Uppity-Negro.com

Chastise one individual for lumping all African-Americans into a non-existent, homogeneous "black community," and then refute the argument by calling all whites "racist assholes." A very sound and intelligent argument, I must say.

And I called all whites racist assholes where, exactly?

And for all her faults, Vincent at least acknowledges that there's really no such thing as a homogenous black community. Simon, who gives a fuck what that little shit has to say.

The straw man shit is really wearing on my nerves, child. Either come up with a proper argument, or shut the fuck up.

Let's see...

Post's title: "Why do THEY hate us?"

Also, "I love it when WHITE PEOPLE take it upon themselves..."

and finally...

"The answer to the actual question posed in the title [see above], I got no clue about. Nor do I particularly care. Do racist assholes [the "they," I presume] need reasons anyway?"

Is this enough for you? Do YOU, child, even read your own posts before publishing them? "All whites racist assholes" may not be what you said in so many words, but it can be inferred from the statements made.

Still not seeing "all whites" anywhere.

You do get points for using inferred instead of implied.

Why you infer these things has very little to do with me, though. Go look in a mirror or something.

Aaron, mind if I field this one, since Captain Semantic wants to play?

"Why Do They Hate Us?" is now a part of the cultural lexicon, ever since Shrub II provided us with the damaging and overfacile answer on Sept. 12, 2001. The use here is ironic. Since Shrub posited a facelss, nameless 'they,' and those of us who are ani-war despise this mindset, we fling it back in frustrated sarcasm. Learn to like it. Divinity knows people of all political leanings engage in similar rehtorical exercizes.

"White People" here refers to the two (hence the plural form) persons Aaron quoted. He said he hated it when white persons ENGAGE IN A PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR, which he specifically named. He did not say all white persons engage in that behavior. Same with "racist assholes." Refers to the two quoted, and those who behave like them.

As such a reasonable reading of his position offers no one a reason to take offense unless they are a white person who engages in telling the black community who ought to lead them, AND they feel that this is acceptable and correct behavior. I presume you'd never stoop so low. Sorry that you seem so easily offended.

And if you were offended because the shoe DOES fit, I think for my own part I can say I don't feel for you a single bit.

All I have done is read between the lines, which the "black community" (take it however you will, because I am sure that no amount of explanation will curb your desire to misconstrue MY statements) itself has a tendency to do whenever "white people" discuss "black issues."

Nowhere that I can see does Vincent use the term "all blacks" either. "Black community" can mean many things. If what Aaron said is true, that "Vincent at least acknowledges that there's really no such thing as a homogenous black community," then why even make issue with the piece in the first place?

Captain Semantics. I like that. Mind if I use if?

Do you get the feeling sometimes that "some people" don't quite belong {one of these kids is doin his own thing} like the Sesame Street song?

"Excuse me sir, are you a student at this school?"

"I think it's pretty obvious that I AM. Go School!"

garrity, remind me not to get into an argument with you.

Hugh, Vincent insults the (admittedly, unelected) leaders of (a sizable percent of a) black community, and strongly suggests that white folk know better than we do about who should represent us.

I take issue with this.

And although I love a good unsubstantiated allegation as much as the next guy, you'll have to give a few examples of this "read between the lines" thing the black community does. Two should suffice.

CSCWebmaster, you black seperatists make me sick.

would I be an asshole if I pointed out that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan aren't elected officials and thus don't necessarily represent anyone and that the assumption by all parties who like to make assumptions that they are Black Leaders is only because they are, in fact, black and not because Black people, as a monolith or even a community that picks its leaders by a democracy, have 'chosen' them?

Would I also be an asshole to point out that the fact that they are called "Black Leaders" and then vilified might be the reason that Black people are quick to look at their detractors sideways, especially if said detractors aren't black?

Would I be a bigger asshole if I called George Bush and the Senate "White Leaders" because, you know, they are white?

did I talk about this awhile ago?

Hey are Colin Powell and Condi Rice Black leaders?

Or do you only become a Black Leader when you piss white people off?

I am assholio. I need teepee for my asshole.

Don't think pissing off white people is officially in the job description, but it's viewed favorably during annual performance evaluations.

