I never said the journalist was the one responsible. HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN IN ON THIS GROUP CHAT!! Like I said, I don't know the facts, but it's been painted (figure of speech ok?) that someone added this journalist in to this group chat. If true, there's the problem, and that person needs to be held accountable.
Mac we appear to be on two different pages and your last sentence is def why I don't too much engage in just trying to have conversation...so this is it b4 I bow out....you said the leaker needs to be held accountable, the journalist IS THE LEAKER, he let the cat out the bag on the whole group chat...so you have issue with mistake of including the journalist, but not following the protocol of the information that was being chatted about?
I went ahead tagged all our exchanges on this. My first message on this clearly says "Whoever is behind the leak." This was not an accusation at the journalist. Again, I thought what I've said is pretty straightforward. Apparently it hasn't been.
I’ve never questioned his personal experience. If you actually read, you know this. He denies the existence of racism and says Black people were better off under Jim Crow. Got anything to say about that, or have you found the only Black person whose opinion on racism you accept?
Nope. Not what it means. And you don’t gaML what it means, so no point continuing with you.
You don’t know the facts?! Are you hiding from them?!
This is also what y’all accuse white liberals of all the time: making any disagreement a white person has with a Black person about their race.
Correct. It’s an ambiguous and useless word to control and spook people just like you who have little to no critical thinking skills.
You can stop if your patience is out, I wont loose any sleep.....The JOURNALIST IS BEHIND THE LEAK...he is the one that was added to the chat accidently and brought forth/LEAKED it out....if he wasn't added, we'd never know about this.....know if you meant to say whoever is behind including the journalist needs to be held accountable, that's a whole different take, and that take still doesn't address the material that was being chatted about and not in normal protocol or procedure, but I digress...
Come on now Professor. Please tell me what it means since you’re the curator of the Black experience on this board.
Uh, you were literally talking about race. So the race of the two talking is bound to come up. Do you even hear yourself?
no sir, I did not and will not resort to any name calling of any sort here...
You’ve been more than patient. He was just troating this board (troll gloat).
If you’re gonna call my post simple, you’re entitled to your opinion, but tell me what Im missing I’d rather you explain it than the other one
I will agree that family values were probably stronger/much higher then because AA had to ban together and watch out for each other for their general safety during that time...BUT life wasn't much better when you were looked upon as less than person and could be snatched up at anytime for any reason, raped, beaten, harrassed, murdered, or be hung from a tree just for the color of skin
First rule of being an effective writer: know your audience. Most of us don’t hang out with teenagers all day and don’t have the slightest clue what gaML means.
didnt call you a simpleton or that your post was "simple"....just said the phrase/meaning isn't as simple as your take of
I agree with all of this. I just don’t think it’s solely based on race. I don’t think the powers that be are saying “We hate black people so let’s solely go after them”. Similarly, slave owners weren’t saying “We want to enslave people solely because of the color of their skin”. The powers that be see black people as the easiest to manipulate and crookedly create wealth. That’s why they do it. If the powers that be felt it was easier to manipulate white people, which they also do in many cases, they would make them their main target. The only color these crooks care about is green.
Blacks were less likely to be assaulted or killed back then than now. But it’s mostly black on black crime now so the Left doesn’t cover it.
I stripped the folksiness from the words and laid bare the logic contained therein.
Dems got the AA population hooked on govt assistance when they were at their most vulnerable and broken. Not cool.
Once you start diving deep into what happened back then, you will find two things. 1) Murder, rape, assault, etc with regards to white on black is greatly exaggerated. Did it happen? Of course. Is it the narrative that the media wants you to believe? Not even close. 2) Guess which party was responsible for everything negative that happened to black people. I’ll give you a hint. It wasn’t Republicans.
The poverty rates were in the 50s back then and usually around 20% for the AA now. A much higher % of AAs are getting four year degrees and in the middle class now.
Has the Democratic Party ever done anything positive for the black community? Every single issue in the black community can be tied directly to either a Dem policy or ideology that has been pushed on us.
We saw this in the wake of the Floyd killing when random people were asked on the street: How many Black men are killed by cops every year in America? Many answered thousands when you strip away the Michael Brown self defense type cases you’re left with literally like FIVE cases that are unquestionably bad shoots.
The things you bring up were definitely happening at the beginning of the era and to a much less extent towards the middle. Not so much during the time the families were strategically being divided.
That’s what’s backfired on them re: Hispanic immigrants and voting. They failed to realize that they come here with a defined set of values, work ethic, often religious.
It's not solely based on race. But race is the crutch of their pursuit. That's why progressives say it is racist to want to quit giving out welfare or to blame someone's own life choices on their lack of wealth. They may not be targeting blacks because of their skin color. But they are absolutely targeting them to keep the divide.
That’s why I believe “racism” is a flawed concept. It’s a useless word just used to divide and spook white people. You have to know the races of the people to know whether it was supposed “racism” or not. So if a white cop pulls me over as a black man and mistreats me, it’s “racism”. If a white cop pulls a white man over and the same exact thing happens, what is it called?
During the Floyd era the Left was always telling us that things hadn’t gotten better, that Black men were being “rounded up” and randomly killed. So were the Leftist commentators at the time lying to us?
Agreed. If “racism” goes away, what the heck will their message to Black Dems be lol? That’s why they try to manipulate Black Dems by stocking “racism”. And the cherry on top is white liberals patting black people on the head and essentially saying “You can’t do any better so I’m here to save you!”
I like Boogie’s position on name calling. Maybe it’s a good cop bad cop deal they’ve worked out. He knows that whatever name he’d like to call us Datt will get around to it sooner or later.
Likewise to some degree, but hey, you can't please everybody...You clearly said the LEAKER needs to held ACCOUNTABLE..I still think it’s pretty simple, you're more bothered by the leak than the situation it seems, but it's all good...we can eventually find some common ground somewhere..it's possible...
Nope. If you understand why we have Black History month but not White History Month, or why Black Pride is an acceptable concept and White Pride isn’t, then you can figure it out yourself.
That’s such an old, tired trope. It’s like you watched YouTube videos of Malcolm X and read some memes and think you have wisdom.
