RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events February is Black History month.

Quote:

---

rex said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
There's no illusion of anything resembling a civil discussion where you're concerned. I think if Sammitch or PJP or WBAM had voiced the same views, you wouldn't have jumped at this post like a bulldog on a short leash. But because you saw it was posted by Wonder Boy, you just jumped into attack mode, like you consistently do to my posts in recent weeks.

---

So instead of defending your position or...I don't know, being a man and admitting you're wrong you choose to victimize yourself. Your kind are so predictable.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I think if Sammitch or PJP or WBAM had voiced the same views, you wouldn't have jumped at this post like a bulldog on a short leash. But because you saw it was posted by Wonder Boy, you just jumped into attack mode, like you consistently do to my posts in recent weeks.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:...
That was playful use of a remark by Biden that was not meant as an attack on him, or Wednesday either for that matter.
...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:...
That was playful use of a remark by Biden that was not meant as an attack on him, or Wednesday either for that matter.
...

---

OK, I guess I did jump the gun there.

As for the thread in general, your argument isn't really styled to win anyone over. What is your objective? While I don't think your racist, this just reminds me of all the people that I know that feel the need to say "Oh it's their holiday" or "how come we don't have a white history month?".

---

Quote:

---

rex said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I think if Sammitch or PJP or WBAM had voiced the same views, you wouldn't have jumped at this post like a bulldog on a short leash. But because you saw it was posted by Wonder Boy, you just jumped into attack mode, like you consistently do to my posts in recent weeks.

---

That right there is where you victimized yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:

I think a better representation of a whit politician being racist is that guy who said macaca. I forget his name, but he actually spent some time in South Africa as a kid and macaca is a racist term for minorities there.
But he's a republican so....

---

George Allen, wikipedia listing

Allen explains his comment, and video of the incident

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
You know, Jason, I don't doubt that you have another perspective on the issue, and I actually looked forward to seeing your counter-perspective to my views, explaining why you think I'm wrong, from your perspective.

---

I don't need to. Although he chose to word it in a different manner than I would have, Karl made some very good points that covered much of the same ground any post from me would have.

Plus, I fear you're too far gone. You're too entrenched in sound bites and ignorance for me to reach you. I don't have the time or the patience to spend hours educating you on the counter-perspective. You don't even know the facts. Start there then maybe we'll talk. Or maybe I'll get bored. Until then, a flip remark is all you get.

---

You know, that's funny.

I only get my racial perception from "soundbytes and ignorance" ?

Gee, that's funny, because I could have sworn I quoted sections from several books I read on the subject, and didn't just draw my opinion from soundbytes. Any soundbytes, actually. Show me where I quoted soundbytes.

---

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:

I think a better representation of a whit politician being racist is that guy who said macaca. I forget his name, but he actually spent some time in South Africa as a kid and macaca is a racist term for minorities there.
But he's a republican so....

---

George Allen, wikipedia listing

Allen explains his comment, and video of the incident

---

Explanation? he made a racial slur. if you slip and say the n word, you still said it. it was still there on the tip of your tongue.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Jason E. Perkins didn't quote me. It hurt my feelings.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
As I said at the beginning of this post, at times it felt like that's how you were coming across. It's a very touchy subject, and there's really not much room for ambiguity.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Jason E. Perkins didn't quote me. It hurt my feelings.

---

Honestly, I thought I did.

---

My posts are so forgettable that you can't even remember quoting them!!!

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I didn't "victimize" myself, I just pointed out what a petty and vindictive idiot you've consistently been regarding my posts. I don't feel victimized, I just feel your comments have been a diversion to the serious discussion the grown-ups are having.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
You know, Jason, I don't doubt that you have another perspective on the issue, and I actually looked forward to seeing your counter-perspective to my views, explaining why you think I'm wrong, from your perspective.

---

I don't need to. Although he chose to word it in a different manner than I would have, Karl made some very good points that covered much of the same ground any post from me would have.

