force of these stats:

“The intervenors studied the admissions decisions during the year plaintiff Jennifer Gratz applied. They found many white students with lesser qualifications than Gratz were admitted. Of the 2,661 admitted students with lower standardized test scores and grade point averages, some 1,243 were white and 725 were black.”


So 47% of the students that got in ahead of Gratz were White. Only 27% were Black and other minorities composed some 26% of the students with lower GPA’s and test scores.

Now, where was all the outrage about these apparent “underperforming” White students? Mind you we’re are talking about merit. Last time I checked, merit sees no color. So how is it that the overwhelming presumption is that a Black student somehow got the unfair advantage or race-based preference?

Unless all students relevant scores, etc. are laid out side-by-side, there is no way of telling who would have been the one that got admitted into her spot (as if she had one with predestined for her). I’m waiting to see the reports of how Whites are being discriminated against by the institutionally sanctioned preference for some Whites (with lesser grades) over other Whites.

Holding my breath... I am not.

At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I’m not onboard with the premise of your argument, but I will not bludgeon you with my ideas because there was a time in the not so distant future when I felt exactly the same way. I’m also bored with antagonism at the moment. That period in my life was extremely instrumental to my intellectual development… It was both beautiful and terrible. It’s not important whether or not we agree or disagree. It’s only important that you are asking the right questions – which you most certainly are (In fact, they are huge philosophical questions). I want to share some books with you that you may or may not be familiar with. I hope you don’t take this as paternalistic, or condescending because it isn’t. My friends and I always share books that inspire us intellectually. I would hope that you would do the same. I’m just excited by the questions that you’ve raised here. If you’ve read these books, I would still love to hear your thoughts on them (or the thoughts of anyone else who may be reading this).

“Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life,” by Giorgio Agamben

“Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison,” by Michel Foucault
Especially check out the essay called “Panopticism.”

“Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line,” by Paul Gilroy

“The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness,” by Paul Gilroy

“Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” by Paulo Freire

“Of Hospitality,” by Jacques Derrida & Anne Dufourmantelle

“Monolingualism of the Other or The Prosthesis of Origin,” by Jacques Derrida

“Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex,” by Judith Butler


At 6:39 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Roland, I am not a well read person. I tend to stay away from the synopses of others, when I feel I have the ability to bare witness to truth through my own ponderings and intellectual exercising. What I base my thesis on is nature laws and truth, which are communicated through the language of logic and mathematics. Logic and mathematics is the only way to come to an objective truth. All other formations of arguments is always subjective at it roots and can never produce closure. Closer can only come with objectivity and not with subjectivity.

I do not seek or need your agreement with my thesis. people can and often do disagree out of spite and or ignorance. My thesis is sound by the only thing that matters, which is the language of nature and hence by the creator, who is ultimately responsible for the laws, rules and order of nature. Even biblically I believe that there is a passage about the sins of the father passing the burden on to the descendants, paraphrasing. All the debts of sins of past whites will thus be passed onto their descendants, who shall pay the price of the reversal of fortune. The first will thus be last and the last will thus be first until such time that equilibrium is restored.

At 7:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My previous post was an effort on my part to extinguish the antagonism of our earlier exchanges. I think I failed. Definitely our concerns are similar, but our methods and base of knowledge differ significantly. Anyway, I wanted to respond thoughtfully because I am troubled by the attitudes I hear expressed on this forum. Which is basically just another “Hate” site. But this saddens me because you are fellow African-American’s and I want only the best for you.

So these are my final thoughts…

I value reading and education immensely. No nation or people can progress without it. That is why Whites in the Antebellum South preferred to kill a black person rather than allow them to become literate and educated. The consequences of such historical prohibitions are certainly at the root of many of our problems today. I read for both pleasure, and for the intellectual challenges that it poses for me. Sometimes I read purely for the love of words, but primarily I read to accumulate knowledge (historical, cultural, political, critical, literary, whatever…) I don’t read to discover truth, or to be indoctrinated by the biases of others. Though, I find immense polemical value in readings that I disagree with. I think it is more edifying in general. I’m wary of truth because contained within one man’s truth is usually the justification for another man’s subjugation. Most importantly, I have also found that reading prohibits me from remaining trapped in my own bigotries and prejudices. Many avoid reading for this very reason. Ignorance is bliss, as they say…

Education certainly doesn’t lead to intelligence, but it does lift people out of ignorance and naiveté. They may still choose hatred, but at least they will have knowledge of the historical and socio-political consequences of their actions.