And I'm sure Hugh is going to say something totally original that none of us have ever seen before in discussions like this.

Yep.

yo aaron, i told you to lock the cyclone fence so people wouldn't wander into our barbecue! you're too damn nice to the neighbors, is the problem. "refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person"! don't worry, i've got the supersoaker loaded with LSD and DMSO locked and loaded.

The producers would like to anounce that the writers of this thread have been sacked.

A moose bit my arse once.

Short Essay Question #1:

Why is Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to as a Civil Rights Leader as opposed to a Black Leader?

Bonus Question: How many times has our current president met with the President of the NAACP? or any member of the NAACP?

Extra Credit: A whole box of extra salty saltines to the first person that suggests that our current president does not have time to deal with the NAACP ...we're at WAR! Quit whining about domestic issues that don't involve making me feel safe.

Aaron et. al.
I see where Vincent gives an opinion on who might best lead African-Americans (and I'll admit that V. is well "out there"), but what is so wrong with this, besides the fact that Vincent is white? It is an opinion, for Christ sakes, and furthermore, the opinion of ONE person, not all "white folk!" I don't dare to presume that I am safe to make an all encompassing statement about the opinions of all "black folk," nor would I ever choose to do so, so why do others here feel that it is their place to lump all whites together? I see a dangerous double standard here, and this is what I was attempting to point out in my last post (and sorry, Aaron, I don't keep score, but does the phrase "it's 'cause I'm black, isn't it?" sound familiar? I've heard this phrase used in a number of otherwise unprovoked situations, thus taking the whole conversation well beyond its original context, turning the most benign discussion into one of race, all because, yes, someone "read b/w the lines". And in my small, closed little white world, this is more the rule than the exception.)

I guess the larger point here is that while whites are expected to understand and accept the black condition, they are denied the opportunity to comment on or inquire upon that very condition. As an undergraduate history major some years back, I took a course on the Civil Rights Movement, which turned out to be by FAR the most hostile and closed minded learning environment I have ever been in (aside from this thread, of course). "You're white, you'll never understand," or worse, "what the hell do you think you know, whitey," were common responses to anything that went against the proper, PC bent of the class.

There are some of us who ARE interested, but who also like to challenge those who's ideas we come across to test their soundness. (If you took a long moment to browse my site, you would see that just about EVERYTHING is fair game.) I can tell that this is not welcome here, so I'll leave your "barbecue" post haste. I found your site interesting at the outset, but now I've see just how close minded you all can be...

Thank you all for enlightening me so...

I only asked for two examples. It seemed a reasonable request.

And I see I was mistaken about the original thoughts as well.

Whatever.

Aaron,

Why demand "original" thoughs? Ever consider that the reason a number of ideas are continually repeated might be because their is a glint of truth to them? And why should the burden rest on my shoulders? I hear nary an "original" idea coming from any member of your clique, either. Furthermore, you seem quite capable of making your own unsubstantiated remarks. Why is it that YOU choose not to support them, either? Probably b/c you are well aware that your cronies will back you up regardless of the gibberish that eminates from your keyboard.

Very childish.

Was there something particularly harsh in the disagreement with your assertions, Hugh?

And I don't think there is lumping going on is there. There's a decided lack of the use of the word "All" here.

and I've never found disagreement not welcomed here? Just about everything is responded to, discussed, perhaps ridiculed...but I think that's the tenor of this place.

It being uppity after all, all the folks here tend to sharpen their claws when they enter the dojo.

Its not fun unless somebody's bloody.

And you don't even have to be a negro to participate.

And I really hate when nobody does my homework.

I think the online registration system has this down as an introductory course for incoming freshmen, rather than a graduate seminar.

Best to get them out the door early, I think.

And didn't the last one say almost the exact same thing? Called everyone sycophants or claimed you hung on my every word or some such?

Isn't it fun how if liberals agree, they're all mindless syncophants, but if conservatives agree, it's because "their (sic) is a glint of truth" in the ideas upon which they are all agreeing?

I also think it's entertaining when right-wing folk show up, make snide comments, and then act all pouty, gather their toys, and slam the door behind them when we indulge in sarcasm in reply. Are the small, mindless, syncophant leftists are supposed to grovel in thanks for the golden wisdom of the opposition, even if it is presented with no manners?