Plus, I fear you're too far gone. You're too entrenched in sound bites and ignorance for me to reach you. I don't have the time or the patience to spend hours educating you on the counter-perspective. You don't even know the facts. Start there then maybe we'll talk. Or maybe I'll get bored. Until then, a flip remark is all you get.

---

You know, that's funny.

I only get my racial perception from "soundbytes and ignorance" ?

Gee, that's funny, because I could have sworn I quoted sections from several books I read on the subject, and didn't just draw my opinion from soundbytes. Any soundbytes, actually. Show me where I quoted soundbytes.

---

You're right. What you've said so far is covered by the ignorance part. Just because it's from a book, doesn't make it an informed opinion, especially when those facts have been proven wrong or inconsequential time and time again.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I guess it's also not a statement of any significance that every "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard" in America, far from being a center of peace, is a center of crime, drugs and violence.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
As I've said across several topics now (contrary to the "white racist" stereotype the liberal media likes to project) it is in fact blacks who commit the majority of racial violence against whites, at a ratio of about 50 incidents to 1.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The last topic we had like this, I quoted some statistics on black on white crime (that occurs at about a ratio of 50-to-1, statistically). Even at a fraction of 1%, that is an alarming statistic.

But again, the liberal media stereotype leads the public, both blacks and whites, to believe that it is the reverse: that a majority of racial violence is against blacks, by whites. That is an infuriating misrepresentation of statistics.

---

This is what I really wanted to address, and sadly, I don't have much time. So I'll make it quick.

Last part first: that's funny. Seriously, I don't know where you got the idea that the media portrays white-on-black crime more heavily than black-on-white crime. I know that's the newest outcry from people on this side of the issue, but I don't even know where that comes from. It's not a statistic. Statistics point in the other direction--waaay into the other direction. So far into the other direction that news outlets have moved to remove assertions of race from news reports completely. It's that bad. But to believe that white people are the victims here is outright ridiculous. Please show me where you get this from.

Now, about the 50:1. I have five minutes so here we go. That 50:1 statistic was first brought to light by a book called "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. I say white nationalist because that's what he is, by his own admission. Taylor writes for and publishes a magazine called American Renaissance. If you don't know it, look it up. You'll find it in one of the seediest corners of the internet. You know how you say we should have an open dialog between the races. Just one look at the forums that surround the many sites devoted to Mr. Jared and his thoughts will show you why that has yet to happen. He's a big proponent of the idea of black genetic inferiority.

I tell you this not to show evidence that these numbers are incorrect--at least not yet--but to at least show how there might be a little bias shown in these numbers.

Now here's the deal in a nutshell. That statistic is true...sorta, but very incomplete. First, there are only two usual reasons to show that statistic: a) to provide credence to the argument that black people hate white people and, thus, commit racially charged violent crimes against them specifically, or b) to provide credence to the idea that black people are more violent, and therefore should be feared and profiled. There might be a c) or even a d) I'm missing, but I can't think of it now.

I'm typing mighty fast.

I'll address point a. First, these numbers come from the U.S. Justice Department. One problem with these numbers that you might not be aware of, though, is that when they were taken, the data for "whites" included those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latinos and Latinas are considered racially white by government record-keepers. If the numbers are split up to count Latinos separate from whites, you find that in any given year the majority of victims of violent crimes perpetrated by black people are people of color, not whites.

The other problem with Taylor's numbers is actually given light by another part of his argument. He states that these numbers are way out of whack since blacks are a small majority of the population. However, that's a two-sided coin. In 2002, whites were about 81.5 percent of the population (we're including Latinos now). That same year, "whites" were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks. This tells us that white people were victimized less often by blacks than would be expected given the idea of random chance. In other words, if black people victimized white people LESS often than they should have if they had ignored the victim's race entirely.

I hope I was clear. I'm just going stream-of-conscious at this point.

