Sunday, February 22, 2015

"Racism without racists"?

Image result for white male privilege image*My enlightening and informative cut and paste posts about white privilege and racism continues:

"SUPERMARKET shoppers are more likely to buy French wine when French music is playing, and to buy German wine when they hear German music. That’s true even though only 14 percent of shoppers say they noticed the music, a study finds.
 
Researchers discovered that candidates for medical school interviewed on sunny days received much higher ratings than those interviewed on rainy days. Being interviewed on a rainy day was a setback equivalent to having an MCAT score 10 percent lower, according to a new book called “Everyday Bias,” by Howard J. Ross.
 
Those studies are a reminder that we humans are perhaps less rational than we would like to think, and more prone to the buffeting of unconscious influences. That’s something for those of us who are white men to reflect on when we’re accused of “privilege.”
White men sometimes feel besieged and baffled by these suggestions of systematic advantage. When I wrote a series last year, “When Whites Just Don’t Get It,” the reaction from white men was often indignant: It’s an equal playing field now! Get off our case!
 
Yet the evidence is overwhelming that unconscious bias remains widespread in ways that systematically benefit both whites and men. So white men get a double dividend, a payoff from both racial and gender biases.
 
Consider a huge interactive exploration of 14 million reviews on RateMyProfessors.com that recently suggested that male professors are disproportionately likely to be described as a “star” or “genius.” Female professors are disproportionately described as “nasty,” “ugly,” “bossy” or “disorganized.”
 
 
One reaction from men was: Well, maybe women professors are more disorganized!
But researchers at North Carolina State conducted an experiment in which they asked students to rate teachers of an online course (the students never saw the teachers). To some of the students, a male teacher claimed to be female and vice versa.
 
When students were taking the class from someone they believed to be male, they rated the teacher more highly. The very same teacher, when believed to be female, was rated significantly lower.
Something similar happens with race.
 
Two scholars, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, sent out fictitious résumés in response to help-wanted ads. Each résumé was given a name that either sounded stereotypically African-American or one that sounded white, but the résumés were otherwise basically the same.
The study found that a résumé with a name like Emily or Greg received 50 percent more callbacks than the same résumé with a name like Lakisha or Jamal. Having a white-sounding name was as beneficial as eight years’ work experience.
 
Then there was the study in which researchers asked professors to evaluate the summary of a supposed applicant for a post as laboratory manager, but, in some cases, the applicant was named John and in others Jennifer. Everything else was the same.
 
“John” was rated an average of 4.0 on a 7-point scale for competence, “Jennifer” a 3.3. When asked to propose an annual starting salary for the applicant, the professors suggested on average a salary for “John” almost $4,000 higher than for “Jennifer.”
 
It’s not that we white men are intentionally doing anything wrong, but we do have a penchant for obliviousness about the way we are beneficiaries of systematic unfairness. Maybe that’s because in a race, it’s easy not to notice a tailwind, and white men often go through life with a tailwind, while women and people of color must push against a headwind.
While we don’t notice systematic unfairness, we do observe specific efforts to redress it — such as affirmative action, which often strikes white men as profoundly unjust. Thus a majority of white Americans surveyed in a 2011 study said that there is now more racism against whites than against blacks.
 
None of these examples mean exactly that society is full of hard-core racists and misogynists. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a Duke University sociologist, aptly calls the present situation “racism without racists”; it could equally be called “misogyny without misogynists.” Of course, there are die-hard racists and misogynists out there, but the bigger problem seems to be well-meaning people who believe in equal rights yet make decisions that inadvertently transmit both racism and sexism.
 
So, come on, white men! Let’s just acknowledge that we’re all flawed, biased and sometimes irrational, and that we can do more to resist unconscious bias. That means trying not to hire people just because they look like us, avoiding telling a young girl she’s “beautiful” while her brother is “smart.” It means acknowledging systematic bias as a step toward correcting it." [Source]
 
Three cheers for Mr. Kristoff.
 
*Image from feministing.com
 
 
 



55 comments:

Grow up already said...

White Privilege is code for Black Failure.

Josh said...

"When I wrote a series last year, “When Whites Just Don’t Get It,” the reaction from white men was often indignant..."

Boy, I wonder why someone would act indignant?

So, here's the know-it-all privilege pushers: "White boy, you are privileged, so STFU! You just can't see it. People with privilege don't know they're privileged, and you need to be a good ally and stand against your inherent privilege in this white society!"

This shit has an explicit connotation of white people being evil and bad -- that it's wrong to be white and that you're automatically guilty of oppression if you're white.

You see, Field, you can't understand this. It's a "white thang." Many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing how great we have it, how poorly everyone else has it, and just how privileged we are and that we're the great oppressor of the world.

And when it's presented with that bringin'-'em-together title like "When Whites Just Don't Get It," our natural inclination is to shout, "Kiss my ass" rather than to listen.

And don't act as if people put in a similar position wouldn't either. How do you act when people run around talking about things that blacks "just don't get"?

It's turned into complacency = complicity, and whites end up the bad people just for being white.