In your earlier postings you laid out a complex rationale for the value of hatred, as well as for the implementation and practice of racial discrimination – both as a means to redress past inequities. Those methods have been in practice by blacks and all racial/ethnic groups in this country for decades, but little progress has been achieved in terms of equality. Some people call what you are advocating “essentialism;” the privileging of one group over another. And what it creates is a social, political and cultural climate of “competing identities.” So basically, each group – through the practice of systematic racial discrimination – only looks out for, and protects the interests of they’re own kind – while they make pleas to the WASP establishment for reparations. How stupid is that?

But even still… there is no equality in sight.

Racial minorities in America (including poor disenfranchised whites), if they were to come together in solidarity, would form a powerful lobby that could not be ignored. That is why anti-miscegenation laws were created during slavery. Our government has worked tirelessly to keep us polarized and suspicious of each other. They love the kind of “essentialism” that keeps blacks (and all other unfortunates) locked in a cycle of socio-political narcissism; a narcotic trance of impenetrable, soul-bending ignorance that keeps them fixated on their own plight at the expense of other oppressions.

I find it bizarre how can you speak to the ignorance of others when you do not read yourself? In fact you embrace your ignorance, wearing it like a badge of honor. You speak of “nature laws,” (I think you mean the laws of nature?) and mathematics – both of which have failed immensely when applied to the unpredictability of human behavior. Why do you think that mathematics does not contain all of the biases, conceits and prohibitions of the cultures that produced them? Mathematics has never been objective! The inferiority of black people (women, Jews, the Irish, the poor) at one time was mathematically and scientifically justified – and still is in many people’s minds. YOU MUST READ! (Have you ever heard of Physiognomy and Phrenology? If not, you MUST look them up!) And Religion is the most subjective of all, because its “supposed” truths are bound up in faith (which cannot be measured). Also, every act of human barbarism one can think of, from slavery, manifest destiny, colonialism, Apartheid, to Sept. 11th and the Iraq War were justified by the so-called “natural laws” and “truths” of religious faith. No social club is better at telling us whom we should hate than your local Church, synagogue, temple or Mosque.

Keep dreaming! There is no “nature law (?)” or biblical prophecy that is going to punish whites and restore the equilibrium. There was never equilibrium; someone was always being victimized and exploited. The only thing being passed down to contemporary whites by their evil ancestors is cotton, colonial, bootlegging and opium wealth. There is no divine intervention that is going save us my friend.

I’ve met many people that were brilliant, insightful thinkers that were not educated – institutionally speaking. But they were “all” avid readers. Most of your stated understanding of “nature laws (?)” and mathematics are based on misinformation that could be easily corrected by simply – “READING!” All the half-assed mechanics and inept rationalisms you articulate to justify the crudity of your hatred for Whites (but especially yourself) will drag you down my friend. When systematic oppression (real or imagined) makes a people advocate and reproduce hatred, then hatred has won the battle. You don’t understand this now, but someday you will.

You say that this site is not beholden to the dictates of White culture, but that is not true. This forum is trapped in the sickness White Supremacy, and the hatred it produces.

I suppose only the creator; “nature laws (?)” and mathematics can save you from yourself! Or maybe, you’re just content being another bigot amongst bigots!!!

Signing off for good… But I'll be watching

At 10:54 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

I won't laugh even though you post was very funny R.C. Webb...

I will however point out this fallacy-flaw:
||| "Those methods have been in practice by blacks and all racial/ethnic groups in this country for decades, but little progress has been achieved in terms of equality." |||

FYI... Blacks have not instituted so-called "racism" as you see it in affirmative action. It's amazing how you talk about scholarship (or rather consulting it) but unquestionably abandoned any honest scholarship with that one.

Ignorance is a sin, as I see it. Ignorance as bliss is from a completely different worldview than mine.

Well, R.C. Webb... we will certainly miss your preaching that for sure. lol

At 10:57 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

Roland you live in a world of hypothetical that can only produce hypothetical answers. Your hypothetical world that is dependent on hypothetical situations producing even more hypothetical responses can not account for those anomalies you profess that are produced by Culture, Bias and other things humans behavior may offer. Thus when you talk about “if” racial minorities come together this or that may happen you have no basis to believe that such will be produced because such has not happen on a large scale that can be used as the tool by which we can compare and measure such phenomenon’s. Where as when we speak about Black unity, Black men and women doing for self and continuing to fight and speak out again white supremacy and white skin privilege, not only is their precedent but the results of such precedent is widely known.

