My Wednesday Rant (holla back black people)

Noah The African-

It is your right to generalize "until the cows come home". It is also my right not to even want to hear your pontificating and diatribes. If it is discussion that you want, IMO, you are going about it the wrong way. If it is pissing in the wind that you want, I think that you have got your method down pat!

0 Replies

Noah The African wrote:

Do you accept the fact that the presidency is valid due to the generalization about how the populous voted? You are trying to prevent me from generalizing, when I am saying that my generalizations represent the general or dominant objective truth.

I am not trying to prevent you from generalizing. Many generalizations are completely valid. Take for example the generalization that "all humans were born within the solar system".

What I am cautioning against is the false generalizations you like to call "truth".

Take for example the generalizations that incessantly lead you to pre-judge me accourding to the stereotypes you tout.

I have no problem with generalizations. I do have a problem with your tendency to get them dead wrong and pre-judge your interlocutors based upon the false premise.

Quote:

Yet, it is somehow construed that I am being unfair, by generalizing or speaking in terms of the dominant truth or reality about the behavior of certain peoples.

No, not "unfair" but "wrong". And since you defend said "dominant truths" that are usually anything but that how do you reconcile your position to the racists who speak what they consider to be "dominant truth" about blacks?

Do you support the negative stereotyping of blacks with the same vigor that you support your own stereotyping of whites?

Quote:

Dissidents to the general rule or dominate truth, such as yourself, try force the discussion into absolutism. Thus, you and they feel it necessary to point out exceptions to the dominant or general rule and present these facts as if it not only is an epiphany to my position, but also as if it negates or offset the dominate or general rule. When I talk about white people and black people, I am NOT speaking in terms of absolutes. It is not true that every black person is poorer than every white person. There are many white people poorer than many black people. However, the general dominant truth is that the MEAN economic condition of whites is much greater than the MEAN economic condition of blacks, in this nation and most certainly this world.

I've not tried to "force" you into "absolutism". Not once. ;-)

Quote:

So NO. I will NOT end my focus on generalizations when those generalizations represent the dominant objective truth.

Whew, at least that means you'll stop. Since what you posit is rarely "truth".

Remember the last time you tried to back up your screed with statistics and dared me to challenge them? As I remember they were easily refuted and you simply ceased to address them, preferring instead to pretend it didn't happen.

0 Replies

First of all, the nature of a general rule (my definition of generalization), is that it does not and will not ever apply to ALL the objects in the class being generalized. Thus, OF COURSE I will be wrong many times in my generalizations and assumptions about objects in the class. However, if my generalization is factually the objective dominant truth, then I will be right more often than I am wrong in characterizing objects in a class.

Your example of a generalization was not a generalization. You included the term ALL, which is a statement of ABSOLUTE and not a general rule. You never heard me say ALL in regards to characterizing or generalizing a phenomenon or class of objects.

Stereotypes are not general rules, they are beliefs based upon ignorance of the dominant rule.

Your retort seems to me to be rooted in the logical fallacy that if some one is wrong once, then they are therefore wrong across the board. It is the technique that people use to attempt to discredit and it is what you are attempting to do in effect.

0 Replies

Noah The African wrote:

First of all, the nature of a general rule (my definition of generalization), is that it does not and will not ever apply to ALL the objects in the class being generalized. Thus, OF COURSE I will be wrong many times in my generalizations and assumptions about objects in the class. However, if my generalization is factually the objective dominant truth, then I will be right more often than I am wrong in characterizing objects in a class.

Ok, how about trying to support your generalizations then? You keep calling them "truth". Please support it.

Quote:

Your example of a generalization was not a generalization. You included the term ALL, which is a statement of ABSOLUTE and not a general rule. You never heard me say ALL in regards to characterizing or generalizing a phenomenon or class of objects.

Being pedentic isn't ha;f bad, but doing so when incorrect is even worse. An absolutism is the epitome of a generalization.

But if the "all" is preventing you from seeing a point you yourself are making (that generalizations can have validity) by all means disconsider the word.

Quote:

Your retort seems to me to be rooted in the logical fallacy that if some one is wrong once, then they are therefore wrong across the board. It is the technique that people use to attempt to discredit and it is what you are attempting to do in effect.

No, I am saying that you are wrong now. And reminding you that your confidence in your "truths" has been misplaced in the past. This lends reason for not accepting your "truths" simply on the basis of your claim, as your claims have been demonstratably false in the past.

If you want to posit your generalizations as "dominant truths" please substantiate them.

For example you implied that whites do not wish for the improvement of the societal condition of blacks. Upon what do you base that claim?

0 Replies

I support my generalizations by facts and statistics. Black poverty 3 times the rate of whites. Black wealth 1/8th that of whites. Black unemployment at least 2 ½ times the rate of whites. From these truths and from the truths of history of the general rule of whit privilege over blacks my thesis stand correct NOW.

White opposition to affrimative action. Whites opposition to many social programs that benefit blacks. Were there is a will there is a way and since whites dominate this country numerically and economically if whites had the will to see blacks reach equality, it would manifest. Look at the will that is going into changing and shaping IRAQ.

0 Replies

Noah I'm going to say what I don't think anyone else has.

I have been married and separted or divorced 5 times before I finally got it right the second time around with squinney.

Do you know what I attribute to my eventual success.?

