Kanye

AnthonyI said:
My comment was directed at a specific part of the posters comment, which is why I "Quoted" that part in my response. This had no racial implication AT ALL, it was the first thing that popped into my head when I heard about the convention and deduced from Kanye & Trumps bro-mance.
Click to expand...
I didnt think what you said was racially motivated at all, just out of touch with what has gone on in the world. The Kanye Trump "bromance" is an overblown tired narrative imo.
 
AnthonyI said:
Ok, I'll "defend" my two comments............

My comment was directed at a specific part of the posters comment, which is why I "Quoted" that part in my response. This had no racial implication AT ALL, it was the first thing that popped into my head when I heard about the convention and deduced from Kanye & Trumps bro-mance.


I don't care what side of the argument your on, if your argument becomes personal, you lose your credibility.

I continue to be confused how many "angles" conversation can be twisted into. I started blocking people on FB for 30 days for a while, then flat out stopped going to Facebook all together because a lot of my friends and family seem to have lost it, in my opinion, during this administration. While I continue to try and stay within the realm of common sense, fact and respect, others can't seem to do the same thing.

I'll just leave it at that, you guys carry on.
Click to expand...

Since this kept going I'll do this.

1. Yes, my post was rude.
2. That's fine to have a problem with it, but you could've just dm'd me and had a convo. particularly given our relationship here.
3. It's confounding that the hill to die on here is perceived civility rather than the ignorance of racial stereotyping.
4. If civility is the defining characteristic of credibility then nothing ever changes.
5. The member I was responding to has been in this tread for days spreading false narratives like 'Kanye wasn't in a car accident he was shot in the face' and the tropes I responded to, both founded in racial bias. My feeling was that after the earlier ignorance was called out there was zero contrition, zero acceptance that maybe what somebody had told the poster in his tattoo chair was false. The teaching moment was already offered and was passed-on. That may not be a reasonable excuse to be uncivil as you see it, and I wouldn't disagree. I'll just say that I was responding to lies and churlish ideas with impoliteness. If you want to confound me with facebook nutjobs and ignore me for that then by all means.
 
Last edited:
jaycee said:
Since this kept going I'll do this.

1. Yes, my post was rude.
2. That's fine to have a problem with it, but you could've just dm'd me and had a convo. particularly given our relationship here.
3. It's confounding that the hill to die on here is perceived civility rather than the ignorance of racial stereotyping.
4. If civility is the defining characteristic of credibility then nothing ever changes.
5. The member I was responding to has been in this tread for days spreading false narratives like 'Kanye wasn't in a car accident he was shot in the face' and the tropes I responded to both founded in racial bias. My feeling was that after the earlier ignorance was called out there was zero contrition, zero acceptance that maybe what somebody had told the poster in his tattoo chair was false. The teaching moment was already offered and was passed-on. That may not be a reasonable excuse to be uncivil as you see it, and I wouldn't disagree. I'll just say that I was responding to lies and churlish ideas with impoliteness. If you want to confound me with facebook nutjobs and ignore me for that then by all means.
Click to expand...
@jaycee , my problem as a whole now a days is that things always go where they don't need to. Right, wrong or indifferent. Every little comment is tagged with a narrative of some sort, again, right, wrong or indifferent. This is a personal thing I'm tired of, and that's probably why I should just continue to stay clear of it. I'm not lumping you in with anyone, my point was, as I just explained, I'm tired of it all. If in the effort to "educate" we just cause more division we get nowhere.

As for ignoring you, it was meant literally for the given moment, but I stand by my comment about when an argument gets personal.
 
My 2-cents that no one asked for, but it's the internet so you only YOLO once ya know....

I agree w/ @jaycee main argument - no one wants to be reduced to a monolith and we shouldn't reduce whole groups to one either (and that's being diplomatic in my characterization - it'd be fair to say that reduction is informed by biases).

HOWEVER, civility isn't just for civilities sake. It is also for the sake of the argument. Yes, you can be credible without being civil but that bullhorn may very well distort your message. If your goal is to have a person question their position, reflect, and be informed by a set of premises that lead to an alternate conclusion then beginning with a soft touch is probably the best route. Admittedly, there are instances where that dial needs to be set to "11" because opposing viewpoints have their heels so dug in and they're talking past one another; but this is hardly the place where minds are changed. If your goal is to have the opposing party be receptive to your counter-argument then calling them ignorant or son isn't going to move that dial, it's going to make them defensive and close them down to what is a very necessary point you're making. Otherwise, it has the potential of being a vanity post and trying to scream the other person down.

Anecdotally, a few months back I said something insensitive around two of my coworkers. Not about a racial minority, but it was a stereotype about a marginalized group. One of them ended up being a part of that group. I didn't say anything hateful and the other people weren't really hurt - but they also know me; others could have been hurt. More so, they challenged me on the facts of what I said and the ideas I was attributing to an entire group. I tried to defend myself. I gave examples. Pointed out that I was not saying a bad thing about that group. They kept on me, they challenged me, they provided me with alternative headspace; and they did all this from a place of truly wanting my attention and for my mind to be open. They didn't make accusations about my intentions or my character; they didn't belittle me; they didn't accuse me of being ignorant. They did, however, insist that I was wrong and tell me why. I left that conversation having heard them, but not necessarily convinced. I needed time. Over the next couple of weeks I thought about what I said and even reflected on other instances where I may have had similar misjudgments in my thinking. I ended up reengaging with my coworkers and talking about it some more. I came around to what they were saying. But I guarantee if they had come at me with the hammer then I would've spent those couple of weeks feeling hurt, licking my wounds, and stewing. I would've never come to the point of self-reflection and even asking if I was wrong in my thinking.

We've all done it. We've all been wrong. And we'll all be wrong in the future. As well, we'll all be in positions where we need to correct others. How we accept those criticisms and how we provide those criticisms to others is a relationship. And then there are times when the hammer needs to come out...
 
Last edited:
AnthonyI said:
@jaycee , my problem as a whole now a days is that things always go where they don't need to. Right, wrong or indifferent. Every little comment is tagged with a narrative of some sort, again, right, wrong or indifferent. This is a personal thing I'm tired of, and that's probably why I should just continue to stay clear of it. I'm not lumping you in with anyone, my point was, as I just explained, I'm tired of it all. If in the effort to "educate" we just cause more division we get nowhere.

As for ignoring you, it was meant literally for the given moment, but I stand by my comment about when an argument gets personal.
Click to expand...

I get that frustration and I empathize with it. For me it's more troubling to continue to see these false narratives be put forth. They are damaging (to me) in a way that is more serious than the need for civil discourse. I know you were mainly reacting to what was a personal attack on credibility, but there were multiple personal attacks on my credibility as well in the post I was responding to. Accusations (that are also tropes) about "playing the race card" and being the "thought police." Yet, you chose to only call out my indiscretion. Why? You don't need to answer that for me but maybe yourself. Why was my incivility so much more offensive? (also rhetorical)

Lord Diaper Baby said:
they didn't accuse me of being ignorant.
Click to expand...

I get that the word ignorant carries emotional weight, but in your story you were unaware of your incorrectness and the emotional implications of whatever you said. When I use the term ignorant this is what I mean.

I'm constantly ignorant of things. Some I'm aware of and many many more that I am not. We all are ignorant. The point is that when someone let's you know that something you said is a problem that you listen.

In your case you didn't throw accusations back like "race card" and "thought police." You did well to listen. That's not what happened here.

You're both right - I could've been nicer. I'm still confused (and bothered) why the focus is on niceness and not content.
 
jaycee said:
I'm still confused (and bothered) why the focus is on niceness and not content.
Click to expand...

You’re 100% right. The content is what holds the most weight. That is why, personally, I agree with your argument. But civility is the sugar for the medicine to go down. It’s not an either/or. And if your goal is to challenge that person and get them to be receptive to a new line of thinking then, again, a soft touch will do wonders. You don’t want them focused on why was this person an asshole to me (not saying you are one, but that’s what they’ll see); you want them focused on how they can be better.

I’m not focused on your content b/c I see it as unimpeachable.

It’s the same tired shit people said when Obama was running about getting the black vote. Hell, there are surely individual examples of white men who will vote for a candidate simply because they’re another white male. But we don’t accuse white men as an entire group of being uninformed and only voting based on those criteria. So why would it fly to do that with any other group? And while the answer is surely complex, you were apt in referring to a systemic problem and deeply-held biases.

Edit: I will also point out that OPs defense of the link between minority votes and Ye was weak. I read the exact same implication that you did @jaycee
 
Last edited:
jaycee said:
You don't need to answer that for me but maybe yourself. Why was my incivility so much more offensive? (also rhetorical)
Click to expand...
No, I'll answer, because that's where I came into the thread. I'll call it out whenever I see it, I don't police the threads, I'm not going to look back on a conversation when my comment jumping in had nothing to do with it overall, but just a "sidebar"............and yet, here we are. Anyway, I'm taking my own advice and just standing clear.
 
Last edited:
AnthonyI said:
No, I'll answer, because that's were I came into the thread. I'll call it out whenever I see it, I don't police the threads, I'm not going to look back on a conversation when my comment jumping in had nothing to do with it overall, but just a "sidebar"............and yet, here we are. Anyway, I'm taking my own advice and just standing clear.
Click to expand...
Edit: if you didn't read what i was reacting to (literally the previous post) then that's on you. You can react to whatever you want however you want, as is anyone's prerogative, but calling one thing out and not the other is a choice.

Lord Diaper Baby said:
You’re 100% right. The content is what holds the most weight. That is why, personally, I agree with your argument. But civility is the sugar for the medicine to go down. It’s not an either/or. And if your goal is to challenge that person and get them to be receptive to a new line of thinking then, again, a soft touch will do wonders. You don’t want them focused on why was this person an asshole to me (not saying you are one, but that’s what they’ll see); you want them focused on how they can be better.

I’m not focused on your content b/c I see it as unimpeachable.

It’s the same tired shit people said when Obama was running about getting the black vote. Hell, there are surely individual examples of white men who will vote for a candidate simply because they’re another white male. But we don’t accuse white men as an entire group of being uninformed and only voting based on those criteria. So why would it fly to do that with any other group? And while the answer is surely complex, you were apt in referring to a systemic problem and deeply-held biases.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how familiar people are with the sociological concept of "white fragility?"

Requiring people to be nice about it so that you (the royal you) can learn a palatable lesson is the exact thing that is imposed on racial and ethnic minorities so that white people can "get it."

You are right of course. You catch more flies with with honey than vinegar. But requiring the sugarcoating of things, all of the time, is focusing the burden in the wrong direction. The burden is on the ignorant not those that are burdened by the ignorance.
 
Last edited:
jaycee said:
I'm not sure how familiar people are with the sociological concept of "white fragility?"

Requiring people to be nice about it so that you (the royal you) can learn a palatable lesson is the exact thing that is imposed on racial and ethnic minorities so that white people can "get it."

You are right of course. You catch more flies with with honey than vinegar. But requiring the sugarcoating of things, all of the time, is focusing the burden in the wrong direction. The burden is on the ignorant not those that are burdened by the ignorance.
Click to expand...
Lol. Can see my copy of Robin DiAngelo’s book on my shelf right now. Should be required reading.

And, no, there is no requirement to be nice. But there is also no requirement not to be nice. And, again, sometimes niceness has to be thrown out the window, for sure. Relative to that concept, I tend to focus on - what you touched upon - where the burden lies. Minorities - in any constructive space (be it race, orientation, etc) - have too long been burdened with the tasks of educating, fighting, etc. That burden needs to be shifted to the majority - the ones who benefit, the ones who work to preserve and exclude (consciously or not).
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Just some pushback on this idea separate from the rest of the conversation, because it's something I have heard recently from some other people too. Educating our peers doesn't "cause" division; the intent should be to highlight divisions that already exist, that are so ingrained in our culture that we fail to recognize them, so that we can make efforts to eliminate them.

Efforts to educate only cause division when people refuse education.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but again, we're taking a simple comment aimed at specific content and unpacking it like it's a 6 foot wardrobe.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Imagine dragging Harriet Tubman in the name of selling some records.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that is enough for the silent part.

Imagine using Harriett Tubman's name and image for the $20 bill as an attempt at a backhanded apology/equality only for it to be laughed about, joked about, then fizzled out once the yelling ceases. Imagine hearing a sound byte, and not using information/knowledge of the subjects both at hand, and the speaker himself and just leave it at that. I'd be a VERY miserable person if I took everything everyone said at face value and didn't try and understand what they meant, if they spoke incorrectly. General Benjamin Butler was a real person who tricked Tubman into turning freed slaves in, up north, only for them to be called contraband, and sent to a fort to work for free.

What Kanye Said: "Well Harriet Tubman never actually freed the slaves. She just had the slaves go work for other white people"

What Kanye Wanted To Say: "Respect to Harriet Tubman and what she did to free slaves but while those slaves were free from slavery, they were set free into a system of white supremacy, and an aggressive amount of racism during that time. Not to mention they were left with nothing to go forward with. If were gonna be free, we can't take the shackles off but keep the handcuffs on"

Freed slaves weren't given a real chance then, and black men and women of America aren't giving real chances today. There is a glass ceiling that gets broken once in a while by extraordinary individuals, only to be silenced when they speak out against the powers that be. Black players who made the NBA what it is today isn't owned by ANY black people. The NFL was the same until last year, and the only example being Jay Z who was brought on as a potential NFL owner, DURING the Kaepernick era. GO FIGURE....GAP, who's stock jumped after being considered a dying retail chain once Kanye was announced as a partner, doesn't have Kanye on the board yet despite Yeezy Brand changing the whole company outlook. Black people are still being treated by people, not just cops, as if they aren't human. So yes, we are still no where close to where we should be as people, and until we are Kanye can keep reminding people how WHITES IN POWER give the illusion of freedom, equality, and power, only to fool people into being a part of that same system that generates money for the elites.

That's all I got. I'm not going to be on the side of people tearing down another black man speaking out against White America. We are at the point in time where every clip is mutated to serve a narrative or agenda. If you want to be that naive and think Kanye literally used that example to tear down Harriet Tubman with no other reason than to defame her name then I don't know what to say. He's been preaching black power and ownership since the 2013 Yeezy run where he said he was a God to Zane Lowe and everyone lost it.

Question, do you have any opinion on what Nick Cannon said last week, and how he got cancelled after being basically the only reality tv host of color for years and years on major networks? Or is this just the Kanye talks crazy train?



EDIT: actually nvm. that last question is rhetorical at this point.
 
Last edited:
thumb_im-loving-the-debate-men-great-minds-battling-it-out-45213932.png
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Wait, hold on. Actually I am absolutely on board with you and agree with 100% of what you just said. It just sucks that we live in an age where the speaker gets forgiven for communicating in shorthand and the receiver has to do some pretty nuanced and sophisticated interpretation. This is, again, another parallel to Trumpism where he can barely put string together a coherent sentence, followed by weeks of analysis of what he "meant." Sometimes the intent is clear, but it's still mangled in the execution. Kanye might have meant what we think he meant, but he still said what he said while trying to express it.

I think you correctly identified the sentiment (although I'm not quite sure how to square it with his earlier statements that slavery is actually just a choice), but Ye's phrasing still puts that on Tubman and not on the system she was living and operating in. I stand by the opinion that it's a weird choice (or deficiency in his ability to communicate clearly) that in trying to describe the problem, he put it in words in a manner that puts Harriet Tubman on blast.

As for Cannon, all of the Black Israelite stuff is a pretty loaded topic and I have to confess that it gets pretty confusing for me sometimes. Please join me in the Wild 'n Out thread for more.
Click to expand...

If ur referring to the TMZ clip from 2018. I fully believe it had to do with the narrative he was trying to convey in his song New Slaves and in SC. Privately owned prisons, teams, and companies that use/employ people, specifically blacks, to make hundreds of millions/billions and the artist, player, etc. gets a fraction of that. In music the artist usually doesn't own their masters, is in some lucrative contract, and is forced to move a certain way that aligns witht he label. We know how the NFL, NBA, etc. all operate. It's a new form of slavery. It's the use of the mind or bodies of individuals to accumulate money, while keeping them under control via contract. A mondernized indentured servitude if you will. Kurt Cobain tried to voice his anger and distrust in the system as did countless others.

Kanye is 100000% irresponsible for the way he puts these messages out. He has a huge platform of followers and he knows this but instead of going over what he wants to say....He really just starts going full speed, starts slinging ideas without fully explaining the previous one, and leads to confusion most of the time. He is trying to compare the human condition with his experience behind the doors in the industry. He is saying himself, a musician essentially signed to Def Jam for the rest of his life (his contract), is comparable to being a slave today. Maybe that is a wrong way to view today's society, but since 1999 all he's known is the industry. However, like he said at the rally, none of these celebs that we idolize will come out here and speak on it like he is. Is it a gross exaggeration? Sure, but that is how his brain works. I can't slight him for that because I am smart enough to make the connection. Do we need a "Kanye meant to say filter attached to his mouth?" Yes. Are there people who won't do the DD and just take what he said and be angry? Yes.

At the end of the day though all we can do is converse with each other and see where we're coming from and I'm glad we did that. It helped me and hopefully others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top