A recent trend is prominent blacks like Kobe Bryant getting in trouble over remarks insensitive to gays. For example, somebody named Roland Martin just got suspended from doing something or other at CNN because he jokingly tweeted after watching a Super Bowl ad:
If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl
I don't think this trend is just because gays are more politically organized now and their activists are looking around for something to keep them employed in the Public Indignation business after their inevitable total triumph with gay marriage. I think it reflects a more general impatience with stereotypical black behavior. A lot of straight white people are happy to seize upon a different Official Victim Group as a club to justify finally upbraiding blacks to not be such knuckleheads.
It's like how a lot of white people were disappointed when Jesse Jackson somewhat shifted from the 1970s to the 1980s from advocating more that blacks clean up their act to shaking down whites. But you weren't supposed to say that, so a lot of white people got very worked up over Jackson once using in conversation the term "H*****town." Unlike whites in general, Jews are an Official Victim Group, so this single word was the biggest loophole in his Civil Rights / MLK's Bloody Shirt armor.
Some gay black could probably make a lot of money by becoming the media's go-to guy for urging blacks to behave in more civilized fashions -- maybe Lee Daniels, the gay black director of the movie Precious?
Some gay black could probably make a lot of money by becoming the media's go-to guy for urging blacks to behave in more civilized fashions -- maybe Lee Daniels, the gay black director of the movie Precious?
Posts
86 comments:
Again, darn Jews don't have the decency to just accept anti-Semitism, like they would in an ideal world (if they're still alive - your ideal world may vary, Herr Sailer).
It takes a village(to save blacks)?
I dunno, but it seems...
it takes a gay to civilize them.
What irony.
(But maybe there is something to this. At one time, Brits were headbashing warriors. But they became more civilized as the men got to acting more 'gay'. "Oh, hello, dear old chap" and all that.)
So, lemme see. Rappers aint afraid of white man, KKK, cops, and other black thugs... but they sho be runnin' and hidin' when gays come after them.
This is too funny.
Not only that but some poor white conservatives I know support 'hate crime' laws cuz it protects them from black thugs.
Most racial violence in America are perpetrated by blacks.
And I think even liberals kinda wink wink know this.
Maybe. But they're not telling these guys not to be knuckleheads in general. They're just telling them not to say insensitive things about gays. And they would be just as critical of such comments coming from non-blacks.
That's certainly the nastiest racialist interpretation you could possibly draw from the incident.
So a lot of twitter followers of that CNN host who complained during the super bowl must've thought simultaneously "At last! Now we can finally upbraid a black (and, by implication, all blacks) if we whine about this dude's tweets!" :)
Has anybody else noticed the increase of pro gay campaigns in the past year? Not just with the whole gay marriage thing, but the number of youtube videos floating around of 14 year olds coming out of the closet is pretty astounding. Plus Lady Gaga.
It seems like gayness is no longer seen as an alternative lifestyle to be tolerated, but completely normal.
"Some gay black could probably make a lot of money by becoming the media's go-to guy for urging blacks to behave in more civilized fashions -- maybe Lee Daniels, the gay black director of the movie Precious?"
Your thinking is as erroneous as ever. Heterosexual blacks aren't going to identify with a gay African-American. This tactic certainly wouldn't work with the white community either. You have to find someone people identify with or aspire to be like as a role model (i.e Send in Mr. T.). It's like you're applying the norms of some foreign culture to this one because you can't figure out how Americans think or else don't care.
In fact, the fantasy psychology you're attempting to apply to real people makes you sound a little dippy.
In the future, it might be better to express things in a more gender-neutral manner, like "keeping the pimp hand strong." (Aficionados will, in good Straussian fashion, refer to "keeping the T-paw hand strong.")
If only Sammy Davis Jr. was a) still alive, and b) was into men, what a grievance granny he could be!
Aficionados will, in good Straussian fashion, refer to "keeping the T-paw hand strong".
That sounds like, "keeping the tit-pawing hand strong."
How old is Mr. Martin? I dont suppose his name was a corruption of the name of that hysterical 1970's comedy duo,Rowan & Martin was it? You will recall the psycho ballplayer Milton Bradley had a funny name,too.