You can continue to talk about the hate you see expressed on this Blog, it will not change the truth of what we are saying or the reality it deals with. As I stated before, you agree with most of what is said on this Blog you simply disagree with how it is being said because it seems uncompromising or not as nice as the way you would have said it. Your so-called commitment to the uplift of Black men and women is suspects in regards to your continued mentioning of inter-racial relationships. It is hard to fathom how one can talk about the destruction of the Black family and all the problems facing our community but not see the lost of our best trained, best educated, and in many cases wealthy Black men and women to inter-racial relationships as a problem but then again maybe this is something personal with you.

You seem to believe you have a superior way of presenting the idea’s presented on this Blog, you know without all the hatred. Show and prove Black man, if you do then do so, I would love to see you put your thoughts down over a time period like the time in which you had to critique ours, it would definitely be telling. Don’t be a stranger, you are always welcome here as well as your opinion.

At 6:03 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Roland is leaving us because his unstated mission was to convert us through the power of his preaching, but not his teachings. Our debate failed to move either side for one simple reason….the inability to accept OBJECTIVE METRICS by both sides.

Roland argument was based upon I BELIEVE, such as, I believe that this blog is one of hate. He has no objective means of proving that we are consumed or motivated by hate. Even if we say that we have hate, that is not proof that we do, no more so than if we said we are motivated by love. One can say anything, but that does not make in true.

In juxtaposition, the premise of the thesis I presented was based upon what has been PROVEN, via the foundation of natures laws and logic as communicated through the language of mathematics. Logic is an emotionless phenomenon and how one can glean hate from the presentation of logical truth is beyond me. Likely, this phenomenon can be explained by those who hate the conclusions of logical truth, because they have a vested interest in WHAT THEY BELIEVE or currently practice.

Often times, ones foundation of macro strategy for the whole is based upon and skewed by their personal choices at the micro level. Hence, their solution for the whole will have a more than coincidental resemblance to their personal life, choices and behavior. That is because when these people talk about what needs to be changed, change is not inclusive to them. They believe that their needs to be change, but they do not want to be the ones who have to change, because they do not want to give up what pleasures or benefits themselves as individuals, in favor of the collective or TEAM.

For example, if a black person was married to a white person. There micro lives would compel them to reject a macro solution of black unity and a black favoring of one and other to offset the effects of centuries of whites favoring themselves over blacks. They reason that they would reject this is not based upon the logical validity of the macro strategy, but rather, the individuals current emotional and pleasurable investment outside of blackness. This is not to suggest that such a person invested in whites at the micro level should not and cannot help promote the black struggle, but rather, that they should not throw stones at the macro solution because it conflicts with their personal choices.

In light of this, personal bias to preserve that which gives us pleasure as individuals, is what keeps us from rising as a collective or team. For the star player on the basketball team who is getting fame and attention for his prolific scoring, he will have a hard time accepting the coaches macro strategy to pass the ball around more so that others can get involved, so that the team can win more. Such a player who does not want to change or sacrifice for the team will likely try to switch to a team where he does not have to change his current behavior and role.

I do not know what Roland micro life behavior and choices are or the pleasure he gets from them. However, I do know and understand how ones investment in pleasure can and does bias them to what is logically good for the team, It is, as we have talked before on this forum, a conflict between individualism and collectivism and finding the proper balance.

Roland, I wish that you would continue to participate in this debate, but based upon the ground rules of not focusing on subjective claims or emotional arguments. I am open for change of my conclusions if a person can objectively and logical demonstrate that I am wrong via logically and objectively demonstrating what is correct. Simply coming here calling us hate mongers is not going to change any mindset and conclusions here. Instead of using your emotions, try using your intelligence and ability to logically persuade via demonstration.

Certainly if I feared that what you proposed in your rebuttals were of a greater truth than my own thesis, I would welcome your departure from the debate or delete your threads that threaten our hateful agenda. Rather, it is YOU who is departing the debate. Thus, maybe it is YOU who fear that what we write and propose logical threatens your own beliefs and behavior.

At 1:35 PM, Blogger Sean McCray said...

i feel your response to Roland speaks volumes about your real motives, and the vanity of your words.

He was trying to be positive, and encourage you at first. your response was pure arrogance. I would be surprised if you are over 23 years old.