As for paying John more than Jennifer, as a business owner, I can say flatly that John is far less likely to need multiple months out of a year off. He's not going to give birth. Jennifer, however, is a risk. But since progressives have rigged the game where you can't even fucking inquire about Jen's future baby prospects without being sued, the safe thing is to pass her over completely.

But employers don't do that, do they? And if they can all hire Jennifer for so much less, why isn't the entire workforce fucking Jennifers over Johns?

"So, come on, whit emen! Let's just acknowledge...that we can do more to resist unconscious bias."

Weasel words, and they know it. In other words, "White people, listen to us more and act more in the ways we want you to act, so that you're not showing any bias.

Gentle Giant said...

"SUPERMARKET shoppers are more likely to buy French wine when French music is playing, and to buy German wine when they hear German music. That’s true even though only 14 percent of shoppers say they noticed the music, a study finds.

African Americans youfs are more likely to kill white people when Beck is playing, and Hispanic people when they hear Selena. That’s true even though only 14 percent of negroes say they noticed the music, a study finds.

Go figure.

lilacpr2000 said...

They've also done studies where if the applicant was male,tall blond and blue eyed he would be considered for and/or given a position whereas if the applicant were shorter and dark haired he would be told there were no jobs available.

Women have been found better at multitasking and so are being hired in droves for high level positions in companies. The problem is that many executives shrivel up at the vision of a competent woman in their domains. Their egos cannot stand it and they begin to try and take her down.

This is also the case with Black employees. They have to prove themselves ten fold in order to gain the recognition.

As for whites ever accepting their privilege, well I don't think it's ever going to happen. They are not about to give up an inch of their privileged existence. So of course they will hotly deny any such thing even exists.

That's the way they roll. Deny, deny, deny! :)

Yīshēng said...

Bravo for this post Field, which speaks to issues I know all to well!!

Anonymous said...

Lilac, "As for whites ever accepting their privilege, well I don't think it's ever going to happen. They are not about to give up an inch of their privileged existence. So of course they will hotly deny any such thing even exists.

That's the way they roll. Deny, deny, deny! :)

7:22 PM"

---------------

Your comment suggests that Whites are dishonest, manipulating and controlling. As a Negro in the bay area I must respectfully disagree.

Whites are honest here. They don't believe in manipulation and control of Blacks. They are good people...angels sent by heaven.

You know, us POCs have got to start smelling coffee in the mornings and smelling the roses during the day--instead of falsely accusing Whites for the privileges they have earned since the inception of this great country.

Lilac, I am surprised that you would stoop so low. Are you in racist blaming contest with Field? Hell, I thought PR women were above that.

lilacpr2000 said...

Yisheng I thought about you when I read this! As women of color we have a double whammy against us!

But of course to them, we're just 'imagining things' lolol!

lilacpr2000 said...

Anonymous said...
"instead of falsely accusing Whites for the privileges they have earned since the inception of this great country.

I thought PR women were above that."

7:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL! Well you thought wrong, real wrong! ;D As usual, par for the course for you ;*D I'm just being mean now hehehe...

They didn't earn any privileges, they came and sickened with all sorts of Anglo viruses (ugh) and slaughtered a peaceful peoples that lived in accordance with nature,a people that were part of a great ecosystem and lived in accordance with the laws of nature!!! Then proceeded to pollute it with all sorts of skyscrapers and stupid vaccines,and chemicals et al.

I know what you're going to say,: Oh it's a great country and it has all sorts of inventions and shit like that!

Well I would just rather live in a tee pee and not have all of those genetically altering chemicals in my system (and yours too by the way!)

So don't get me started with that rant x( there's plenty more where that came from but it's not the topic for today! Although one might argue that white privilege is what started this whole....never mind, I don't even know what they hey I'm talking about any more, xD

Anonymous said...

Lilac said, "LOL! Well you thought wrong, real wrong! ;D As usual, par for the course for you ;*D I'm just being mean now hehehe..."

You are so sexy when you are mean. It's true! PR women are the best!


"They didn't earn any privileges, they came and sickened with all sorts of Anglo viruses (ugh) and slaughtered a peaceful peoples that lived in accordance with nature,a people that were part of a great ecosystem and lived in accordance with the laws of nature!!! Then proceeded to pollute it with all sorts of skyscrapers and stupid vaccines,and chemicals et al."

Lord have mercy you have no compassion for the wm. After all his technology has done for us. Some people had to die in order for America to be born. Hell PR would have never been a colony if it wasn't for Whites. You are one ungrateful mean-spirited PR woman.

The American Indian fought a good fight, but in the end somebody has to win and somebody has to win. That's just the way life is. However, you forget one important thing about the wm. He provided reservations for the Indians and fought a civil war to free the slaves. That proves Whites have good hearts...they are good Christians who love Thy neighbor as Thy self.

Anonymous said...

correction:.. somebody has to lose and somebody has to win.

Josh said...

Pastes my Willy Wonka meme:

....

Please, black people, tell us white people more about how you know every single fucking thing about being white, right after telling white people that they don't know a single fucking thing about being black.

This hypocrisy is very interesting.

.....

lilacpr2000 said...

Ahahahha!! Puhleeeezeee!

Reservations? OMG! Lawd have mercy on you is all I can say! (BTW thanx for the "sexy" remark I do try *blush* :)

Do you know the Indian people got the worst pieces of land? The worst ones? That the rates of addiction on reservations are like sky high?

And do you know that in this colony of PR they are raising taxes here so high the people are leaving in droves. We are getting a 16% tax hike in a month! On top of what we pay already! We won't be able to buy anything and the economy will collapse! The governor here thinks everyone is rich like him!

Then of course you'll come in and buy all of the beachfront property, prime real estate owned through inheritance by some of the poorest people on the island,La Perla is a prime example of this! I mean....all this happened because you Anglos decided to adventure out of your Northern homes looking for warm countries (and women X) and look at the fuck up you've caused!!!

Be ashamed! Be ashamed and say you're sorry!!!

Sorry Field I know this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of white privilege, but I have to answer this anon! I can't stay quiet! I have to educate xD

lilacpr2000 said...

Ahahahha!! Puhleeeezeee!

Reservations? OMG! Lawd have mercy on you is all I can say! (BTW thanx for the "sexy" remark I do try *blush* :)

Do you know the Indian people got the worst pieces of land? The worst ones? That the rates of addiction on reservations are like sky high?

And do you know that in this colony of PR they are raising taxes here so high the people are leaving in droves. We are getting a 16% tax hike in a month! On top of what we pay already! We won't be able to buy anything and the economy will collapse! The governor here thinks everyone is rich like him!

Then of course you'll come in and buy all of the beachfront property, prime real estate owned through inheritance by some of the poorest people on the island,La Perla is a prime example of this! I mean....all this happened because you Anglos decided to adventure out of your Northern homes looking for warm countries (and women X) and look at the fuck up you've caused!!!

Be ashamed! Be ashamed and say you're sorry!!!

Sorry Field I know this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of white privilege, but I have to answer this anon! I can't stay quiet! I have to educate xD

focusedpurpose said...

question:

when will folk acknowledge that white privilege is not just had by WM?

yes...there is still sexism...

however decent WM have made it Real clear that they will NOT hesitate to issue the smackdown as it relate to their women.

which is a great segue into this, from last thread:

"FP, they were both wrong for publicly throwing shade the way they did. Not sure how u don't see that. "

during an interview, someone asked AR a question. she has the right to say what's on her mind, considering the K clan money train engine hit her up first. WW privilege directly impacted her and then her friend, who was supposed to be K clan friend...then the baby of the family ended up with her man. come on now. folk really expect BW to just sit quietly and accept all types of disrespect. these same ones just won't be quiet about the big R...how convenient. folk might want to discuss BM privilege. lol. it is some supa special stuff;)

(just as some WM have said, written and still seem to believe that the BM has NO rights he is bound to respect..the same is true for some WW. so what if whatever is a BW's? they are entitled to it.)

now...i don't believe in blaming the women in these scenarios- no matter the color. i look solidly at the menfolk that were supposed to be committed. however, i could very much see how AR could have a moment of THESE chicks...again! and speak on it.

it was a heated convo between women. it would be best for menfolk to stay out of it. particularly with the love of shouting about racism. there is a big fat race factor that i don't mind to mention. or do folk prefer the word, "preference"? lol.

check the story and see AR take the high road while folk attack/betray her from all sides.

truth be told: i like the Kardashians and admire how their family stick tight through whatever. no matter what they are flipping the script and focused on the come up, trunk tight as a family unit. Black folk getting all in the mix, should take THAT from the experience...then emulate.

that said: let me get from over here before i get in trouble...

hope that clarification helps FN.

lilacpr2000 said...

This stupid computer posted the comment twice! Oy vey!!!!!

WHY ME LORD WHY???

The Purple Cow said...

"For instance, to fundamentally change a dog would result in something that is no longer a dog, or at least the dog you knew."

Oh for fuck's sake, I can't believe I'm wasting my life reading this shit.

Just unfuckingbelievable.

Let us cast our minds back an entire 24 hours. You said that the fact that Obama wanted to fundamentally change America meant that he did not love America.

That is just demonstrably shit, a stupid fucking dim-witted thing to say. Nothing you have said since about little puppy dogs or cancer has changed that fact.

You are one deeply weird human being, with a form of logic that totally baffles me. Why do I waste my precious life trying to get sense out of fucking nutcase like you and that idiot Bill. I'm sure there's something more productive I could be doing.

Josh said...

Yeah, TPC. You have decreed, thus let it be written, let it be done.

There was never another ending in your mind. When you decide to decree anything at Field's, you have made up your mind that you're already the victor and that everyone else is just a rambling, incoherent fool.

But you don't have to take my word for anything. Go look up the meanings of the words "fundamental" and "transform," put them together as a term, and apply said term to any fucking thing you want.

Would you fundamentally transform a thing you love?

For the sake of arguing with me, you'll probably tell me that you have fundamentally transformed every fucking thing you love. That's the type of guy you seem to be. But be honest with yourself when nobody's around.

People don't seek to fundamentally transform things they love. Why? Because doing so turns those things into things that are not the things they love!

That's what "fundamentally transform" fucking means! I don't make up the definitions of words. Don't like 'em? Tell Obama not to use 'em.

How dense do you plan on acting here for the sake of a fucking Internet debate?

"Why do I waste my precious life..."

Answer your own questions, you sanctimonious fuckwit. Don't wanna talk? STFU! It's not hard. If you wanna do something more productive, go fucking do it! Holy shit, it's like you're a little fucking kid.

Bill, give him permission to leave and hold his hand while he crosses the street. Little buddy can't make it by himself, apparently.

Anonymous said...

Lilac said, "Do you know the Indian people got the worst pieces of land? The worst ones? 'That the rates of addiction on reservations are like sky high?'"

Lilac, get a hold of yourself...

As far as being addicted to alcohol, it's not the wm's fault Indians are drinking themselves to death. All they have to do is 'just stop drinking.' It's that simple... but apparently they like it a lot. They aren't the only ones: Blacks like drugs and watermelon.

PR's can't stop eating green bananas and hot peppers so hot they make you cry. Everybody has some kind of addiction...

Can you honestly blame the wm for all these addictions? Of course not. He is innocent.


Lilac said, "And do you know that in this colony of PR they are raising taxes here so high the people are leaving in droves. We are getting a 16% tax hike in a month! On top of what we pay already! We won't be able to buy anything and the economy will collapse! The governor here thinks everyone is rich like him!"

Oh, I don't believe they are leaving PR. That's their homeland. PRs will find a way to pay their taxes. After all, you have had it easy for a long time on taxes. The good Governor is just trying to be fair by playing catch up after all these years of low taxes.

Stop trashing your good Governor. He is the best PR has seen in a long long time. He also is a good Christian who prays daily.

You really should be ashamed of yourself for not wanting to carry your share of the tax load. People are 'never' satisfied.

Anonymous said...

Lilac, did you know you posted the same comment twice? Get a hold of yourself girl.

Anonymous said...

Yīshēng said...
Bravo for this post Field, which speaks to issues I know all to well!!


Yes, we are all well aware of the massive failures of your life spent futilely trying to become a doctor. Your excuse is the fact you are female and black, which really is why you have failed, just not in the way you are selling.

The Purple Cow said...

"People don't seek to fundamentally transform things they love. Why? Because doing so turns those things into things that are not the things they love!"

Y'see, that's a completely ridiculous assertion that stands up to no kind of logical analysis at all. Just ask the people of Eastern Europe who fundamentally transformed their nations by throwing off the shackles of communism, ask them if they did that out of love for their nations or not.

I think we all know what their answer would be.

Josh, I think you are one of those guys who can never accept that anything he says is wrong. So even now when you have painted yourself into a corner, you twist and turn logic and meaning on its head to justify your idiotic statement, rather than admit you are wrong.

Anonymous said...

PC, your logic isn't logic, it's perverted thinking that misses the point entirely.

Since when did love become logical?

Anonymous said...

This blog is full of illogical folks pretending to be logical. It's quite a merry-go-round, going round and round in circles....going nowhere.

However, this is a blog primarily of Blacks with some Whites trying to make sense of everything but failing miserably.

That's because you can't make sense out of nonsense. Give it up, Bill. You will never get PC or Field to understand logic and truth.

However, if you feel like having fun and recreation in fantasy and denial then FN is the right place with the right folks....have fun with PC!

Anonymous said...

Brother Josh, don't let Negroes like PC get you down. They don't know what they are talking about. It's sad, but true. I have never really understood my peeps, esp the ones like PC. He calls so many people stupid while all along he exhibits stupidity himself.

Oh well, "stupid does what stupid does."

Anonymous said...

Grow up already said...
White Privilege is code for Black Failure.

6:47 PM
--------------------
Hmmmmm. You might have a point. My peeps have been on the losing end since slavery. From that point of view, White Privilege is responsible for Black failure.

How else could it be in America? In the end, White Privilege will end up being the loser.

The Purple Cow said...

"They don't know what they are talking about. It's sad, but true. I have never really understood my peeps, esp the ones like PC."

Give it a rest white boy, you're convincing nobody.

anotherbozo said...

great post field.

if you do a blog on the Oscars, note this: when I tried to find TV coverage of Common's and John Legend's comments after the song "Glory" won, comments about U.S. black men's incarceration rate and voter supression, I COULDN'T FIND A SINGLE TV NETWORK THAT WOULD COVER IT. Arquette's call for equal pay for women, yes, the "Glory" itself, yes, but the highlight of the whole damn show? Not a chance. Perhaps too "controversial."
Certainly this bears menion here.

anotherbozo said...

I meant "morning after" coverage, coverage of the highlights. I couldn't stay up late enough to catch the whole show, so looked for clips.

Bill said...


The Purple Cow said...
Oh for fuck's sake, I can't believe I'm wasting my life reading this shit.


It gets worse PurpleCow.

After wasting your life reading it, you wasted more of your life replying to it.

Batshit Crazy even for you PurpleCow.

Ding Ding

Enough said...

Arquette's call for equal pay for women...
---

Just to reiterate, there is no gender wage gap. Anyone who is smart enough to understand basic math and industrious enough to bother to look up a few facts knows that this is a myth.

Men get paid more on average because they work higher paying jobs then women (e.g. coal miner vs waitress), they work more hours each week, and they work for more years in their lives.

When normed for job and time worked, there is no difference in what men or women are paid.

Corporations are all about profits. If employers could the same work out of women for less cost, they would hire only women.

Politics is based on resentment fueled by lies. Stop it.

Señor Hector said...

Nobody plays victim like white liberals and black folks.

You guys and gals were made for each other.

Yisheng said...

And no one plays denial like White men, so chicken shit afraid that your reign inlt the world is drawing close to an end.

Bill said...


"Tonight we honor Hollywood's best and whitest."

Thankfully the winners at the Oscars were dumbocrats.

I can't think of any other reason Field Negro would go crickets on the hollywood color arousal problem.


Imagine the left-wingnut outrage if the NRA had a "best and whitest" awards show.

Anonymous said...

For Yisheng, being black and female means never having to say you're sorry.

Or never having to actually achieve anything. Just trying is good enough.

Oscarberg said...

"I can't think of any other reason Field Negro would go crickets on the hollywood color arousal problem"

STFU Bill.

Don't play that stupid game.

Oprah got her Oscar, even though her movie sucked.

How much condescension is too much?

Bill said...


Which is it?

Johnson warns Mall of America patrons
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/22/politics/jeh-johnson-mall-of-america/


Homeland Security says aware of no credible threat against malls
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-usa-security-mall-idUSKBN0LQ0IY20150222


Isn't Jeh Johnsonm the man Obama picked? Why would he say there is a threat when the agency he runs says there isn't.

The Obama administration must have a good reason to put out conflicting information.

World of Lies said...

There can be no doubt that Muslim terrorism is a terrible thing. There have been over 25,000 lethal Islamic terror attacks just since 9/11. But the real question for our liberal rulers is, who is to blame for it? The answer of course is non-Muslims:

American and European citizens and journalists are spurring jihadi violence by protesting the arrival of Muslim populations into their societies, President Barack Obama declared Thursday.

“We’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment,” Obama told a Feb. 19 audience of U.S. and foreign officials and advocates, who met to discuss ways to minimize jihadi violence.

Peaceful criticism of Islamic culture is bad, he suggested. “When people spew hatred toward others — because of their faith or because they’re immigrants — it feeds into terrorist narratives. … It feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey,” he said.


It isn’t just resistance to Muslim colonization that causes Muslim terrorism. Noticing that the Islamic State is Islamic also causes Muslim terrorism:

President Obama told a gathering of international dignitaries … that “all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorists’ narrative.”

In reality, there are two causes of Muslim terrorism. One of course is Islam. The other is political correctness, which makes terrorism effective by preventing us from responding to it appropriately.

It is a sick society that elects a man that hates it as their President.

Yīshēng said...

It's absolutely FANTASTIC to be regularly reminded that modern day Blacks are descendants of Africans who survived unspeakable horror to thrive as so many if us do today!!! While it would be ideal if we all were thriving in this racist society, the fact that ANY of us are thriving is a testimony to our strength as a people!!!

Yīshēng said...

If racist Whites are so sick of Blacks and other Brown minorities in America, which don't you pack your shit and return to Europe.

I'm certain your dysplastic nevi would greatly appreciate it as you really weren't "designed" to live outside of Europe anyway.

BLOOP!!!

Josh said...

"Josh, I think you are one of those guys who can never accept that anything he says is wrong..."

So, let's see what exactly is going on here.

You are arguing that someone would fundamentally transform something they love, and that my saying to fundamentally transform something is to completely change that thing doesn't hold up to logical analysis.

Okay. And what logical analysis would that be? Oh, I see, TPC saying, "That's stupid."

Well, there we fucking have it! Logical analysis over!

However, when we decide to logically analyze said assertion, here's what we objectively find -- when we aren't attempting to be subjective twats because conceding a point to a white man on Field's blog isn't a good look for black pride.

1) The definitions of fundamental and transform:

Fundamental - adjective

1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying
2. of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:

Transform - verb

1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose
2. to change in condition, nature, or character; convert

2) Place those words together as a term objectively, and define what it means

To change the structure, appearance and/or nature of a thing at its essential, foundational level.

3) Understand what said term implicates.

What happens to a thing that undergoes a conversion and metamorphosis at its foundational level? Ask the caterpillar after it becomes a butterfly.

4) Determine if said term is applicable to the scenario; e.g. would you fundamentally transform a thing which you love?

According to TPC, who evidently only uses the correct meaning of words when he's on the appropriate side of the argument, to "fundamentally transform" something is to perform very minor changes to a thing in the areas you don't like. However, that is objectively incorrect. It is to change that entire thing!

That is what the fuck fundamentally transform means.

So, if you must continue to save face by belittling my stance, so be it.

Your entire fucking rebuttal is, "You're wrong; you're stupid." LOL...sounds like my brothers and me arguing in the late '80s when we were little kids. Great job, man!

I don't want you to stop; you're giving me all kinds of opportunities to show how narrow-minded and unflinching you are in the face of actual objectivity. You're dogmatic.

"So even now when you have painted yourself into a corner..."

There is no "corner." And you saying there's a "corner" doesn't make a fucking "corner." I know you don't agree with this, but you are not the arbiter of what's factual here. In fact, you are demonstrably wrong here. Objectively, unequivocally, demonstrably, entirely wrong. And it can be proven definitively.

To fundamentally transform X means, explicitly, that you are transforming on a fundamental level that thing, so that it is no longer X.

Now, fuckwit, let's hear your "logic" as to why somebody does that to a thing they love. Commies in Poland? Hardly. Get the commies out is all that's needed there. Communism is the problem. Your wife put on 20 extra pounds? Your dog has fleas?

In what twisted, convoluted scenario are you going to pretend that someone fundamentally transforms a thing they love?

But, sure, let's use your creationist-V-evolution tactic here. Call me wrong and stupid often enough, and hope somebody else agrees with you.

Wow. Yisheng, seriously? This is the guy you called the most intelligent black man on the Internet? lol It's FAIL-Fest 3000. Dude refuses to acknowledge what words mean, in order to feign victory over a debate which arose from a quibble he initiated.

Anonymous said...

Yīshēng said...
It's absolutely FANTASTIC to be regularly reminded that modern day Blacks are descendants of Africans who survived unspeakable horror to thrive as so many if us do today!!! While it would be ideal if we all were thriving in this racist society, the fact that ANY of us are thriving is a testimony to our strength as a people!!!


Violence, low IQ, lack of impulse control and victimization is also a testimony to your people.

If all the white people packed up and went back to Europe, America would turn into Africkkka within weeks.

Without blacks, whites thrive.

Without whites, blacks die.


Yīshēng said...

Without Blacks, Whites wouldn't exist.

You're simply a mutant run amuck from the original Black man which is why you don't thrive all that well below the equator/outside of Europe.

The Purple Cow said...

Josh, have you been working too hard recently? Have you been working at all? Perhaps you need a vacation, you appear to be over-stressed and it's affecting your ability to think logically.

**
"What happens to a thing that undergoes a conversion and metamorphosis at its foundational level? Ask the caterpillar after it becomes a butterfly."

Or ask a nation of people who no longer live under totalitarian rule...

Ask those 400,000 ethnic Aryan Germans who gave their lives to defeat fascism. What greater love can a person have for his country than to give your life in the defeat of fascism. To sacrifice your own life to totally transform your nation from one that murders millions of people, to a modern democracy.

Doncha think Josh?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this great post. I noticed when applying for a job it was much harder once I took my husbands Hispanic name. It's easier for white folk to just ignore this topic rather than admit they are being unfair (intentional or not) and contributing to subtle
suffering of another human being. There is hope! Posters like Bill will die off soon enough. Surely he has passed on his nasty opinions to his offspring, but maybe they will change their attitude one day when they crawl out of their white assholes and realize once upon a time their great grandpap was a black African.
Josh, you're an idiot. Speak for yourself! This post doesn't make me feel evil, bad, or wrong about being white. It does make me think about the reality of automatic privilege and the effect it has on others. Clearly you are guilty of some intentional oppression and it feels wrong, doesn't it? If it didn't your ego wouldn't be here posting nonsense so often.

Josh said...

Okay. Let's use your own logic here and extrapolate that to Obama and America. I'll concede that to remove communists from Poland is to fundamentally change Poland. Hell, I'll even concede--even though it's illogical--that the only reason to attempt to get rid of the communists is that a person must love Poland and not simply hate communists. I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do with the nature of said concession; if you're okay
with it being illogical, I'm okay with it.

Same with Germans and Fascism. Okay, so what you're saying is that the love for a country is the reason someone would fundamentally transform its governing political systems. Fine.

Now, let's look at what we have. To change a way a government operates is to fundamentally transform something, and doing so doesn't necessarily mean you don't love that country. In fact, it means you do love that country.

So, applying this to America, this would suggest Obama wants to change America from a Democratic Republic implementing capitalism to some other type of government and economic system...because he loves it?

Wow. You mean all that "socialist is code for 'nigger'" and "Obama doesn't want to change government" and "the righties are just paranoid" stuff was wrong and the righties were actually right all this time?

So, Obama wants to completely collapse the American government to install a new type of government and economic system, and that's because he loves America?

Got it, PC.

Though, let me ask you: If an individual wants to fundamentally transform the government of America, the very thing that,
after our liberation from England, made us every single thing we are, what, then, does said person love about America? Its mountains? Its rivers? Its vegetables? And if those are the things loved, then isn't it more logical to assert that the person in question just loves the mountains and rivers and vegetables and not America?

Isn't more logical a conclusion that those who fought against fascists and communists did so because the loved freedom, any piece of named land be damned? It was freedom, not necessarily the territory. But I won't go backwards. Sure, they did it for love of country.

Of course, not for the way the country was, but the way they envisioned the country as being bereft of communism or fascism.

Let's not overlook that fundamental aspect.

The Pols didn't love communist Poland; they loved the idea of having a Poland bereft of communists.

But applying this same logic to Obama is causing immense butthurt. I can sense it through airborne osmosis all the way across the pond. You're clinching up over there. You don't like the idea that, by your own examples, you're basically painting Obama as an agent bent on overthrowing the government because he loves America. lol

Ironically, it's you who's painting yourself into a corner with these forced examples that don't exactly fit the
term you were so thrilled to quibble with.

I can love a girl's tits, her ass, her eyes, but in no way does that mean I necessarily love her. As long as she keeps her T 'n A, she can change her personality, her weight, her voice, her name, her politics, etc. She can
fundamentally transform 'til the cows come home, so long as she keeps intact those things which I love.

So, is that the verdict? Obama wants to do like the Pols and change America's government because he loves America
so much that Democracy must be stopped?

And one would fault another person for suggesting the man who wants to completely change America's government
doesn't really love America?

Your line of reasoning is inherently logically inconsistent.

Josh said...

"This post doesn't make me feel evil, bad, or wrong about being white. It does make me think about the reality of automatic privilege and the effect it has on others. Clearly you are guilty of some intentional oppression and it feels wrong, doesn't it?"

That you grew up a child of privilege is no reason to (a) force that on someone else, as if they had the same life, or (b) extrapolate that as nothing more than an advantage of your skin color.

Were your mother and father lazy bums? Were they handed shit by some mysterious leader of the Whites Party solely for being white? Did they hold White Party meetings in the dining room where they were given benefits because of being white? Did they have a get-out-of-bills free card for being white? Did they inherent tons of money just for being white?

Or, more likely, did they go out and fucking work hard and make sure you got an education?

I grew up on the underside of poor. I came up in the slums. I did not lead a life of white privilege. Take your projection and find a better screen to see yourself reflected back at you. This white boy didn't come up that way.

Oh, am I processing oppression internally? Really? That's funny. It seems to me you're projecting privilege externally.

Check your privilege, shitlord.

Bill said...


Josh said...
Isn't more logical a conclusion that those who fought against fascists and communists


These fighters you speak of, who were they fighting?

Josh said...

"those who fought against fascists and communists"

I reckon.

field negro said...

"My peeps" ? I don't think so.
If cooning was a sport this Negro would be in the Hall Of Fame. :)

The Purple Cow said...

Part One" Okay, so what you're saying is that the love for a country is the reason someone would fundamentally transform its governing political systems. Fine."

Yet another straw man, I'm saying no such thing.

You said Obama could not love America because he wanted to fundamentally change it. I'm saying that's nonsense. There are people who have fundamentally changed countries they love for the better.

What point of this simple and obvious assertion don't you get?

**
"Now, let's look at what we have. To change a way a government operates is to fundamentally transform something, and doing so doesn't necessarily mean you don't love that country. In fact, it means you do love that country."

It might well do, yes.

**
"Though, let me ask you: If an individual wants to fundamentally transform the government of America, the very thing that, after our liberation from England, made us every single thing we are, what, then, does said person love about America?"

[Point of information. The Pilgrims fathers came to america not to escape religious persecution, but because they wanted to practice religious persecution. They had executed a woman in East Anglia whose religious views they didn't approve of. The English authorities disapproved of such behaviour, so the Pilgrims took off to the USA where there was nobody to stop them hanging women they didn't like.]

But I digress...

I don't know what they love about America, I for one can't imagine, but that really isn't the point. They may or may not love America, a country is more than its system of government. He or she might love the spirit of the people, might love the country because it's all he's ever known. Again none of this matters, my point was and remains, your assertion that necessarily if you want to transform a nation you cannot love it, is quite clearly bollocks of the highest order.

**
"So, Obama wants to completely collapse the American government to install a new type of government and economic system, and that's because he loves America?"

If that was really what Obama wanted to do, why hasn't he done it? He's only Prez for eight years, so he's leaving it kinda late, huh? Doncha think, Joshy?

The Purple Cow said...

Part Two


"Isn't more logical a conclusion that those who fought against fascists and communists did so because the loved freedom, any piece of named land be damned?"

Nope.

If you love something, would;t you want it to be free?

**

" It was freedom, not necessarily the territory. But I won't go backwards. Sure, they did it for love of country."

You're repeating yourself again - a habit of yours.

My answer remains the same though. My point is MAYBE they did it for love. Your point is that they could not have, it's impossible. That's the difference.

**
"The Pols (sic) didn't love communist Poland; they loved the idea of having a Poland bereft of communists."

Correct, because they loved Poland.

**
"But applying this same logic to Obama is causing immense butthurt. I can sense it through airborne osmosis all the way across the pond. You're clinching up over there. You don't like the idea that, by your own examples, you're basically painting Obama as an agent bent on overthrowing the government because he loves America. lol"

Lol? Lol???? Am I debating with a thirteen year old girl?

But OK, let me explain it one last time in terms so simple, that even you, EVEN YOU, might just understand.

1. You said it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone to love a country they want to fundamentally transform. I used the example of Solidarnosc to demonstrate that your assertion is a logical nonsense. That doesn't mean to say that I think Obama wanted to overthrow the system. It was an example of how people could want to affect change of something they love.

2. Obama is a conservative man in a largely conservative country. He saw things that needed changing for America to survive. Your totally insane health care policies for one. So he tried to change them and largely failed.

**
"So, is that the verdict? Obama wants to do like the Pols and change America's government because he loves America so much that Democracy must be stopped?"

No rational human being would read what I said and claim that that was what I am saying.

Paranoid far-Right nut jobs might though.

**
Your line of reasoning is inherently totally fucking insane.

A Black Panther Forever said...

Close your eyes and listen to sports announcers, you can tell the race of the athletes by what descriptive words are used.

I have yet to hear the word "heady" for a Black player. The bi-racial players are described as "having a 'basketball' IQ"

Josh said...

"Your point is that they could not have, it's impossible. That's the difference."

So, you pulled a logical analysis on my comments, and all you come back with is a horseshit straw-man?

This is the level of intellect calling me stupid. You can't make this shit up.

So, I'll repeat again, as I've said multiple times -- you know, because I have a habit of repeating myself. Not impossible. Just unlikely.

It is very, very unlikely that an individual would seek to fundamentally transform a thing they love. Do you need a refresher course on what that term implies?

In the examples you cite, we're to assume love for Poland over hatred of communism, and love for Germany over hatred of whatever dumbfuckery those crafty Germans were up to.

They obviously didn't love motherfucking Poland the way Poland was, did they? Holy shit. They loved what Poland COULD BE without communism!

How many fucking instances have you been able to seriously reach incredibly far for over the past three days and successfully pull back? 1 1/2. Out of every other fucking thing. That's such an infinitesimal number that it hardly qualifies as 0.00000001%.

Not impossible, just definitely the outlier. And as that pertains to Obama, I still haven't the slightest bit of evidence that he loves or has ever loved America; you just want to assume that as the default position. Maybe it's a "black thang."

"No rational human being would read what I said and claim that that was what I am saying."

The only examples you were able to dredge up, given every fucking thing in the world, were two examples of people who sought to change their governments.

So, forgive me if, with that explicit context, I extrapolated that this is the thing you see Obama as doing -- attempting to crash and rebuild America's government and economic system because he "loves" America.

I mean, it ties right the fuck in. You describe yourself as a socialist even, if I'm not mistaken, so it's not exactly as if you're all gung-ho about America's capitalistic economic system. And the examples were specifically about bad governments that were dispelled. So, it seems that was the path you were taking.

My bad if that's not what you meant.

And the difference between the two of us: I'll say my bad if I got something wrong; you'll just insist the other person is too stupid to realize you're really right.

"You said it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone to love a country they want to fundamentally transform."

You'll have to show me this. You infer what you want, attribute it wrongly to me, and then proceed to tear it down. Straw-men won't help.

And what the fuck is wrong with "lol"? You don't approve of acronyms, oh ye brilliant arbiter of all that's fair, true and acceptable language to use in an Internet debate?

GFY, FFS. STFU and GTFO.

How about initialism? Better?

Which, by the way, brings me to another point: I would have probably said "Impossibru" lol

Josh said...

Sorry, missed this one:

"There are people who have fundamentally changed countries they love for the better.

What point of this simple and obvious assertion don't you get?"


Simple? Yes, at this point, I believe you are.

You seem far too stupid to continue arguing with me on this point. Honestly. It must be a total lack of shame. You haven't even the slightest fucking understanding of what the term "fundamentally transform" implies, do you?

You pooh-pooh my examples about the dog and shit, saying it's stupid and illogical, but that's what the fuck it means to "fundamentally transform" something!

Jesus H Christ on a biscuit, man. Take two fucking minutes out of your day and look this shit up! I'm not making this shit up; I didn't invent the fucking definitions; I'm not using quote-mined bits of them to prove my point. That's what the fucking thing means! Objectively.

You wanna speak about straw-men? You are creating a straw-man out of the meaning of the term, as if to imply that it only entails so-so changes to various aspects of a system which one may disagree with.

That's demonstrably wrong.

Incorrect. Untrue. False. Bullshit. Nonsense. FAIL. How many more ways can it be said?

To fundamentally transform something is to completely convert or change that thing at its most foundational level.

Are you capable of honestly admitting what this fucking means?

Don't even do it here. We wouldn't want you to look foolish in front of everyone. Go in the bedroom, shut the door, don't look anyone in the eye, and think about what it means to fundamentally transform something.

It's turning a computer into a fish tank. It's turning a paint bucket into a flower pot. It's turning a soda can into an ash tray. It is necessarily transforming X at its foundation and completely converting it into something that is no longer X.

F = X = Y.

Obama didn't say he wanted to do this with healthcare. He didn't say he wanted to do this with financial regulations. He didn't say he wanted to do this with immigration or foreign policy or education or college loans or taxes.

He said he wanted to do it to AMERICA -- the entire fucking country!

Immolate Josh and all of his relatives! said...

What a fucking gasbag...

Josh, will you just STFU!!!