Landscaping and Black Privilege?

[Toni]

Jolly Penguin, why do you like to call other people racist?

I don't.<snip>

The devil made you do it?

If you are to discuss _BLACK_ privilege, then you have to take the whole thing into account not focus on cherry-picking which cherries you want to pick to support your confirmation bias. Being black is being black, it isn't being black when the gofundme page works and not black all other times. So to classify something as black privilege like an ideologue would do requires an analysis of black, not merely some small justice that came about at some point in a small window of time.

You are not making any sense, and you are bordering on racist and you don't know it. Not all black people have the same life experience... Some suffer greatly at the hands of others because of their race, and others benefit from their race, and from the proxy treatment they for sharing a race with the former. And also, you do NOT have to look at the sum of all things to realize that something is a privilege. Each advantage and disadvantage exist and do not cancel one another out and cease to exist.

If it's so painful for you to call people racist, maybe you should just stop doing it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The devil made you do it?

<snip>

If it's so painful for you to call people racist, maybe you should just stop doing it.

It isn't painful for me to call people racist. Nor did I call Don racist. I wrote that his point was bordering on racism without him realizing it, and it was, because it was treating black people as a monolith.

You now pile this false representation of what I wrote being painful to me on top of your previous false representation of me calling people racist because I lack a cogent argument. Do you ever tire of boxing with these shadows in your mind?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It isn't painful for me to call people racist. Nor did I call Don racist. I wrote that his point was bordering on racism without him realizing it, and it was, because it was treating black people as a monolith.

No, I'm not.

 

[Toni]

The devil made you do it?

<snip>

If it's so painful for you to call people racist, maybe you should just stop doing it.

It isn't painful for me to call people racist. Nor did I call Don racist. I wrote that his point was bordering on racism without him realizing it, and it was, because it was treating black people as a monolith.

You now pile this false representation of what I wrote being painful to me on top of your previous false representation of me calling people racist because I lack a cogent argument. Do you ever tire of boxing with these shadows in your mind?

lol

 

[laughing dog]

[
It isn't painful for me to call people racist. Nor did I call Don racist.

You wrote "and you are bordering on racist". You did not refer to the post. Now, you can quibble about the qualification "bordering on", but words have meaning. No one made a false representation of the words you posted. According to you, you did not intend to refer to a person, but readers are neither qualified or obligated to try to read whatever is in your mind.

Instead of spending time concocting passive aggressive insults and disgusting accusations, how about you collect your thoughts before posting so that you can live up to your stated standard of addressing the content of the posts not the person.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Instead of spending time concocting passive aggressive insults and disgusting accusations

I could practice for decades and never be as experienced as you at that one. Perhaps I should learn from you to be a troll and insult comic too.

 

[Toni]

Instead of spending time concocting passive aggressive insults and disgusting accusations

I could practice for decades and never be as experienced as you at that one. Perhaps I should learn from you to be a troll and insult comic too.

If you don't like being called out on your shit, don't post shit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you don't like being called out on your shit, don't post shit.

Take your own advice and delete your entire account and posting history.

 

[laughing dog]

Instead of spending time concocting passive aggressive insults and disgusting accusations

I could practice for decades and never be as experienced as you at that one. Perhaps I should learn from you to be a troll and insult comic too.

As your response demonstrates so well, Jolly Penguin, you are way too modest about your trollery and passive aggressive insults.

I noticed that instead of addressing the actual content, you choose, once again, to focus on the poster. Do you at least comprehend that what you actually wrote was an accusation of "borderline racism"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't my metaphor. It isn't a metaphor. It is a hypothetical created by Don.

You used it in your post. If you don't want to defend it, don't use it.

You just contradicted yourself. And there are many more. The right to call people other races racist is one (even getting to the point that we have people going around claiming black people can't be racist). Others have noted some others above (lower standards to get into some schools, etc). Are they on par with detriments that many people who are black face? No, not at all. They don't have to be though to still be privileges. Moreover, as I noted above, "black" is not a monolith, and some people with that trait are far more privileged than others, and treating race as proxy for issues the less fortunate ones face is not rational.

Well, once the American welfare and support systems treat race as some sort of monolithic thing, then perhaps you wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree. As things stand, US support systems treat everyone as individuals. You can't get unemployment simply because "black".

Affirmative Action could come up, but blacks are still less employed than whites, meaning whites are having no trouble finding work.

Again, black individuals are not all the same and nor are white individuals the same. More black people have more difficulty finding work, sure. But there are plenty of black people who find work much easier than plenty of white people do. Obama's kids will get hired for that job you are thinking of much faster than Cletus from the trailer park will. Maybe I see this more objectively than most because I neither live in the USA nor am I black or white.

You call that objective? It sounded like mumbo jumbo. Obama's daughters will get jobs, therefore more blacks having trouble finding work isn't relevant?

 

[Toni]

If you don't like being called out on your shit, don't post shit.

Take your own advice and delete your entire account and posting history.

Herein lies Jolly Penguin's actual motivation. You call people names and make assertions about their beliefs in order to try to quell their voices. You basically told Don that he was an old, dumb racist and attacked him as a person rather than argue against his points. It's a tactic used by others who prefer to accuse posters with whom they disagree as being too emotional (code:female) or christian (again: code for probably female but really applies to anyone who disagrees with their position). The aim is to shut down discourse, rather than further understanding or merely exchange ideas.

 

[Toni]

You used it in your post. If you don't want to defend it, don't use it.

Well, once the American welfare and support systems treat race as some sort of monolithic thing, then perhaps you wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree. As things stand, US support systems treat everyone as individuals. You can't get unemployment simply because "black".

Affirmative Action could come up, but blacks are still less employed than whites, meaning whites are having no trouble finding work.

Again, black individuals are not all the same and nor are white individuals the same. More black people have more difficulty finding work, sure. But there are plenty of black people who find work much easier than plenty of white people do. Obama's kids will get hired for that job you are thinking of much faster than Cletus from the trailer park will. Maybe I see this more objectively than most because I neither live in the USA nor am I black or white.

You call that objective? It sounded like mumbo jumbo. Obama's daughters will get jobs, therefore more blacks having trouble finding work isn't relevant?

Come on: we elected a (half)black man as POTUS so racism is dead and the privilege afforded the offspring of other POTUS is merely coincidence and not evidence of anything at all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You used it in your post. If you don't want to defend it, don't use it.

I don't mind using it. And what am I to defend? I was addressing it as a hypothetical and not as a metaphor, and I fully stand by what I wrote about it. Being compensated when another is not is a benefit and privilege over that other. This would be readily seen here if we spoke of a white victim of crime being listened to and a black victim of the same crime being ignored, both because of their respective race traits. That too would be a race based privilege.

You can't get unemployment simply because "black".

Affirmative Action could come up, but blacks are still less employed than whites, meaning whites are having no trouble finding work.

Again, black individuals are not all the same and nor are white individuals the same. More black people have more difficulty finding work, sure. But there are plenty of black people who find work much easier than plenty of white people do. Obama's kids will get hired for that job you are thinking of much faster than Cletus from the trailer park will. Maybe I see this more objectively than most because I neither live in the USA nor am I black or white.

You call that objective? It sounded like mumbo jumbo. Obama's daughters will get jobs, therefore more blacks having trouble finding work isn't relevant?

Not what I wrote. What I wrote is that we can't treat black people all the same or white people all the same, so "whites are having no trouble finding work" isn't true. There are plenty of whites who have plenty of trouble finding work, and plenty of blacks who don't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's a tactic used by others who prefer to accuse posters with whom they disagree as being too [insert strawman of the day here]. The aim is to shut down discourse, rather than further understanding or merely exchange ideas.

Fixed it for you. This describes at least 90% of your posts.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a tactic used by others who prefer to accuse posters with whom they disagree as being too [insert strawman of the day here]. The aim is to shut down discourse, rather than further understanding or merely exchange ideas.

Fixed it for you. This describes at least 90% of my posts.

FIFY

 

[Toni]

It's a tactic used by others who prefer to accuse posters with whom they disagree as being too [insert strawman of the day here]. The aim is to shut down discourse, rather than further understanding or merely exchange ideas.

Fixed it for you. This describes at least 90% of your posts.

Really? I don’t call people names.

I’m calling YOU out for calling people names. I’m not suggesting you should stop posting. I’m flat out saying that you should stop calling people names. Keep posting! Just quit calling people names!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You used it in your post. If you don't want to defend it, don't use it.

Well, once the American welfare and support systems treat race as some sort of monolithic thing, then perhaps you wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree. As things stand, US support systems treat everyone as individuals. You can't get unemployment simply because "black".

You call that objective? It sounded like mumbo jumbo. Obama's daughters will get jobs, therefore more blacks having trouble finding work isn't relevant?

Come on: we elected a (half)black man as POTUS so racism is dead and the privilege afforded the offspring of other POTUS is merely coincidence and not evidence of anything at all.

We voted unfairly, not voting equally for the white guy.