How can someone who debates and writes a blog, and claims to be an intellectual make a statement like this "Roland, I am not a well read person. I tend to stay away from the synopses of others, when I feel I have the ability to bare witness to truth through my own ponderings and intellectual exercising. What I base my thesis on is nature laws and truth, which are communicated through the language of logic and mathematics."

wow. Politics is 80% subjective! there are very few OBJECTIVE truths in political debates, that is what makes them poltical. There is no math formula that will determine if and when abortion is or is not acceptable!! That was part of Roland's point, you assume many of your comments are objective, but they are not!

wow. i am still blown away by a person proudly stating they are not well read. WOW! that is even beyond natural law theorists. Your claim of objectivity is the BIGGEST subjective statement you have made. but you cant see that, because only YOUR objective truth is truth.
You aint GOD! You cant bear witness to YOUR truth and it be THE objective truth. the fact that u choose not to be well read, shows subjectivity. Sorry, you want a black and white, objective world. but the real world is 90% subjective.

At 7:02 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

"...but the real world is 90% subjective."

Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Now, I'm not one to support Noah's idea about not consulting the views of scholars but you guys can really drop the exaggerated abstraction over that.

The same way you say he's not (a) god, those very scholars, etc. aren't either. They, too, are all trying to make sense of this so-called subjective world.

Either you and those in opposition to him/us logically contend with what he says, prove it to be subjective or flawed (rather than merely claiming that it is) or continue to dwell on off-topic stuff, signaling your inability to deal with the subject matter and logically contend with what has been said.

"...but the real world is 90% subjective."

:) How about a little documentation and sources that supports that? You know, you too are not (a) god and you simply pronouncing something doesn't make it true.

I find that to be a very interesting statement. I don't know what the hell you're talking about or how the hell its remotely true or relevant but I'm interested in hearing how you arrived at that.

At 7:38 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Sean, I grow tired and bored with commentary such as yours, filled with undemonstrated or exemplified claims. For example, you said that my response to Roland speaks volumes about my real motives. However, you just happened to leave out what YOU think my real motives are and the demonstration of the logical inferences that lead you to this conclusion. I appreciate the fact that he was trying to be positive, in your opinion, but positive is a subjective interpretation. We are ALL trying to be positive, based upon each of our own working definitions. Yes, I am not surprised that you would be surprised that I am over 23 years old. That is because you have demonstrated a pattern of not being able to recognize truths and thus are taken aback or forced into an epiphany when faced with the truth. That, however, assumes that truth is what you seek and therefore will be accepting of truth when you encounter it…but someone I doubt that.

The fact that I made a statement of TRUTH of the fact that I am not well read on other opinions, is a problem why? Why do I need to be brainwashed and biased by others beliefs? Then you go on to say that politics is 80% subjective. Well…let me inform you of something….THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL BLOG!!!!!!! This is not about democrats’ vs. republicans or liberal’s vs. conservatives. This is about the BLACK PERSPECTIVE pertaining to history (FACTUAL and hence OBJECTIVE), racism, economics and cause and effects and predicated and analyzed based upon nature’s laws, logic and mathematics.

The reason that detractors want to turn the debate into a subjective one is that one can never be defeated in a subjective argument. One cannot reach a proof with a subjective base or premise. Thus, such people never have to face TRUTH and the moral decision of whether to make a change in their beliefs and behavior or to continue on in ignorance. They can just argue and debate infinitely, with no objective metrics.

As I said before, I am a seeker of dominate truth, if not absolute truth. If what I believe is not the dominant truth or absolute truth, I WANT PEOPLE TO DEMONSTATE to me, logically and objectively, what the dominant or absolute truth is. I tend not to be swayed by truths that is exceptions to the rule of the dominate truth. The dominate truth is the biggest influence on reality and not the exception truths. My ultimate goals are to poses and accept these truths, not to defend what I believe if it is not that truth. All the detractors thus fair are failing to believe that the universe is formed from objective truths.

At 9:27 AM, Blogger Faheem said...

I tend not to take these detractors serious at all for the following reasons. They do not address what is written, they address what they interpret from what is written, they attach a label to what is written and then they attack the label they attached to what we wrote and most of all, in all of their attacks they say two seemingly contradicting things. They accuse us of attacking Black folk via our verbal arsenal directed at the Negro Con but they trump that claim in the very same discussion by stating all we do is Blame whitey and hate on whitey. Which is it, or is it both? They all seek to obfuscate and have the discussion they want to have and not deal with what we have written thus we have to spend more time defending our person versus defending our writings as witness in Noah having to explain why he is not well read. The recent group of dissenters (if they are not all the same person) that have surfaced only represent a small portion of those I believe that read this Blog and disagree with what we write and believe they can say what we say better, my message to all of you is join the conversation, Black Introspection will be here so get use to it.

At 11:56 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...


Well said. I don't take them serious either. But, in case they ever want to, I lay it out so they can readily understand that when and if they want to seriously discuss things (as you said) BPI is here.