Point b: We should profile by race. Here's the problem with that: according to several studies (none of which are addressed by Taylor) when community and personal economic status is compared between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime difference. Basically, if we ARE to profile, we should look in a person's bank account, not their skin color.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
Perhaps it's your own ignorance?

Basically, you've said that no matter how researched and documented, no matter what the source, you have the answers, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
More than wrong: ignorant.
You have all the answers, your knowledge is superior on the issue to anyone else's. Because you were born black.
Well, there are many black americans, and many foreign-born black U.S. citizens who disagree with you, and many of them have publicly spoken and written on the subject to say you're dead wrong.

Okay, fine. I'm white, let's assume that disqualifies my opinion. What about them?

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
That's total bullshit on your part.

HERE's my last response to the previous topic, where I voice openness to further considering your perspective, but question by what factual documentation you consider your black-liberal-spin statistics as somehow superior to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics of black criminal arrests and convictions.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I remained open to your opinion. You're the one who walked away, and didn't offer documentation to support your views.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I've read articles as I've found them, representing both sides of the issue, and not found the black-liberal perspective you advocate to be credible.
The black liberal opposition's argument is always that the statistics for crime, education, etc., somehow always misrepresent black criminality, education, etc. And yet they somehow accurately reflect the status of every other racial demographic group.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
What you voice is more of a conspiracy theory-- of deliberate misrepresentation of arrest and conviction records, to keep blacks from being accurately represented --than a documented credible argument.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
As I've said before, even black police officers look at black suspects with more scrutiny. That's not "prejudice". That's experience, based on reality of who the criminals consistently are.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
I'll start here and respond in the way I would.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I guess it's also not a statement of any significance that every "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard" in America, far from being a center of peace, is a center of crime, drugs and violence.

---

No, it isn't. Is it a statement of any significance that there was a shooting last year on Washington Boulevard in Pembroke Pines? What happens on a street named after someone has absolutely nothing to do with what they did in their lifetime. I could name my dog Rush Limbaugh. If he bites someone it means I have an ill-tempered dog that needs training ASAP. That's it.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
As I've said across several topics now (contrary to the "white racist" stereotype the liberal media likes to project) it is in fact blacks who commit the majority of racial violence against whites, at a ratio of about 50 incidents to 1.

---

You've said this before and I've responded to it. I'll quote.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The last topic we had like this, I quoted some statistics on black on white crime (that occurs at about a ratio of 50-to-1, statistically). Even at a fraction of 1%, that is an alarming statistic.

But again, the liberal media stereotype leads the public, both blacks and whites, to believe that it is the reverse: that a majority of racial violence is against blacks, by whites. That is an infuriating misrepresentation of statistics.

---

This is what I really wanted to address, and sadly, I don't have much time. So I'll make it quick.

Last part first: that's funny. Seriously, I don't know where you got the idea that the media portrays white-on-black crime more heavily than black-on-white crime. I know that's the newest outcry from people on this side of the issue, but I don't even know where that comes from. It's not a statistic. Statistics point in the other direction--waaay into the other direction. So far into the other direction that news outlets have moved to remove assertions of race from news reports completely. It's that bad. But to believe that white people are the victims here is outright ridiculous. Please show me where you get this from.

Now, about the 50:1. I have five minutes so here we go. That 50:1 statistic was first brought to light by a book called "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. I say white nationalist because that's what he is, by his own admission. Taylor writes for and publishes a magazine called American Renaissance. If you don't know it, look it up. You'll find it in one of the seediest corners of the internet. You know how you say we should have an open dialog between the races. Just one look at the forums that surround the many sites devoted to Mr. Jared and his thoughts will show you why that has yet to happen. He's a big proponent of the idea of black genetic inferiority.

I tell you this not to show evidence that these numbers are incorrect--at least not yet--but to at least show how there might be a little bias shown in these numbers.