So, some hints: want debate? Start with questions. Present your opinions with phrases like "I've noticed" or "It seems," or "Correct me if I'm wrong" or "What do you think about . . ." Want hyperinflated rhetorical fencing with no intellectual focus or content? Read elsewhere. There's plenty to be found.

Garrity,

Actually, I am furthest FROM a conservative. Have voted left exclusively throughout my adult life. However, I tend to be a little less closed minded than the folks here.

I doubt that any of you would recognize a true debate if it bit you on the ass, and I seriously wonder if you even READ the posts before you comment on them. (You particularly, Aaron. I never SAID you used the term "all whites." Never. I said that inferences could be made.) You are all very quick to place the burden of proof upon your antagonists, but I've witnessed very little substance coming from your side either. Demanding examples or proof from others, then declaring a victory because the proof is not produced, is far from sound argumentation.

And garrity, I'll promise never to tell you who you should look up to as a role model, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, whoever, so long as you refrain from instructing me on "proper" forms of debate. I've seen nothing hear that qualifies ANY of you to give such advice.

But Hugh...and wow, I should really be walking the dog so I can go hang out with the RHPS crowd tonight...

Garritty explained why your inference was wrong. He also explained what the title of the post was referring to.

With those two bits of information, you could also infer that Aaron is calling Al-Qaeda racist assholes or maybe he's calling those who like the phrase "Why do They hate us" racist assholes or maybe just folks who use the word "They" when referring to a group of people without ever defining which group of people they (and see how my "they" is referring specifically to "folks who use the word 'they' when referring to a group of people without..."?) mean.

Maybe you could have asked what he meant by both statements you were making assumptions from instead of starting this discussion off with -

Chastise one individual for lumping all African-Americans into a non-existent, homogeneous "black community," and then refute the argument by calling all whites "racist assholes." A very sound and intelligent argument, I must say.

...?

Now, excuse me, I'm going to go scoop poop and head to Silver Lake.

Hugh, to be blunt, you've said nothing I haven't heard before, and I'm trying to avoid deja vu-provoking conversations at this point in my life. I am not Your Negro Tour Guide, and I don't respond well to insults, especially those based on either accidental or deliberate misreadings.

If you have questions, you can either do your own fucking research, or you can try phrasing them as polite questions. I don't see making ill-informed statements as "challenging" anything, which you seem to interpret as being closed-minded.

And it would be my duty to fill the gaps in your knowledge why, exactly?

Jason -cough- Garrity Is brilliant, in fact, but, um, delightfully FEmale. [You're brilliant too, as usual, but I'm just touchy about gender-male assumptions.] Sorry!

please be touchy...and I think I might have even known Garrity's gender before this but used "He" in the heat of the moment.

"I'm a victim...a victim, brotha...the man has programmed me"

Hugh, let me show you the proof in the pudding about the problematic baseline assumptions you carry that we've been trying to point out to you.

I'm white.

Thus: I explained to you that Arron dislikes it whoen white persons criticize the choice of leadership of portions of the black commuity. You assumed this meant I was black.

"I'll promise never to tell you who you should look up to as a role model, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, whoever..."

Sorry, dear. I'm white. I'm sparring with you becasue I'm intersted in interpersonal and multicultural respect, that grease that theoretically makes society go around.

Back to your assumptions:

". . . so long as you refrain from instructing me on "proper" forms of debate."

Sorry again. Let's review: you made your assumptions first, and *then* I suggested some better modes of interaction. So again I note that you expect it's ok for you to be rude, and we're supposed to respond with chivalric politeness. You set the tone here. Heat and kitchens, friend.

Finally:

"I've seen nothing hear (sic) that qualifies ANY of you to give such advice."

I would in fact know a real debate if it bit me on the ass. So could you. Anyone who can read with care and think for three minutes at a stretch can recognize and engage in quality debate as well as I do. But then, thought is irksome, and three minutes is a long time, hmm? Much easier to jump to conclusions.

Dont you love how Black companies and Black music is making money off stupid crackers who cant stand their own race?