@swimming: He only said someone could make a lot of money doing that--which strikes me as obviously true, given the cash that flows towards grievance-mongers in general. Your counterargument applies to a different argument than the one he's making.
"Blacks may be below gays now in the political correctness rankings, but they are still sure as hell way above everybody else."
Gays are not so much above blacks as standing behind them, which is why blacks are freaked.
" helene edwards said...
If true, it's gonna backfire. If closed out from dissing gays, blacks will just up the violence on genteel straights"
Most of the violence on genteel straights is comitted by...uhm...genteel straights.
"You have to find someone people identify with or aspire to be like as a role model (i.e Send in Mr. T.)."
Hey, 1981, welcome back buddy, I missed you, it's been a while!
It's true - just think Tim Hardaway. One of my all-time favorites, but now a non-person.
I was talking to a gay guy about the NBA one time in a Reno casino. He said, "It's just like ballet!"
A lot of straight white people are happy to seize upon a different Official Victim Group as a club to justify finally upbraiding blacks to not be such knuckleheads.
If true that reflects poorly on a lot of straight white people.
"So, lemme see. Rappers aint afraid of white man, KKK, cops, and other black thugs... but they sho be runnin' and hidin' when gays come after them.
This is too funny."
I think you misunderstand. It's not the behavior of black people that could be changed by a shift in victimology- it's the behavior of mainstream white people. So many African Americans aren't afraid of anything because they are being pampered and treated with kid gloves by the mainstream. They didn't cease power nor did they set up a structure that would render them powerful. Any upper hand that the black people in America might have has been granted to them and is being maintained for them by the white middle and upper classes. In today's America, being mean to, or strict with, or not understanding enough towards an officially victimized group is seen as a sign of ignorance, low intelligence, bad morals and so on. However, if one of these "victim" groups keeps breaking that taboo in regards to all the other "victim" groups, that might be the loop whole for the polite, bleeding heart mainstream that would enable them to act less understanding towards the aggressors under the guise of standing up for all the other "victims". Because, frankly, it's only fun to be nice to somebody if that somebody can recognize that you are being nice. People are growing tired of doing everything possible to make a certain group feel welcome only to be accused of being malicious deep down inside. People are also growing tired of trying to right the wrong committed against a certain group long ago, only to watch that group wrong everyone in sight, without a shred of remorse. Gays would make a wonderful #1 victim group, if we must have one. Firstly, there are very few of them. Secondly, it's much safer to live in a gay neighborhood than in a ghetto. Thirdly, gays don't ruin neighborhood schools. In fact, they usually help pay for the schools, without ever using them.
CNN and ESPN have already found the go-to-guy. The gay and black sports writer LZ Granderson is showing up on these stations with more and more frequency whenever incidents like the Roland Martin tweet occur.
"Secondly, it's much safer to live in a gay neighborhood than in a ghetto"
Yeah but Maya, you have to look at both sides of the coin; it would be a whole lot harder for you to get laid, too.
Steve, right observation, wrong cause.
This is just one more data point on the ever-increasing female influence on media and entertainment. Women love gays, thus no criticism of gay men whatsoever. Can't be done.
Who holds market commercial power? Black people, or White women? Who rewards "proper" social attitudes and who punishes it? Who made Lady Gaga a star, and kept Madonna going? Heck why did H&M do that commercial? Because they knew lots of ladies were watching. Same reason that NBC put on Madonna, and ran those commercials for "the Voice" and other stuff.
Once in this nation we did not care if people thought something was "insensitive". We did not imagine that someone had a right not to be offended. We knew that this was just bald power grubbing. We need to briskly return to this time.
This is just an attempt to stifle other voices and bully people.
The very notion that gays can "civilize blacks", or that blacks require anyone to "civilize" them is preposterous. In fact, gays can scarcely "civilize" anyone.The valorization of moral depravity is hardly the mark of the civilized. As much as anything, this sort of hypocritical racism and demands for special deference demonstrate this. Gays have no problem defaming their political opponents.
The perverse acceptance of homosexuality as natural, normal and normative, also is not "civilized"--far from it. It expresses the collapse of civilization and not its a height or apogee. To imagine that those who would point out this obvious fact are somehow backwards, and that those who perversely reject all of history and nature and our inherited moral culture are somehow morally superior to them is the height of arrogance, narcissism and delusion. The Left profoundly misjudge their fellow citizens.
The supercilious, self-deluded Left needs to understand that outside of their clique few consider them to be anything other than morally depraved.
Eventually, the country will return to sanity. When that day comes it will not, unfortunately, go well for gays or those who carry their water.
"Your counterargument applies to a different argument than the one he's making."
The assumption would be that the nominal target population for the social shaming would be responsive to the person chosen. Otherwise you have another Bill Cosby scenario in which the black community rejects, vilifies and refuses to see the movies of the self-appointed role model. So, no not really. A gay isn't going to be protected by his gayness just as Cosby hasn't been immune to criticism and marginalization by being famous and popular among them in previous decades.
The underlying argument really doesn't make sense. How is it preferable to further empower gays who already get away with bullying heterosexual traditionalists by claiming that the gay person was the victim or that it was a preemptive strike.
Further, since the convoluted yet specious reasoning intends to bring about a transformation by ending the status quo of whites automatically and mindlessly pandering to black, what makes you think a gay black spokesperson will appeal to all but the most liberal of these? The majority of non SWPL whites buy into the idea that it's their responsibility to improve the lot of the black community. Among the Christian population it's often viewed as one of their religious duties despite being funded by the government.
For this hare-brained scheme to work (wondering if you've been reading about JFKs plots to take out Castro, btw), you'd have to make gays into Ned Flanders types rather than libertines lookin' to do it their alternate way in the public mind.
Doesn't work on paper or in real life. Sailer was merely pandering to gays which further arouses suspicions that he is, in fact, a homosexual! Did you get that part of the underlying argument? Or did you think I didn't?
Two forms of cultural neurosis clash in the night: on the one hand, a liberal feminist culture that's pushing into new extremes of hypersensitivity, as witness the hysteria against high school "bullying" (often merely verbal) of early-teens displaying behavior that goes past simple effeminacy or "sissydom" into outright camp, which indeed they are learning from Lady Gaga, Glee, and other media displays, and may likely outgrow if not for the influence of drama-queen mommas manipulating them into gender bending [I'm profoundly suspicious about that scarf-wearing kid in Bachmann's district once I saw the pic of him with his mom-- she looks like a trailer park hairdresser living out some bizarro fantasy through her boy]
--and on the other hand the hypermasculinized culture of (urban) black America, which hasn't figured out yet that SWPLs really have grown bored with hip-hop, indeed the whole legacy of 20th century black culture, and are moving on to other things.
Tina Fey's punishment of Tracy Jordan [or is it Morgan-- I can never remember] was a subject of punitive mirth for the late Patrice O'Neal. I sympathize with Tracy--if liberal America can't allow straight dads a little venting at the prospect of a gay son, they may never return to reality's shores.
But urban black culture can't figure out it's lost appeal. Treating Jay-Z and Beyonce like royalty conceals the loss of interest. Guitar-bands moved into affectlessness, pop and "dance music" into fetishized artificiality. The result might be a certain tweeness (indie kids aren't interested in the Stones, for that matter), but it's gratifying that few (adults) pretend anymore that hip-hop/RnB has done anything new in 30 years. SWPLs won't fully own up to their repulsion, but it's surely there. And even though it's an expression of their own attenuated and uninformed sensibilities rather than a highbrow disdain, still-- it's more wholesome than wallowing in sheer dreck. Better affected "irony" than Murder, Inc. These scuffles are the permitted catharsis.
prosecutors are only likely to seek hate crime charges against africans if they assault known homosexuals. this is a recurring trend in modern US criminal justice. a simple group beat down, where the authorities were not gonna investigate anything, quickly turns into a hate crime if the police realize some homo was on the receiving end.
africans are free to assault heterosexuals as they see fit, however. they will almost never be charged with hate crime legislation no matter what the circumstances were. they are routinely video taped delivering a group beat down while shouting about the victims race, with no consequence. the authorities in every major city in every state have reaffirmed this again and again. philadelphia and chicago are actually gripped in a paroxysm of this right now.
so, yeah. homosexuals are higher than africans on the protected group totem pole. homosexuals of any kind > africans > europeans
i'm not sure what the complete formula is here, for all groups in the US, as the group versus group dynamics are not set in stone in some cases. but there are clear, established hierarchical trends.
Again, darn Jews don't have the decency to just accept anti-Semitism
actually, I read a great comment by one of those rare jews critical of whole 'routine' here...
he said,in so many words:... 'well, what if some people hate jews.. lots of people hate the french, and its something of a joke in the papers, so what's the difference? hating doesn't always equal violence"
Since when did blacks start saying 'ish'? That's Norwegian-Minnesotan for 'ick' or 'yuck'. (Or 'gay' if you're 14.)
And how black is Roland anyway? He's admitted to voting for GW Bush.
He needs to take winking lessons from Erin Burnett.
Plum Brandy:
Who made Lady Gaga a star, and kept Madonna going?
The Stonecutters?
"Heterosexual blacks aren't going to identify with a gay African-American."
What? You mean the media might do something that's ineffectual at improving underclass black behavior but makes SWPLs feel good about themselves? Who could imagine that ever happening?!
I just love it when members of the different Official Victim Groups start fighting each other and the hatred really oozes out. They all really do loathe each other just below the surface.
I've explained this. Succinctly, it's all about liberal coalition building.
The Ragtag Leftist Coalition of Identity Groups
Blacks may be below gays now in the political correctness rankings, but they are still sure as hell way above everybody else. Liberalism has become steadily yuppified, and gays make much better pets than blacks. But blacks can still go after anybody else with a completely free hand.
Except for the eponyms of "Hymietown", as Steve pointed out.
One big advantage gays have over Blacks is that essentially 100% Blacks look Black (amazingly enough).
But not 100% of gays look gay. Therefore they have a better idea of who their true opponents are just by listening in.
And no I'm not gay.
Blacks under gays isn't a headline, it's a vacation plan.
Gays still can't go after black so they are not really "over".
Whiskey said:
"This is just one more data point on the ever-increasing female influence on media and entertainment. Women love gays, thus no criticism of gay men whatsoever. Can't be done."
Wait, I'm confused. I thought that, above all else, women love to ride the black alpha penis. Have you been misinforming me this whole time?
@swimming: "[...]convoluted yet specious reasoning[...]" Now that's the pot calling the kettle gay. Or his or her reasoning "convoluted," anyway. And what's so wrong with being the object of a "suspicion" that one is gay, by the way?
You don't like this blogger's opinions, is what you mean to say.
And that is of course okay. Because I'm calm, which is why I'm slumber_j.
"I don't think this trend is just because gays are more politically organized now and their activists are looking around for something to keep them employed in the Public Indignation business after their inevitable total triumph with gay marriage. I think it reflects a more general impatience with stereotypical black behavior."
I think you are wrong on this one, Steve. Corporate America, whether JC Penny (their new spokesperson is Ellen-- think her being gay didn't actually play into their reason for chosing her for the publicity to be gained?)or CNN, just about any publicity that makes your company appear to be "with it," not stuck in the past, is what the suits think will win them favor.
I figure corporate America won't ever buck Hollywood--a single movie can bring them to their knees, and face it, whatever Hollywood is selling eventually wins, sadly.
"Doesn't work on paper or in real life. Sailer was merely pandering to gays which further arouses suspicions that he is, in fact, a homosexual! Did you get that part of the underlying argument? Or did you think I didn't?"
I'm amazed you were able to tear yourself away from thoughts of your black friends' double-D busts long enough to speculate on Steve's sexual orientation.
You are really creepy. Are you sure you're not "le sighing swan"?
"Since when did blacks start saying 'ish'?"
It's slang for "shit", bro. Google has been and always shall be your friend.
@ Reg Cæsar
"ish" in urban culture is an onomonopeatic expression. When they do a radio edit of rap songs, they distort the swear words (used to be a record scratch type effect but now is standardized across stations). "Shit" in radio edits comes out as, roughly, "ish". (I always took it more as, roughly, "who-esh" but onomonopeatics are in the ear of the beholder)
"It seems like gayness is no longer seen as an alternative lifestyle to be tolerated, but completely normal."
1.) Some teeny boppers will do anything to get noticed, even lie on a YouTube and say they are gay. Actually, if you've been around that age group much, yoy realize that some of them have no real idea of what a lesbian is. They think if they like to hug their girlfriends that means they're gay.
2.) Face it, lots of gay males are drama queens--yea for YouTube, the perfect vehicle for their needs.
3.) Trust me--high school boys are every bit as disgusted by the notion that other males are gay as they've ever been.
4.) At the college level and beyond, I think the Seinfeld attitude prevails among most: "Did you know that guy's gay...NOTTHAT THERE'SANYTHINGWRONGWITHTHAT!"
It's perhaps been modified a tad to "Did you know that guy's gay? Not that I think there's anything wrong with that...or whatever."
Truth said:
"Yeah but Maya, you have to look at both sides of the coin; it would be a whole lot harder for you to get laid, too."
Well, it's true that in a ghetto, a woman doesn't have to do anything, not even consent, to get laid.
But come on, Truth. As a man of a certain standing, you must understand that some possibilities that could technically be described as potential choices are so far below the minimum standard of acceptable that under no circumstances could they ever be realistically considered.
Plus, I bet that at any given time, there are more straight males who deserve to be called men in a gentrified gay neighborhood than in a ghetto... except, perhaps, when some event requires major police presence... but that's not a good way to meet.
Truth, may I ask you something? Have you ever actually lived in a real ghetto? I don't mean a majority black neighborhood where things might be dirtier and louder than in an upper class suburb, but a noticeable chunk of the population consists of respectable, productive people and things are, more or less, functioning- no, a real ghetto.
This may have to do with the trend toward cocooning (which you see in falling-crime times). The more that people isolate themselves, the less contact with real life they have.
So, those who do want to fight prejudice, improve the lot of the lowly, etc., can only come up with imaginary victims. This lets them satisfy their need to crusade, without having to actually interact with anyone or venture out into the world to see who needs help and who doesn't.
Hence, today's victims are gays, illegal immigrants, and Jews -- ones who aren't being oppressed or kicked around, and who the average crusader isn't interacting with very much. Just making symbolic displays of support.
When people were not cocooned, there were still those who wanted to fight prejudice and improve the lives of others, but they were from the real world and had real problems.
Being more out and about, the crusaders couldn't help but notice who was truly in need and who was not. And not being socially avoidant, they were people who the crusaders were in some level of real contact with.
Hence in the '70s and '80s, even starting in the '60s, the victims were blacks, who did face some racism, but mostly the focus was on troubled youths. Drug users, runaways, children from broken homes, shoplifters, sex abuse victims, kids who felt no safety but by turning to gangs, starving Third Worlders (remember Live Aid?), and so on.
I don't know if the intensity of moral crusading changes over time, but the groups who it focuses on sure does. When people are out in public, during rising-crime times, they crusade for real down-and-out people. When people start cocooning, during falling-crime times, they crusade for imaginary victims who they never interact with but express symbolic support for.
There's already a campaign directed at blacks to curb their language in reference to homosexuals. If you ever watch the NBA Network there is a commercial starring Grant Hill that explains to the young, black men that saying "gay" to describe something they dislike is verboten.
This commercial was obviously made as a response to the Kobe and Joakim Noah incidents though they both called people faggots not gay.
The NBA is scared of GLAAD.
We live in a weird time.
Through the word Santorum and with the loving cooperation of the 100 billion Google empire, gay emperor Dan Savage is working hard to teach a generation of Americans that
HOMOSEX = FECAL MATTER
Apparently this is a worthwhile trade if you can smear the name of one Republican politician.
Has it even dawned on Savage that he is associating all the world's gays with poo?
If the bullet had hit Jesse Jackson instead of MLK, imagine the chinese statue of him and shakedown artist MLK in Jackson's shoes today.
Rapper: "Bitchass HO!!!"
No problem.
Rapper: "Bitchass HOMO!!!"
Big problem.
Gays over feminists too, I guess.
I thought Roland Martin was a pro fisherman
Haha:
Reg Ceasar checked out of society about the time of Julius Ceasar.