Now here's the deal in a nutshell. That statistic is true...sorta, but very incomplete. First, there are only two usual reasons to show that statistic: a) to provide credence to the argument that black people hate white people and, thus, commit racially charged violent crimes against them specifically, or b) to provide credence to the idea that black people are more violent, and therefore should be feared and profiled. There might be a c) or even a d) I'm missing, but I can't think of it now.

I'm typing mighty fast.

I'll address point a. First, these numbers come from the U.S. Justice Department. One problem with these numbers that you might not be aware of, though, is that when they were taken, the data for "whites" included those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latinos and Latinas are considered racially white by government record-keepers. If the numbers are split up to count Latinos separate from whites, you find that in any given year the majority of victims of violent crimes perpetrated by black people are people of color, not whites.

The other problem with Taylor's numbers is actually given light by another part of his argument. He states that these numbers are way out of whack since blacks are a small majority of the population. However, that's a two-sided coin. In 2002, whites were about 81.5 percent of the population (we're including Latinos now). That same year, "whites" were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks. This tells us that white people were victimized less often by blacks than would be expected given the idea of random chance. In other words, if black people victimized white people LESS often than they should have if they had ignored the victim's race entirely.

I hope I was clear. I'm just going stream-of-conscious at this point.

Point b: We should profile by race. Here's the problem with that: according to several studies (none of which are addressed by Taylor) when community and personal economic status is compared between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime difference. Basically, if we ARE to profile, we should look in a person's bank account, not their skin color.

---

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
I'll start here and respond in the way I would.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I guess it's also not a statement of any significance that every "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard" in America, far from being a center of peace, is a center of crime, drugs and violence.

---

No, it isn't. Is it a statement of any significance that there was a shooting last year on Washington Boulevard in Pembroke Pines? What happens on a street named after someone has absolutely nothing to do with what they did in their lifetime. I could name my dog Rush Limbaugh. If he bites someone it means I have an ill-tempered dog that needs training ASAP. That's it.

---

That's a silly answer.

Streets named Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard are named with a clear intent to invoke the person and writings of Martin Luther King Jr.

Naming your dog "Fluffy" or "Rush Limbaugh" clearly doesn't have anything resembling the same intent.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
I'll start here and respond in the way I would.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I guess it's also not a statement of any significance that every "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard" in America, far from being a center of peace, is a center of crime, drugs and violence.

---

No, it isn't. Is it a statement of any significance that there was a shooting last year on Washington Boulevard in Pembroke Pines? What happens on a street named after someone has absolutely nothing to do with what they did in their lifetime. I could name my dog Rush Limbaugh. If he bites someone it means I have an ill-tempered dog that needs training ASAP. That's it.

---

That's a silly answer.

Streets named Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard are named with a clear intent to invoke the person and writings of Martin Luther King Jr.

Naming your dog "Fluffy" or "Rush Limbaugh" clearly doesn't have anything resembling the same intent.

---

What?

A.) You skipped the part about Washington Blvd. I'll let it go, though.

B.) If I name my dog Rush Limbaugh, I have "a clear intent to invoke the person and writings of" Rush Limbaugh. That's obvious.

You're being silly.

And thus the point remains. What happens on any given Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard has nothing to do with the man himself. Nothing more than the dog, Rush Limbaugh, and the man himself.

---

A) Naming a street after Martin Luther King is not something the majority of Americans would push for. These streets clearly represent exclusively the black community, and Kings words and "Dream" of a "table of brotherhood". I've been abundantly clear, that this is unquestionably a more symbolic act than the naming of your average Washington Avenue.

That the black community allows these places to be the centers of crime and violence that they are ist to me, and I think many white Americans, quite telling.
Despite your spinning it otherwise.
It is clearly black Americans who named these King Boulevards, and it is clearly black Americans who allow them to be what they are, in their black neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I notice you've also not included my response to this post, where I answered the points you raised.

Yours is clearly a one-sided response, that ignores the counter-response to the issues raised, that I've already given.

---

And I responded to that response. Remember this?

But I'm not going to quibble over who responded to what. As I've said, I stopped responding because you cherry picked.

---

I haven't "cherry picked" what I've responded to in your posts, I've taken your points one by one and responded to them in order.
I don't know how you can say that, when I've made every effort to respond to each of your voluminous points. And I realize my answers haven't been short either, but it's been in an effort to be clear.
But even when I'm clear, you don't give me credit for my clarity, while also squeezing in your way-off-the-mark psychoanalysis, alleging I blame blacks and have a "White. Hot. Paranoia.", when I clearly am not closed off to all blacks, only those who are openly hostile to me. And even with those, I make every effort to be friendly and courteous.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

However, if you want a response to the statistics you last gave I'll give it to you in one shot.

In 2000, after the surge in black population in the 90's and long after the numbers you gave in your response were taken, 211 million people reported themselves as "White alone" which accounted for 75% of the U.S. population. Up to 35 million people--12% of the population-reported themselves as "Black only." That's roughly 6:1.

And again, that means that the numbers you gave were all less than they would have been by blind chance were race not involved at all.

---

I get the basic drift of your point, although it's not 100% clear.
I really am trying to understand and respect your point of view, despite your personal mischaracterizations of me.

As I understand your point to be above, you're saying that the statistical numbers of black and white aren't quite equal to how they identify themselves in racial census.

But I would still argue that the census is accurate, because it represents how individuals themselves, both black and white, identify themselves in the census.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
My repeated responses above make clear that I unquestionably don't mean "all blacks" are indoctrinated in this hostile victim/justified-retribution mindset. But that the prevalent message is put out there to all blacks in the U.S., that a large percentage reject that hostile/victim ideology, a large percentage buy into that hostile/victim ideology, and a smaller percentage not only buy into it but are moved to violence by that hostile ideology.

It's annoying that I've repeatedly said this, and that you've ignored my clarity on this point.

---

It's annoying that you've repeatedly ignored requests from myself and others to clarify when you mean some, most, or all. You feel it's okay to make grand sweeping statements, because we should simply know what you mean.

Sorry, I'm not a mind reader. Feel free to get angry because I'm asking you to be clear. Then go ahead and do whatever you feel delivers the right message.

---

No, what's really annoying is that I've repeatedly answered this question, and you ignore my point.

I said that there's no way to fully tabulate how many blacks reject the liberal victims/justified retribution mindset.
Or how many buy into it and have an open or hidden hostility toward whites.

Only the crimes of those who commit violence can be measured.

But this much is clear: the victimized/something owed mentality is out there every day, constantly sold to blacks in broadcast political discussions, music, black television and movies, comedy, etc.
The message that "we are victims" is constantly out there to every black American. To the point that even I, as a white male, can flip channels, listen to music, see it perpetuated in movies and hear that perception repeated in the breakroom or in the neighboring cubicles at work.

So... don't try to tell me it's my imagination. I see it in every conceivable form of entertainment, and even at work.

You say there's discrimination you've personally experienced, and "thoroughly researched".
And yet mock me as "White.Hot.Paranoid." for pointing out what is painfully obvious to even a casual observer of black popular culture.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I think the comments by local black and liberal politicians after the innocent verdict of the 4 police officers who beat Rodney King, and the way it led directly to riots in Los Angeles, makes my point quite nicely.

And the whole "free the L.A. Four" for the 4 black thugs who almost murdered white truck driver Reginald Denny, whose only crime was driving down the wrong street.

TIME magazine in this period had a cover-story on the nationwide reluctance of blacks on juries to convict a black suspect and put him in jail, no matter what the evidence.

There are similar political statements by leaders of other major cities nationwide, pandering to liberal black voters, surrounding similar incidents of suspects beaten or killed by police that erupted in riots.

---

Show me.

---

There was an incident in Chicago about a year after the 1992 L.A. riots surrounding Rodney King.

There have been multiple riots in Miami, in 1979, in 1990, and others I've forgotten. And in other major cities. It's hard to remember all of them.

All of them involved pandering by local politicians to the black community, that I think crossed a line and gave too much sympathy to black rioters.
Demanding justice is understandable. Rioting is quite another.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The very calls from the black community for "compensation" for past racism, sheds light on the unrelenting anger and keeping alive spectres of past racism that have been gone since at least 1965.

As I said, such clinging to the past makes it impossible for healing between whites and blacks to occur.

---

Again, show me. Show me where "the black community" is asking for compensation. I would LOVE to see this. Or do you mean "some blacks" want reparations? And by "some blacks" I mean an extreme minority. I'm really not sure, and as I've said I'm not a mind reader.

---

It's been all over the news for years.

Okay, some blacks, sure, yes.
But it clearly reflects a widespread attitude among black americans of being owed something, and feeling a disproportionate lingering hostility about past discrimination that has not existed in over 40 years.

You could say that "only some" Americans fought in World War II (about 16 million, out of a then-population of about 140 million Americans).

You could say "only some" of Germans were Nazis or SS members. But it was still a widespread and influential movement.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

You've said that more directly in previous topics, but your talk about crime and education statistics being misrepresented (which you just quoted at length from the previous topic, while conveniently omitting my previous response) clearly manifests that here.

---

What?

---

What you just said. That U.S. Justice Department statistics of arrests allegedly don't reflect the real numbers on black crime and white crime.

And the similar argument that SAT tests don't reflect black intelligence, because they're written in coded language that whites understand and blacks have a lesser knowledge of.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
I can show tell you many tales of white-on-black racism, from my personal life, from news stories, and I can even link to a few forums where white people are saying things about blacks that would make your hair stand on end. But I wouldn't, because it wouldn't prove anything more than that there are a few people who feel a certain way. It sure wouldn't say anything about an entire community.

---

So why mention it at all?

---

Ummm...that's my point. Why mention that there are incidents that have happened near your home? There's no reason.

---

You mentioned it as near your home, as if that had some personal significance, Jason.
I just made the point that the same can be said from my perspective.
Again, the larger point is that black-on-white race-based "hate-crimes" seem to occur in disproportionally high numbers, as compared to the reverse, at a ratio of 50-to-1.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I can also discuss personal incidents, where I was bullied on a daily basis by a black guy twice my size, where a group of blacks tricked me into a blind corner, and would have beat the shit out of me if I hadn't given up my tickets at a football game, where I had a potential black manager grill me in a way that he never would have a black applicant, black managers who were discriminatory on the job toward white employees, black co-workers who excluded myself and other white employees, despite our best efforts to include them; and on and on.

I have first hand seen many incidents of the expectation of racist treatment, where blacks have made a huge issue out of nothing, because that carry that hostile/victim ideology inside them, and wait for the opportunity to lash out at the slightest perceived racism.

---

So that's why you assume that blacks are a certain way in general. This makes so much more sense.

---

So despite that I've saidall along it's a percentage of blacks who are indoctrinated into this ubiquitous victim/justified-retribution message that is constantly pumped out to the black community, despite my clear interaction with black friends and co-workers (those who don't have the race-based hostile attitude problem). Despite all this I've said, of basically evaluating blacks as individuals and interacting with them on a case-by-case basis, and not being prejudicial toward blacks... you're labelling me as blindly prejudicial to all blacks.

In a parallel example, I've had bad experiences with women I've dated, but that hasn't turned me hostile to all women.

You made the point that you've seen and felt intimidation and discrimination from whites.
I simply made the point that I've had equally real and firsthand incidents of blacks discriminating against myself and other whites.
That's all. Beyond what you deceitfully try to twist it into.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I don't deny that true racism toward blacks occurs, but I think it is far more often a false spectre.

---

Based on?

---

Personal observation, and firsthand experience, at work and socially.

And from many incidents I've read about in the media as well. Such as that creepy looking black congresswoman, who was stopped by Capitol Hill security when she didn't wear her I.D. badge, for example.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
Have I ignored it? Or have I acknowledged that it does exist, but that the divisive attitude and ideology that is indoctrinated into a large percentage of the American black community, is as big a problem as incidents of true racism against blacks?

---

You continue to allude to the idea that blacks should get over it, stop feeling like victims, and move on so that America can move forward and we can stop being alienated. However, nowhere in any of these posts have you said that whites have to do anything. If you have, correct me with a link.

---

I think whites conceded quite a bit, with integrated schools and workplaces, and in declining scholastic standards and test scores, since integration began. I think I voice the opinion of many whites, that no matter what is conceded, blacks respond with hostility, and never feel it's enough.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I think that's clear enough. The indoctrinated victim mentality and hysterical cries of racism at every turn, are the cause of black alienation. And open-minded whites who are sympathetic to true racism, get tired of dealing with the hostility, to the point that we at times would rather avoid interacting with blacks, when we pick up the vibe of what their attitude toward whites is.

---

The open-minded whites?

Is that...supposed to include you?

You just said cops are right to look at black suspects more closely. You refute information that opposes your view as "liberal spin". But you're one of the open-minded white people who we should cater our mentalities and actions to?

To you?

No.

---

I'm more open minded than you give me credit for, and if I come across as abrasive here, it's because of your mocking condescension, and deliberate misrepresentation of my views, trying to label me as a racist, for simply giving both statistical facts and honest straightforward opinion, in an open discussion of racial tensions in the U.S.

I interact and socialize with blacks, I've even dated a black woman (as I said, a Jamaican lady, who surprisingly had a harsher opinion of american black attitudes than I do!)

But... by your account, I'm a racist. Right. Sure. Whatever.
And more than that, pitiable and psychologically damaged. Sure, Jason. You bet.

No character assassination or deliberate misrepresentation on your part, eh? None at all.
When you stoop to such a personal attack, you've clearly lost the debate.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I say this from articles I've read, as well as my own experience working with black co-workers.

Some jobs I work with blacks, and we get along and socialize, both at work and outside the office.
Others, where I get the clear signals of hostility, I remain friendly, but avoid interaction.

My experience with blacks on this issue is more 50/50 ratio of hostile mindset toward whites. Sometimes more hostile, sometimes less. Usually the more educated the environment (such as working for a healthcare company, with black nurses), the more friendly and less race-separated. The less educated (such as an insurance company mailroom, or an auto rental company) the more divided black and white are.

---

White. Hot. Fear.

I pity you. You're a victim of your own self-perpetuating paranoia.

---

See above, particularly about character assassination and deliberately misrepresenting me.

If I interact with blacks 50% or so of the time, when I don't get the "white people are the enemy" vibe, that means I'm friendly and socializing with with the percentage of black Americans who are open to white America.
And that I'm not afraid of blacks, just that I choose not to waste my time with the fucked up ones.

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
Wonder Boy, you are using some sort of strange "Anti - logic" which I cannot comprehend.

I wish you could see this. That is all that I have to say on this subject. Others have already spoken very succinctly here, and any arguments I can muster would only be repeating what has already been said.

And, yeah, this is coming from me, a person who normally is very neutral in this forum, sorta like a one man Switzerland.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Jason E. Perkins didn't quote me. It hurt my feelings.

---

Honestly, I thought I did.

---

My posts are so forgettable that you can't even remember quoting them!!!

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus could have said:
I think a better representation of a white politician being racist is that guy who said "nigger" on a talk show a few years ago. I forget his name, but he actually spent some time in as a grand wizard in the KKK.
But he's a democrat so its cool with me

---

---

Robert Byrd, wikipedia listing

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
People do not always have to agree to be friends. If we all went around smiling 24/7, and not saying what's really on our minds, we wouldn't be humans - we'd be game show hosts.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

However, if you want a response to the statistics you last gave I'll give it to you in one shot.

In 2000, after the surge in black population in the 90's and long after the numbers you gave in your response were taken, 211 million people reported themselves as "White alone" which accounted for 75% of the U.S. population. Up to 35 million people--12% of the population-reported themselves as "Black only." That's roughly 6:1.

And again, that means that the numbers you gave were all less than they would have been by blind chance were race not involved at all.

---

I get the basic drift of your point, although it's not 100% clear.
I really am trying to understand and respect your point of view, despite your personal mischaracterizations of me.

As I understand your point to be above, you're saying that the statistical numbers of black and white aren't quite equal to how they identify themselves in racial census.

But I would still argue that the census is accurate, because it represents how individuals themselves, both black and white, identify themselves in the census.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
People do not always have to agree to be friends. If we all went around smiling 24/7, and not saying what's really on our minds, we wouldn't be humans - we'd be game show hosts.

---

Don't worry about it, beardsy ;P It's over.

My girlfriend recently got into a car accident, as you know. She was t-boned on her side of the car by a green Ford Mustang. She's gotten back on the road and drives by herself now, but whenever she sees a Ford Mustang she gets a sudden feeling of fear. Nothing arresting but enough that she notices the car and avoids it. Don't know that she'll ever get over that.
Humans tend to do this all the time. The tendency to categorize + the need to protect self. It's how we learn to keep our hands off every stove. It's so important that it works beyond the top part of our brain that rationalizes and actually looks at the numbers.

There's nothing you could say or do that would challenge that fear itself. Just let it go. If I can do it, so can you. You're better at that sorta thing.

And don't mind Parys ;P He's not even supposed to be able to read your posts.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
You cried during Roots?

Gay.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Long Beach, CA

A judge Friday sentenced four black teenagers to probation and 60 days of house arrest for their roles in the mob beatings of three white women on Halloween night, evoking tears of joy among the defendants and their relatives and gasps of indignation among the victims' families.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Andrea Bouas had asked for nine months in probation camp for three of the teenagers. Her jaw dropped when Judge Gibson Lee gave the first defendant probation, and as the hearings went on, she choked up, wiping her eyes with tissue.

Despite testimony that their involvement in the beatings varied, Lee handed identical sentences of probation, house arrest and 250 hours of community service to Anthony and Antoinette Ross, twins who turned 18 during the trial; to their 16-year-old sister; and to another 16-year-old described during the trial as Anthony's girlfriend.

[Several of the defendants] were also found to have committed a hate crime during the attack.

The beatings, which took place on a street in Long Beach's well-to-do Bixby Knolls section known for its lavish Halloween displays, roiled the city with allegations of racial hatred and violence. All 10 defendants maintained their innocence throughout the trial.

even as the sentencing was underway, one of the victims, Loren Hyman, was undergoing facial reconstruction surgery to repair the multiple fractures in her nose and around her eye from the beatings.

[Two of the victims] accused the judge and the district attorney's office of buckling to political pressure.

Probation and 60 days house arrest. That'll teach 'em.

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Humans tend to do this all the time. The tendency to categorize + the need to protect self. It's how we learn to keep our hands off every stove. It's so important that it works beyond the top part of our brain that rationalizes and actually looks at the numbers.

---

Wonder Boy's words did not upset me, either. I am disappointed that he said that, but, see the highlighted part of your post above.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
You cried during Roots?

Gay.

---

Keeping Harlem Strong.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
..I'm getting PMs ...

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:



Wonder Boy's words did not upset me, either. I am disappointed that he said that, but, see the highlighted part of your post above.

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
It was not my intent to annoy, but as you know, I rarely speak up about real issues, and Black History month is a special one for me.

---

Because you like black men?

Seriously, though, what does it take to make the history and/or celebrations of a particular culture "important" to one person or another? Some people would assert that membership in a cultural group is imperative to truly understand it. Others would dismiss the whole thing as a series of meaningless political constructs. Between the two extremes, is it possible to express differing degrees of respect for the observances of various people groups without said respect being preferential or prejudicial?