Of course, I could ignore their off-the-point BS but I like to shine a light on that stuff too and dare them to get on the topic. Hey! Since I'm such a "bully" maybe I could force one of them to actually have a substantive discussion or debate.

The thing about them and those types is that they seem to desire the type of discourse where their views are affirmed and not challenged. They expect their views to be "respected" on GP. That is, they hope no one challenges their logic to its core and expose the flaws in it.

Such challenges and the lack of automatic acceptance or affirmation (and other assorted ego massaging) is then called being "hostile" to their views.

Where I'm from (intellectually) I could give a damn whether someone is kind or hostile towards my views. I'm confident in what I say and have no need or requirement for someone to legitimatize my views whether they agree with them or not. But that's all a part of having a firm, logical foundation for what it is you believe.

Half-ass assumptions, non-acquaintance with actual relevant facts, and purposed ignoring of particular things because they are not in line with your sentiments (I presume) makes people want others to cordially accept their "right" to say dumbass sh*t.

Again, those with knowledge (and understanding - i.e. a defined and developed POV) have no obligation to co-exist and honor the ignorance of others, no matter how nice and comforting that would be.

If people want to claim they know something or that something they believe is "right" or "proper" then they ought to be able to demonstrate how it is. Likewise, they shouldn't be taken-aback by those (like me) who vehemently disagree with their weakly supported claims.

This is like some baby sh*t.
"Please don't yell at me. It makes me scared."

Or whatever the hell the problem is...
I thought we were adults??

I fully recognize some people's inability to stay on the point and to quickly take things personal. I understand that's what happens when I specifically tie their views to them as a person and how that effectively gives them an out from discussing the substance.

Call it my gift to those who obviously don't want to deal with the substance anyway. Most such people only want to state their views anyway. Most people are afraid or incapable of debating substance for a number of reasons.

I understand all that. I just keep trying... wishing there will one day be a signifier who will actually backup their claims and actually exchange in a substantive debate. Win or lose (if there is such a thing) that's what's gratifying to me.

It's no fun not having my views challenged.
So I hope you can understand my frustration.
They get me all worked up then, as usual, let me down hard.

I'm only left with picking fights with people I essentially agree with or those I've already gained mutually reciprocated respect for in order to get a real debate.

It sucks not to have new challenges (or challengers).

(And I'm not bragging... I'm just not stimulated by those who claim to have such a "together" perspective different from my own.)

At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 1/20/2005 03:02:22 PM, NmagiNATE said...
One thing is interesting to note here Noah since Affirmative Action is the only so-called form of reverse-discrimination. If the U-Michigan case is any indication then people aren’t even being truthful about that. Not a single person who pretends to be all about merit has said anything about the lack of it when White students get admitted when they have lower GPA’s and test scores. That was exactly the case in the UM case. (It’s also ironic how Blacks virtually got all the negative attention from that.)

I’ve cited this in a number of places and by all appearances these figures seem to be a Show Stopper. That is, those who vehemently argue against AA and label it flatly as (reverse) discrimination... They either completely leave the conversation/debate or clearly evade the truth-force of these stats:

The other reason they "leave the conversation/debate ... evade..." is that whites have always used affirmative action to advance themselves. They just call it by another name ... legacy. I recal that when I was going through the process of getting into college, there was a white applicant who had just a "C" average but was able to get himself admitted to this top ranked university which required at least a "B" average just to be considered. I later learned that his father was a friend of the university chancellor. Other whites like this get themselves admitted by having their parents make large donations to the university, i.e., they buy their way into the college. Whites are being disingenuious, at the least, when they scream reverse discrimination because they know about all of these "legacy" maneuvers which are nothing more than "their" affrimative action for whites.


At 7:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noah, you're full of shit. I'll explain why.

If you ran over another person in your car, should the family of that person run over you, just to "even out the inequality"? That's what your reasoning tells us.

German Nazis have murdered and burned in ovens SIX MILLION JEWS. So, should the Jews now kill six million Germans, just to "even out the inequality"? To hell with the fact that not all Germans agreed with this policy of murder and were forced to agree through fear for their own lives, let's just "even out the inequality" and murder six million Germans. Same goes for the 1.5 million Slavs and the millions of other people killed by Germans Nazis. Let's just murder some 10 million Germans, because that's what "laws of nature" tell us.

You know what's funny? The only way you're able to express your opinions is on an internet blog because you realize that that this is only a rationalization for your irrational hatred of the white race. Irrational because it isn't only directed at those whites who are racist, but those who are not too.

You're about as logical as a 2 year old.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums