The latest Luke Thomas racism update

[mudrubble]

You're a bullshit artist.

*Insert alleged quote from anonymous source here*

Well if that ain't the bowl calling the rice white..... I'm not even an artist.

But you just gave several paragraphs of quote without a source, author, context or, most importantly, objective.

Let's even say your quote pans out to be the real words of some real person who lived during that time and was relatively objective in their observance of facts (as in, not writing this for the purpose of making Africans look worse by adding fanciful details and twists) - let's say this was a totally honest piece of writing and you just didn't source it.

What it would show is that some African rulers during some particular generations of history were cruel and wonton in slaughter of their neighbours and in procuring captives. Note this is already after at least one of these kings considers the king of England his "master" - the question arises about supply chain ramping up and how much his European "masters" and their desire for slaves fueled this cruel king's campaigns to ramp up production of slaves. But we won't answer that question here.

This is not the traditional form of slavery practiced in MOST of Africa prior to the coming of Europeans. The question was about a random poster's ancestors, to which some bigot responded this random poster's ancestors were "probably" slave traders. "Probably" here indicates the most likely situation. And that's just silly. So ignorant as to be pitiful.

The majority, the overwhelming majority of the ppl referenced in your quote were not slave traders but captives. It would be more "probable" that this random poster descended from the majority and not from the few rulers and their aides in slave trading.

Nothing about that quote, if it is a quote, or really about anything else in life or history, could confirm that anybody's African ancestors were "probably" slave traders except if we have reason to believe they descended from that very small sliver of African society that comprised cruel slave trading kings and their henchmen/networks. It is actually more "improbable" that they descended from these groups as these groups were capturing slaves in countries in Africa and wouldn't have a way to spread their genes to America unlike slaves, who did come to America and are more "probably" the ancestors of said random poster.

So he probably descends from the victims and not the captors who stayed back in Africa.

I could go on but I don't think Sherdog heavies is the place for this, nor do I find that typing is the best way to engage in discussion this meaningful since ppl are essentially assholes or at least irresponsible behind their keyboards (even more than in person). They'll post random quotes, unsourced, for example, that don't even address the issue at hand then stick out their chest and call you a "bullshit artist".

When what they need is not a forum but a psychological mirror. And that usually requires speech. Not always but most often. I'm not going to believe the utter nonsense (that you made up to post on Sherdog) you're telling me about western blacks "most probably" descending from slave traders any more than you're going to believe my assertion that the vast majority of Africans, over the generations of time covered by European chattel slavery, knew little to nothing of what European slavery looked like.

I'm not saying NONE did. I'm not saying NONE were brutal. I'm not saying that after a supply chain of slaves became lucrative to African kings (which required European buyers to become such a lucrative business) that none of them turned a blind and brutish eye to the plights they were putting their neighbours in. I'm not denying that once the hose was turned on that sometimes there was nowhere to put the water. We need only compare the utter arrogance and brutality of many African rulers today with the humbleness of most poor Africans, to see that even today, the vast majority are subjected to violence or intimidation by power but are not themselves perpetrators of violence or intimidation. I say it was the same then. I'll even say that the ratio was more extreme before it became so fashionable to cater to the west and try to equal their power and industry.

But these distinctions are lost on Sherdog where my ancestors were "probably" slave traders because Joe Blow Poster said so in his proud ignorance. So I'm probably done trying to have meaningful conversation or debate here.... with REAL bs artists....

 

[mudrubble]

No, you're absolutely right, the white bogeyman is always behind the scenes, playing puppeteer and holding the black man down. The struggle is real out here for brothas. Shit's cray.

You'll find this happens anywhere there's a dollar. Even more when there's ideology and a dollar. Recorded history of America proves what you just wrote to be far from idle paranoia. Ever heard of the reconstruction period? Jim Crow? Prisons for profit? Man, it's like you live in a fairy tale where power structures do not descend on the weak and where economics never follow philosophy.

I agree. Black Lives Matter proponents are extreme -- murderous, even -- and their positions have little to no attachment to reality. You are no exception. You hide behind 'racism' and victim-hood to cope with the fact that you are inadequate and can't get ahead (through no fault of anyone else but you). Most people recognize that that is a very counterproductive way of achieving anything in life, but not Afrocentrics.

Thick brush and too much paint. You talk of BLM proponents as though we're all the same. Again, it's a convenient way to think but it's never going to shed light because we're actually quite different, especially on the question of extremism.

I am coping with the fact I'm inadequate and can't get ahead?? I hate to appear to be boasting but I'll defend myself and say that I earn 6 figures and I'm far from rich, but I'm farther from poor. I consider myself to have gotten ahead and I count m blessings every day. I also think I've cultivated better thinking patterns than most, including you.

You literally just made up a character and said that was me. Think about that. You just TOLD me I'm no exception to YOUR rule. Therefore I can't get ahead. This is YOUR thinking about blacks, obviously. Furthermore, I'm bitter about that so I make up ideas and concepts (you literally just made up my life summation!)....man..... just listening to how you think, do you REALLY think I'd envy that and want to "get ahead" and be in your shoes?

I earn enough that I don't have to envy any man. Even if you make 450K annually and think like this I can only pity you. I'd have to be real poor to envy anyone who thinks and reasons like you do. So no, no bitterness brother. Pity long before that. This is a sad example of why we don't have civil discourse on race....

So I might just get back to MMA talk. This stuff hurts my head when I'm talking with certain kinds of thinkers.....

 

[dontsnitch]

Well if you're talking semantics then I'll tell you that prejudice + social or economic power over groups prejudiced against was the definition I learned in sociology in a white college in white Canada. It's certainly not a black definition. Of course, it's easy enough to accept a different definition, so this might just be semantics. But someone, not sure if it was you, said it was a black definition, etc..

If we're talking about MEANINGS (not words) then what I MEANT was prejudice + social or ecomomic power over the group(s) prejudiced against.

Do you understand the hoops you need to jump through to prove racism when the subjects are two people of questionable economic power? If I call you a racist slur, do you need to validate my economic power before you can conclude if I"m racist?

 

[Coolidge]

Well if that ain't the bowl calling the rice white..... I'm not even an artist.

Right, so you're just a terrible and unskilled bullshitter, then. I've obviously given you too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.

But you just gave several paragraphs of quote without a source, author, context or, most importantly, objective.

The Land of the Golden Trade by John Lang

"This book covers the exploration of Africa from the earliest voyages of the ancient Phoenicians to about 1900. It's primary focus is the Ivory coast, and many of the stories are about the explorers, plunders, traders. slavers, and pirates who frequented Western Africa. There were few permanent European settlements in the area because of the difficult climate, so the historical stories are episodic rather than comprehensive. The history of the slave trade of particular interest."

Source: The Baldwin Project / Heritage History

There goes your fictitious person/quote angle.

Let's even say your quote pans out to be the real words of some real person who lived during that time and was relatively objective in their observance of facts (as in, not writing this for the purpose of making Africans look worse by adding fanciful details and twists) - let's say this was a totally honest piece of writing and you just didn't source it.

Well, of course an Afrocentric is going to be skeptical of anything that doesn't portray African people as anything other than kind, benevolent, smart, and innovative. Anything else is obviously a product of whitey, and we all know whitey likes to discredit Africans and lie. Let's say you get to the point quicker and stop adding in a bunch of filler text to inflate your word count?

What it would show is that some African rulers during some particular generations of history were cruel and wonton in slaughter of their neighbours and in procuring captives. Note this is already after at least one of these kings considers the king of England his "master" - the question arises about supply chain ramping up and how much his European "masters" and their desire for slaves fueled this cruel king's campaigns to ramp up production of slaves. But we won't answer that question here.

Typical bullshit ar...my mistake, typical bullshitter, always shifting the goalposts from one end to the other. What it shows is that at least three separate African rulers knew about, endorsed, and engaged in chattel slavery, which you argued was completely foreign to Africans and something they did not practice. What the quote describes -- the beatings, the cruel and unusual punishment for disobedience, the murder, the inhumane overworking of slaves -- is exactly what was occurring to slaves in America. It is well established in history that the black kings and Arabs merchants were helping supply the Atlantic slave trade. The fact that his choice of words was 'master' has nothing to do with anything. Your contention, in case you've forgotten already, was as follows: 'And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.' Obviously not, if these African slave owners are cracking whips against the backs of their slave, tying multiple slaves together like animals, refusing them proper nutrition, and even outright killing them once they're of no use to them. 'B-b-but it was only to ramp up production' is not an argument.

This is not the traditional form of slavery practiced in MOST of Africa prior to the coming of Europeans. The question was about a random poster's ancestors, to which some bigot responded this random poster's ancestors were "probably" slave traders. "Probably" here indicates the most likely situation. And that's just silly. So ignorant as to be pitiful.

The goalposts continue to shift. The discussion was over the Atlantic Slave Trade and whether his ancestors were privy to what was going on in Europe/the Americas during this period. No one was talking about what happened prior to the arrival of the Europeans. So now the narrative has gone from 'they didn't practice this type of slavery' to 'well, they did, but it wasn't traditional and the Europeans are really to blame'. How convenient. I'm amused that you called this individual a bigot, but not surprised. Have you ever objected to someone accusing a white person of being the descendants of slave owners? You do understand that only a relatively small percent of people in America actually owned slaves, correct? Is anti-white bigotry even a thing or does it require a power component, like pseudo-intellectual Afrocentrics insist is necessary for 'racism'? I sometimes get confused with all of the mental gymnastics and lies you all tell.

The majority, the overwhelming majority of the ppl referenced in your quote were not slave traders but captives. It would be more "probable" that this random poster descended from the majority and not from the few rulers and their aides in slave trading.

That comment has nothing to do with me. Take up with its author. I'm not arguing for or against whatever he said.

[*insert irrelevant babbling here*]

See above.

I'm not saying NONE did. I'm not saying NONE were brutal. I'm not saying that after a supply chain of slaves became lucrative to African kings (which required European buyers to become such a lucrative business) that none of them turned a blind and brutish eye to the plights they were putting their neighbours in. I'm not denying that once the hose was turned on that sometimes there was nowhere to put the water. We need only compare the utter arrogance and brutality of many African rulers today with the humbleness of most poor Africans, to see that even today, the vast majority are subjected to violence or intimidation by power but are not themselves perpetrators of violence or intimidation. I say it was the same then. I'll even say that the ratio was more extreme before it became so fashionable to cater to the west and try to equal their power and industry.

Yes, you did say that. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that. But you did say it. If you want to pretend that there was some sort of unseen detail lost in 'which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with', then be my guest, but it's clear that you, like all other Afrocentric revisionists, think that white people in particular had a monopoly on cruelty. If you knew for a fact that Africans had, at some point, begun to adopt these so called 'European practices', then why was anything about that part of history absent from your post? Why did it take my post to drag it out of you? The humbleness of most poor Africans? The homicide rate in most predominantly black African countries is incredibly high. Violence and savagery is not exclusive to the those in power. African rulers and groups like the LRA, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab are large contributors to the violence, but you're not going to have a homicide rate in the 20's to 30's without the general population also engaged in violent behavior. But if true, perhaps maybe the poor Africans can bring violent black inner city youth under their tutelage and teach them that their impoverished status does not necessitate violent crime.

But these distinctions are lost on Sherdog where my ancestors were "probably" slave traders because Joe Blow Poster said so in his proud ignorance. So I'm probably done trying to have meaningful conversation or debate here.... with REAL bs artists....

Again, this was never my argument, so I'm not going to defend what he said. Honestly, who cares what whose ancestors did? That's the problem with both Afrocentrics and the white nationalist Stormfront types. You all have a weird fixation on what the people of the past did, people who more than likely wouldn't give a damn about you. His point, I'm guessing, is that we are all in the same boat when it comes to having ancestors who did bad things, so let's stop guilt-tripping one another.

 

[Coolidge]

I am coping with the fact I'm inadequate and can't get ahead?? I hate to appear to be boasting but I'll defend myself and say that I earn 6 figures and I'm far from rich, but I'm farther from poor. I consider myself to have gotten ahead and I count m blessings every day. I also think I've cultivated better thinking patterns than most, including you.

Earning 6 figures while peddling victimhood and complaining about 'da man' using institutional racism to disenfranchise black people. That's believable. Actually, I'm not being facetious when I say that. It actually is believable, because I know of a lot of Afrocentric ideologues who've acquired wealth through the very same system they lambaste as racist and discriminatory. But you see, that's part of the entire scam. Al Sharpton, for example, plays the role of the helpless victim and uses his black skin as a tool to elicit sympathy and extort money from white people and other non-blacks. You benefit from promoting Afrocentric victimhood, because that means more affirmative action and more undue attention to you and your causes. You've cultivated better thinking patterns than most? That's hysterical. You sound a lot like Gavin 'Cosmo' Long.

You literally just made up a character and said that was me. Think about that. You just TOLD me I'm no exception to YOUR rule. Therefore I can't get ahead. This is YOUR thinking about blacks, obviously. Furthermore, I'm bitter about that so I make up ideas and concepts (you literally just made up my life summation!)....man..... just listening to how you think, do you REALLY think I'd envy that and want to "get ahead" and be in your shoes?

No, genius, that's my thinking about anyone who uses their race as both a crutch and a bludgeon and whines incessantly about past grievances. Particularly, that's my thinking about you and left-wing Afrocentrics in general. The word 'Afrocentric' is not synonymous with 'blacks'. Many black people reject your bullshit, and those black people tend to find it much easier to navigate through the system, because they are not burdened by the fear that the white bogeyman is going to get them.

 

[Coolidge]

Do you understand the hoops you need to jump through to prove racism when the subjects are two people of questionable economic power? If I call you a racist slur, do you need to validate my economic power before you can conclude if I"m racist?

Of course. After all, it was taught to him in a sociology course. These are the sorts of poisonous ideas being spread on college campuses. Stepping outside the halls of liberal intelligentsia and hearing, for the very first time, that -- yes, in fact -- everyone can be a racist, is jarring.

 

[Rygu]

Everyone should just leave Luke alone. Like his dad did. Like his uncle didn't.

 

[mudrubble]

Right, so you're just a terrible and unskilled bullshitter, then. I've obviously given you too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.



The Land of the Golden Trade by John Lang

"This book covers the exploration of Africa from the earliest voyages of the ancient Phoenicians to about 1900. It's primary focus is the Ivory coast, and many of the stories are about the explorers, plunders, traders. slavers, and pirates who frequented Western Africa. There were few permanent European settlements in the area because of the difficult climate, so the historical stories are episodic rather than comprehensive. The history of the slave trade of particular interest."

Source: The Baldwin Project / Heritage History

There goes your fictitious person/quote angle.



Well, of course an Afrocentric is going to be skeptical of anything that doesn't portray African people as anything other than kind, benevolent, smart, and innovative. Anything else is obviously a product of whitey, and we all know whitey likes to discredit Africans and lie. Let's say you get to the point quicker and stop adding in a bunch of filler text to inflate your word count?



Typical bullshit ar...my mistake, typical bullshitter, always shifting the goalposts from one end to the other. What it shows is that at least three separate African rulers knew about, endorsed, and engaged in chattel slavery, which you argued was completely foreign to Africans and something they did not practice. What the quote describes -- the beatings, the cruel and unusual punishment for disobedience, the murder, the inhumane overworking of slaves -- is exactly what was occurring to slaves in America. It is well established in history that the black kings and Arabs merchants were helping supply the Atlantic slave trade. The fact that his choice of words was 'master' has nothing to do with anything. Your contention, in case you've forgotten already, was as follows: 'And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.' Obviously not, if these African slave owners are cracking whips against the backs of their slave, tying multiple slaves together like animals, refusing them proper nutrition, and even outright killing them once they're of no use to them. 'B-b-but it was only to ramp up production' is not an argument.



The goalposts continue to shift. The discussion was over the Atlantic Slave Trade and whether his ancestors were privy to what was going on in Europe/the Americas during this period. No one was talking about what happened prior to the arrival of the Europeans. So now the narrative has gone from 'they didn't practice this type of slavery' to 'well, they did, but it wasn't traditional and the Europeans are really to blame'. How convenient. I'm amused that you called this individual a bigot, but not surprised. Have you ever objected to someone accusing a white person of being the descendants of slave owners? You do understand that only a relatively small percent of people in America actually owned slaves, correct? Is anti-white bigotry even a thing or does it require a power component, like pseudo-intellectual Afrocentrics insist is necessary for 'racism'? I sometimes get confused with all of the mental gymnastics and lies you all tell.



That comment has nothing to do with me. Take up with its author. I'm not arguing for or against whatever he said.



See above.



Yes, you did say that. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that. But you did say it. If you want to pretend that there was some sort of unseen detail lost in 'which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with', then be my guest, but it's clear that you, like all other Afrocentric revisionists, think that white people in particular had a monopoly on cruelty. If you knew for a fact that Africans had, at some point, begun to adopt these so called 'European practices', then why was anything about that part of history absent from your post? Why did it take my post to drag it out of you? The humbleness of most poor Africans? The homicide rate in most predominantly black African countries is incredibly high. Violence and savagery is not exclusive to the those in power. African rulers and groups like the LRA, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab are large contributors to the violence, but you're not going to have a homicide rate in the 20's to 30's without the general population also engaged in violent behavior. But if true, perhaps maybe the poor Africans can bring violent black inner city youth under their tutelage and teach them that their impoverished status does not necessitate violent crime.



Again, this was never my argument, so I'm not going to defend what he said. Honestly, who cares what whose ancestors did? That's the problem with both Afrocentrics and the white nationalist Stormfront types. You all have a weird fixation on what the people of the past did, people who more than likely wouldn't give a damn about you. His point, I'm guessing, is that we are all in the same boat when it comes to having ancestors who did bad things, so let's stop guilt-tripping one another.

You don't discuss what I said. You discuss what's comfortable for you to discuss. You make up quotes you claim I said and positions you claim I hold because that's what you've already practiced arguing against and you're not going to learn any new tricks. This is the reason I don't reason with ppl like you.

If you could have a GENUINE discussion about what I ACTUALLY said, not what you claim I said, or what you are paranoid that I might mean, then some understanding might ensue. But what I started reading here (I admit it's not worth finishing) was you making up things I said or making up positions you'd like me to hold to argue against and then defining me by terms you're invested in, and arguing against a straw man you made up. You're arguing against your image of me, but not against me.

And what I actually said is still on the table. This is why I tend to end up shutting down conversations with ppl like you. They are not actual conversations, where two ppl exchange ideas. I've had GOOD debates with racists who were fact based. Racists are not, to my mind, necessarily "bad" ppl. They're just bigoted.

I've had good debates with bigots and racists in the past, and come away with a respect for their thinking, if not for their points of view. This is not such a case. This is stupid. You're arguing against the wind. And you're not genuine or honest enough to debate against me.

Peace out

 

[mudrubble]

Do you understand the hoops you need to jump through to prove racism when the subjects are two people of questionable economic power? If I call you a racist slur, do you need to validate my economic power before you can conclude if I"m racist?

This is a fair question. No, I don't. I actually don't have to "prove" racism at all for me to experience a person as racist. I know that if a Native Canadian says something racist to me (they rarely would, but if they did) that it means little hurt to me because it's not coming from someone who lives as part of a class that denies me jobs out of suspicion, or that makes it difficult for me to get into certain neighbourhoods when I have the wherewithal to do so, or that has set up institutions that disenfranchise me or my people, or indeed has thrown up many barriers to my self-determinism. So he can feel how he wants - it probably won't affect my life much. If he's white, my fear is that he, or his brother, sister, friends who think like him, etc., are more likely to be my colleague, boss, banker, political representative, doctor, lawyer, etc., and his view of me is more threatening.

Now does this "prove" that a white person saying the same thing is a confirmed "racist" by definition? No, of course not. And if it had to be "proven" in a court of law, I agree, it would involve a lot of hoops and some good shoes. But it doesn't. Anymore than if I say "My mom and my daughter are the ppl who love me the most in my life" I can't "prove" their love either. Very little sentiment can be "proven". But very little sentiment needs to. Sentiment is felt, not proven.

So I agree in a court of law, it would be hard to prove "racism", which is why so many racists get off for racist acts. It's hard to prove they acted that way BECAUSE OF racism. Nearly impossible.

So we agree, and I think you're reasoning intelligently.

But it does not change the feeling blacks have when observing the reactions they get from whites face to face or institutionally. We live in two different worlds and we know your world pretty well because we also live within it and you know very little of what it's like to live in our world so many ideas are formed without nearly as much perspective. For you to see what we're talking about, most of you would have to live in our shoes for a moment and that's not going to happen so we're not going to agree except for by degrees and by conversation.

Luke strikes me as someone who has PATIENTLY (not defensively) engaged in many conversations that would have many sherdoggers in exreme reactive mode. I can see why many white MMA fans would find his views on race to be emasculating to them and it makes sense they'd call him "cuck". I don't have a problem with that. It's as predictable and understandable as anything else.

 

[Coolidge]

You don't discuss what I said. You discuss what's comfortable for you to discuss. You make up quotes you claim I said and positions you claim I hold because that's what you've already practiced arguing against and you're not going to learn any new tricks. This is the reason I don't reason with ppl like you.

You were right to deny being a bullshit artist. You're simply not very good at it. Nowhere did I make up any quotes. I quoted you verbatim and accurately responded to your argument each time. Notice how you're claiming I misquoted you, but never mention anything specific? That's for a reason.

If you could have a GENUINE discussion about what I ACTUALLY said, not what you claim I said, or what you are paranoid that I might mean, then some understanding might ensue. But what I started reading here (I admit it's not worth finishing) was you making up things I said or making up positions you'd like me to hold to argue against and then defining me by terms you're invested in, and arguing against a straw man you made up. You're arguing against your image of me, but not against me.

Numbskull, this is what you said:

Much more likely, the vast majority of them were not. And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.

You conceded the fact that Africans engaged in the same style of slavery and gave some pitiful excuse that this form of slavery in Africa was a result of Europe's presence (blaming the white man, as usual). Of course, that contention isn't exactly true, either, but it's a lot closer to reality than arguing Africans weren't aware of chattel slavery. No, the reason you don't reason with people like me, and people in general, is that you have no concept of what it means to critically think. 'Straw-man' is actually a fitting description for the way you tried to shift the focus back towards the claim that his ancestors were slave owners; a claim I never made, contested, or defended.

And what I actually said is still on the table. This is why I tend to end up shutting down conversations with ppl like you. They are not actual conversations, where two ppl exchange ideas. I've had GOOD debates with racists who were fact based. Racists are not, to my mind, necessarily "bad" ppl. They're just bigoted.

What you actually said was an ahistorical lie; a blatant distortion of reality straight out of Afrocentrism 101. You're trying to reconcile the reality of the brutal and atrocious practices of African slave traders with the Afrocentric fantasy of the kind, unassuming African people, who were merely duped into supporting slavery and didn't really have any idea what was going on in Europe or the Americas. It's so painfully obvious what you're doing. And you're accusing me of being a racist bigot? That's laughable. You really are an Al Sharpton wannabe. I have not said one racist thing to you or anyone else.

I've had good debates with bigots and racists in the past, and come away with a respect for their thinking, if not for their points of view. This is not such a case. This is stupid. You're arguing against the wind. And you're not genuine or honest enough to debate against me.

Not a single line of your entire post was dedicated to addressing the facts that I underlined in my post. All you did was ramble and whine and cry 'racism', which is typical behavior for 'people like you' -- those people being mental midgets, social justice warriors, and Afrocentrics.

Peace out

Bye-bye.

 

[Coolidge]

But it does not change the feeling blacks have when observing the reactions they get from whites face to face or institutionally. We live in two different worlds and we know your world pretty well because we also live within it and you know very little of what it's like to live in our world so many ideas are formed without nearly as much perspective. For you to see what we're talking about, most of you would have to live in our shoes for a moment and that's not going to happen so we're not going to agree except for by degrees and by conversation.

Luke strikes me as someone who has PATIENTLY (not defensively) engaged in many conversations that would have many sherdoggers in exreme reactive mode. I can see why many white MMA fans would find his views on race to be emasculating to them and it makes sense they'd call him "cuck". I don't have a problem with that. It's as predictable and understandable as anything else.

You don't speak on behalf of black people, dingus. Stop with the 'we' and 'we're' nonsense. There are plenty of black people out there that reject victimhood and won't vouch for your experiences and fears. Black people like myself.

 

[dontsnitch]

This is a fair question. No, I don't. I actually don't have to "prove" racism at all for me to experience a person as racist. I know that if a Native Canadian says something racist to me (they rarely would, but if they did) that it means little hurt to me because it's not coming from someone who lives as part of a class that denies me jobs out of suspicion, or that makes it difficult for me to get into certain neighbourhoods when I have the wherewithal to do so, or that has set up institutions that disenfranchise me or my people, or indeed has thrown up many barriers to my self-determinism. So he can feel how he wants - it probably won't affect my life much. If he's white, my fear is that he, or his brother, sister, friends who think like him, etc., are more likely to be my colleague, boss, banker, political representative, doctor, lawyer, etc., and his view of me is more threatening.

Now does this "prove" that a white person saying the same thing is a confirmed "racist" by definition? No, of course not. And if it had to be "proven" in a court of law, I agree, it would involve a lot of hoops and some good shoes. But it doesn't. Anymore than if I say "My mom and my daughter are the ppl who love me the most in my life" I can't "prove" their love either. Very little sentiment can be "proven". But very little sentiment needs to. Sentiment is felt, not proven.

So I agree in a court of law, it would be hard to prove "racism", which is why so many racists get off for racist acts. It's hard to prove they acted that way BECAUSE OF racism. Nearly impossible.

So we agree, and I think you're reasoning intelligently.

But it does not change the feeling blacks have when observing the reactions they get from whites face to face or institutionally. We live in two different worlds and we know your world pretty well because we also live within it and you know very little of what it's like to live in our world so many ideas are formed without nearly as much perspective. For you to see what we're talking about, most of you would have to live in our shoes for a moment and that's not going to happen so we're not going to agree except for by degrees and by conversation.

Luke strikes me as someone who has PATIENTLY (not defensively) engaged in many conversations that would have many sherdoggers in exreme reactive mode. I can see why many white MMA fans would find his views on race to be emasculating to them and it makes sense they'd call him "cuck". I don't have a problem with that. It's as predictable and understandable as anything else.

I'm not sure what world you believe I live in, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you.

What I took issue with is your definition of racism that includes power. Would it be fair to say that since you do not know my socioeconomic or social standing, you could not conclude if I am able to be racist, towards you or anyone?

Racism used to be the belief of superiority, and has recently adopted prejudice, hate, and discrimination to the definition, all of which can be done by anyone at anytime without the power qualifier.

 

[mudrubble]

Numbskull, this is what you said:

Much more likely, the vast majority of them were not. And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.

Typical bullshit ar...my mistake, typical bullshitter, always shifting the goalposts from one end to the other. What it shows is that at least three separate African rulers knew about, endorsed, and engaged in chattel slavery, which you argued was completely foreign to Africans and something they did not practice.

Coolidge, when you can observe the difference between "the vast majority" and "completely foreign" you'll start understanding why good natured discussion with you is not right now possible on this topic and why I said you make up positions you claim I hold and argue against them. This is only one example, but it's the trend.

When you can understand how "very few of them" can easily be "at least three separate African rulers" you'll see how we weren't disagreeing there but in your zeal to prove "Afrocentrism" wrong, you were unable to process what we were agreeing on and can only experience a discussion with me as a need to conquer, to win, to come out on top by any desperate or disingenuous means.

Discussions like this can only be fruitful if both parties come with a spirit of trying to understand the other's position. That's why we're getting nowhere. You're arguing against your own ideas. You're twisting my ideas into your own ideas that you like to argue against and arguing against them, as I've already said. Now you can see the evidence in grey and orange. If you were looking for your own flaws, you'd be able to see much more but you're too focused on mine, so I'll leave you to do that.[/quote]

 

[mudrubble]

I'm not sure what world you believe I live in, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you.

What I took issue with is your definition of racism that includes power. Would it be fair to say that since you do not know my socioeconomic or social standing, you could not conclude if I am able to be racist, towards you or anyone?

Racism used to be the belief of superiority, and has recently adopted prejudice, hate, and discrimination to the definition, all of which can be done by anyone at anytime without the power qualifier.

Fair point on jumping to conclusions - I did.

Could I conclude if you were being racist or not? To satisfy my own definition yes. To prove in a court of law or some objective measure, no.

I won't fault your definition of racism. My point was that what I was speaking of was that COUPLED with it coming from a group we generally consider as having great power over our prospects in life and specifically, often using that power to prevent our self-determinism. If we want to term that something OTHER than racism, I'm content to do that. We could call it "imtama" or "belutrin" or any other made up word, but whatever we call it, that's what I was speaking of that troubles many blacks.

Being hated or singled out is one thing, but being hated or singled out by someone who is automatically viewed by society at large in better standing than you and who looks like all the people who denied you jobs or apartments or houses or acceptance in any other setting is another thing. I was simply trying to refer to this other thing. If we don't want to call it racism, I'm not picky on the term.

 

[Coolidge]

Coolidge, when you can observe the difference between "the vast majority" and "completely foreign" you'll start understanding why good natured discussion with you is not right now possible on this topic and why I said you make up positions you claim I hold and argue against them. This is only one example, but it's the trend.

When you can understand how "very few of them" can easily be "at least three separate African rulers" you'll see how we weren't disagreeing there but in your zeal to prove "Afrocentrism" wrong, you were unable to process what we were agreeing on and can only experience a discussion with me as a need to conquer, to win, to come out on top by any desperate or disingenuous means.

Discussions like this can only be fruitful if both parties come with a spirit of trying to understand the other's position. That's why we're getting nowhere. You're arguing against your own ideas. You're twisting my ideas into your own ideas that you like to argue against and arguing against them, as I've already said. Now you can see the evidence in grey and orange. If you were looking for your own flaws, you'd be able to see much more but you're too focused on mine, so I'll leave you to do that.

Your lying is growing tiresome.

'the vast majority' was unrelated to chattel slavery. That was about whether his ancestors were slave owners in general. 'very few of them' was related to whether they knew about the details of a type of slavery on foreign soil. The part of the quote that's relevant: 'which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.' indicates that this form of slavery was absent and foreign to African society. It's not.

 

[mudrubble]

You don't speak on behalf of black people, dingus. Stop with the 'we' and 'we're' nonsense. There are plenty of black people out there that reject victimhood and won't vouch for your experiences and fears. Black people like myself.

We're all welcome to our own definitions and kneejerk reactions. You can define Afrocentrism, victimhood, me, the bogeyman, and anything else you want, I won't stop you. But you're still not speaking to what I'm saying and still wasting both of our time. And if you're really black, boy, wow. Welcome, brother. I know, I know - "you're not my brother" right?

Well, welcome, brother.

 

[dontsnitch]

Fair point on jumping to conclusions - I did.

Could I conclude if you were being racist or not? To satisfy my own definition yes. To prove in a court of law or some objective measure, no.

I won't fault your definition of racism. My point was that what I was speaking of was that COUPLED with it coming from a group we generally consider as having great power over our prospects in life and specifically, often using that power to prevent our self-determinism. If we want to term that something OTHER than racism, I'm content to do that. We could call it "imtama" or "belutrin" or any other made up word, but whatever we call it, that's what I was speaking of that troubles many blacks.

Being hated or singled out is one thing, but being hated or singled out by someone who is automatically viewed by society at large in better standing than you and who looks like all the people who denied you jobs or apartments or houses or acceptance in any other setting is another thing. I was simply trying to refer to this other thing. If we don't want to call it racism, I'm not picky on the term.

It's why definitions are important. When people define racism with a qualifier, it will always appear that they are attempting to justify racism, but we know that anyone can hate anyone at any time, and do wrong by him based on race.

I'm fine with your explanation of this particular phenomenon, but I would be pretty firm in not redefining racism to explain it.

 

[mudrubble]

Your lying is growing tiresome.

'the vast majority' was unrelated to chattel slavery. That was about whether his ancestors were slave owners in general. 'very few of them' was related to whether they knew about the details of a type of slavery on foreign soil. The part of the quote that's relevant: 'which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.' indicates that this form of slavery was absent from African society. It's not.

Lord, man. The quote is right there:

Much more likely, the vast majority of them were not. And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.

The qualifiers are right there on the statement. I never said chattel slavery, brutality or anything else was absent from Africa (or anywhere else). You said that.

I said the vast majority wouldn't have been slave traders when you said he descended MOST LIKELY from slave traders (a lie). I said very few of them would be familiar with the form of European chattel slavery since it would have been so far from what they practiced and were familar with. I never said ALL of them would be unfamiliar with anything. I said very few would be familiar.

The quote is right there. You don't have to admit you're wrong or hardlined yourself into a corner. But you do probably want to stop badgering me to cover up your own carelessness.

You want to hone in on half my statement as "the relevant part" because it's relevant to the delusion you produced out of it. But I'm not under that delusion. I never said that. I don't hold that point of view. You're arguing against something I never expressed and is not my point of view.

Now you're trying to prove it really is my point of view!

Coolidge! Stop this! Catch yourself and just back away from it. Leave it alone, man. I don't believe the things you're railing against and it's pointless.

 

[Coolidge]

We're all welcome to our own definitions and kneejerk reactions. You can define Afrocentrism, victimhood, me, the bogeyman, and anything else you want, I won't stop you. But you're still not speaking to what I'm saying and still wasting both of our time. And if you're really black, boy, wow. Welcome, brother. I know, I know - "you're not my brother" right?

Well, welcome, brother.

Correct. You're not my brother. I don't identify other people as 'brother' simply because we share the same race. Whether you realize it or not, you have the exact same mentality as the white nationalist who feels that he has an automatic/inherent kinship with people for no other reason than because they happened to be born a certain way. What began as a legitimate grievance in response to real institutionalized racism has morphed into a fetish for victimhood.

 

[Coolidge]

Lord, man. The quote is right there:

Much more likely, the vast majority of them were not. And most likely very few of them were intimate with the details of European chattel slavery, which was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with.

I know the quote is there. I've read it and can see it completely undermines the lie you're telling now.

What type of slavery were you talking about? A. 'European chattel slavery,' What were you asserting about European chattel slavery? A. That it 'was very different from the slavery they practiced and were familiar with'. Who is they? A. Africans.

You were clearly arguing that Africans did not practice Europe's 'very different' form of slavery. The entire point of your comment was that Africans practiced a gentler, less cruel form of slavery, and therefore can not be compared to Europe/America. Even after acknowledging the examples of chattel slavery in Africa, you were still trying to give them an escape route by arguing that they were being influenced by Europe. The only time you ever mentioned that Africans also engaged in this form of slavery is AFTER I provided the examples. Now you've given a bunch of excuses as to why that doesn't matter.

I said the vast majority wouldn't have been slave traders when you said he descended MOST LIKELY from slave traders (a lie). I said very few of them would be familiar with the form of European chattel slavery since it would have been so far from what they practiced and were familar with. I never said ALL of them would be unfamiliar with anything. I said very few would be familiar.

I never said that. I just caught you in a lie. Do I have to go through the rest?