One day I took an honest look at myself and said HEY!!!! maybe I've got a lot to do with this and I need to make some changes in myself.

When I began to accept respoonsibility for my own actions and for the situations I found myself in, things really started improving for me.

0 Replies

Noah The African wrote:

I support my generalizations by facts and statistics.

No, you do not. You frequently cite statistics that are both incorrect and irrelevant to the argument you posit. see below.

Quote:

Black poverty 3 times the rate of whites. Black wealth 1/8th that of whites. Black unemployment at least 2 ½ times the rate of whites. From these truths and from the truths of history of the general rule of whit privilege over blacks my thesis stand correct NOW.

See, this is not what you asserted. You asserted that whites do not wish to see the improvement of black societal conditions now.

The statistics you cite do not support that. For example, the societal condition of blacks today could well be a hold-over from the racism of whites in the past.

It can also have as it's source elements of black culture itself that need changing.

You are correct to rule out inherent inferiority, but in the past you drew the line as being either inherent inferiority or white devils. And that's not a complete picture.

Inherent inferiority is not the only self-defeating criteria.

For example, the statistics you cite can be turned around just as easily. One could argue that the societal condition of blacks is also due to their own racism against the white establishment.

I don't buy that argument, but nor do I buy the argument you propose in which whites wish against black societal improvement. And your argument is in no way substantiated by the societal condition of blacks. As the color of the skin is not the sole influencing factor.

So I will again ask you to substantiate your assertion that whites wish against black societal improvement. Simply stating that there is inequality in sociatal conditions is no basis to declare that whites do not wish this to change.

0 Replies

This argument was relevant in the 1960's, IMO.
Gains in law and opinion have made it too late to beat this horse. We are almost there.

Why keep digging at this old scab, NTA? Let it heal.

0 Replies

I have lost the ability to communicate without metaphor.

0 Replies

You answered to quickly. I presented to you examples of existing economic inequalities between whites and blacks. The fact that the USA had the resources and will to allow the pumping of trillions of dollars into NASA, to send a man to the moon and to send vehicles to mars, represents what America can accomplish when it has the WILL to do so. Given that whites dominate this nation numerically and economically, this representative republic, its laws, policies and practices, represents the will and desires of white people, more than any other demographic racial group. Thus, if America can target the moon, mars and beyond and reach these milestones and goals, then, I believe, that they could easily solve the problem of racial inequality of conditions in this nation, if that represented whites peoples interest.

Sure, most of what black people suffer from today, is born from racism of the past. However, if the goal of past racism was to place blacks at a disadvantage in the competition for opportunities and status, then that goal has been accomplished. Therefore, contemporary racists do not need to overtly oppress blacks as in the past. All they need to do is to prevent and resist efforts to our ascent to equality. It is racist to oppress and it is racist to prevent attempts to recover from oppression.

0 Replies

He can't stop, he's programmed but he doesn't realize it.

0 Replies

OK--I agree it is racist to oppress, and racist to thwart escape from oppression--but I wonder if we agree on legitimate forms of escape from oppression....

Sounds like the money spent on NASA, in your opinion, would be better written out in check form to blacks. Reparations=further enslavement. IMO.

Is reparations what you're getting around to?

0 Replies

Sofia, the scab metaphor of this wound you speak is not born upon whites, but upon black people. Thus, you are not QUALIFIED to comment on the state of the wound, when the wound is not on white folks. The people who feel and understand the pain, infections and complications of the wound are the class of people that it has been inflicted upon for the last 300 years.

0 Replies

So, this is why you stipulated only blacks should answer...? Whites aren't qualified to speak to the subject of racism?

You don't know what color my skin is--or anything about my background...which is why your racism is a little harder to apply to members here.

0 Replies

Noah The African wrote:

Thus, you are not QUALIFIED to comment on the state of the wound, when the wound is not on white folks.

This is a fallacious appeal to authority*. Noah, you will have to stop commiting such logical fallacies if you want your "dominant truth" to be given credence.

* Comparable appeals to authority:

Doctors are not qualified to treat diseases they do not have.

Male gynecologists should first aquire a vagina before practicing.......

0 Replies

This is an appeal to authority. Whites do not and cannot know what it feels like to be black in America. That does not mean that you cannot theorize or attempts to have empathy or sympathy. It’s just a fact and not a fallacy.

0 Replies

You did not say whites could not feel. You said whites were not qualified to comment. That was a fallacious appeal to authority and you are digging yourself a hole now.

Regards.

0 Replies

Personally, I've always wondered what it feels like to be a Canadian.

0 Replies

Yes, whites are not qualified to COMMENT on the wound and its state, if they cannot themselves FEEL the wound. A doctor does not tell you how much you hurt, the doctor ask you how much it hurts or your level of discomfort. He is not qualified to tell me what I feel all he can do is ask.

0 Replies

In that case, if you are black, you are not qualified to comment on white's attitudes either.

Racial exclusions work both ways Noah.

Furthermore one can argue that said experience is itself a detrimental factor to discussion by saying that it clouds the reasoning in a "can't see the forrest for the trees" argument.

If you insist on determining who is and is not qualified to comment you should at least construct criteria that does not automatically exclude you from being qualified for comments on the topics you yourself bring up.

0 Replies

My Wednesday Rant (holla back black people)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know