"Truth, may I ask you something? Have you ever actually lived in a real ghetto? I don't mean a majority black neighborhood where things might be dirtier and louder than in an upper class suburb, but a noticeable chunk of the population consists of respectable, productive people and things are, more or less, functioning- no, a real ghetto."
I lived my life, up through my teen years in Jamaica, and Cambria Heights Queens, and Ft. Green Brooklyn. The neighborhoods, respectively of 50 cent, L.L. Cool J and Spike Lee.
"I don't mean a majority black neighborhood where things might be dirtier and louder than in an upper class suburb, but a noticeable chunk of the population consists of respectable, productive people and things are, more or less, functioning-"
Maya, I've been on this blog for 5 years, are you telling me those places exist?!?!?!
Maya said...
...Because, frankly, it's only fun to be nice to somebody if that somebody can recognize that you are being nice. People are growing tired of doing everything possible to make a certain group feel welcome only to be accused of being malicious deep down inside.
-----
You'd make a very bad "ally" of people of color (POCS), Maya.
As a pri-[vileged] cis/[gendered] ( assuming!) cis:[Abled] , White middle class woman, you think POCs should be nice to you just because you're being nice to them? That's [F*ck*/d] up (!), as my professor of postcolonial microAgression theory would say!
Reg Ceasar checked out of society about the time of Julius Ceasar. --the dyslectic Truth
...and rightly so, if the latest black street slang is recycling that of overweight Lutheran spinsters of a generation or two ago.
So here, for those pointy-heads out East, are a few tips on how to tweet Minnesotan:
Nouns are optional, as subjects or objects. Our so-called expletives -- "uff da" and "ish" -- are short enough not to need abbreviation.
--Mpls. Star Tribune
"I'm amazed you were able to tear yourself away from thoughts of your black friends' double-D busts long enough to speculate on Steve's sexual orientation."
Sailer is very comfortable with such speculation. He invites it most of the time. Even deciding on the political strategy in this post was a deliberate choice to pander if not out himself.
And, no, Kylie, I don't want to have sex with any black chicks or with you or with Sailer. Cute that you guys are teaming up for some bear-baiting over homophobia. If I thought it really hurt Sailer's feelings to tease him thus, I'd a) refrain from doing it or b) only do it after he'd trampled on my feelings. The guy doesn't need protecting.
Truth said:
"Maya, I've been on this blog for 5 years, are you telling me those places exist?!?!?!"
I understand you are being sarcastic, but let me try to explain why many people who used to or who still identify as liberal are getting more and more frustrated with race relations in this country, at least the way I see it. It's not that we see black people as inferior in general. It's that when some black people do act like disgusting animals, they are always excused in polite society and in professional/political/academic circles while the blame for their atrocious behavior is placed on someone else. This kind of an atmosphere encourages the very worst possible culture to flourish within the black community. Of course, the majority of us know many respectable, intelligent, interesting black people. About 20 minutes away from the lower middle class suburb of my adolescence, there is a beautiful historic town with an elite university and clean public beaches. Other than the elite university students, the majority of the permanent residents were black professionals. (I say "were" because, recently, the government sent a bunch of former projects residents in via section 8, and the black professionals packed up and left.) In college, those of us who went to large flagship schools encountered many different types of black people, most of whom were not the children of professionals. They were flashier and louder. But they were HUMAN BEINGS. Their mothers would come to visit, dressed in clothes that were too tight and fall asleep on the dorm couches, snoring loudly. But I felt respect for them because, though it was obvious that we weren't brought up the same way, I still felt myself in the presence of adults. They had jobs, cared about their kids, valued their kids' education. Every ethnicity has an upper class, a lower class and a few steps in between. That's fine. However, those people who live in my current inner city are not human beings. They are contemptible animals. The frustration comes from the fact that they are lavished with every type of aid possible and given excuses when they deserve none. I spent a little over a decade in Eastern Europe where people have a history of being oppressed in ways no less gruesome than the American slavery (that's the case for the majority of the world's population). I and everyone i knew lived in conditions that were kinda worse than those in the ghetto: a lot more people per room, poorer medical care, less social services and less stuff. Some people acted like degenerates to be sure, but it was never THIS bad. And everyone recognized the degenerates for what they were. They were shamed and scorned. A baby born in an American ghetto has more opportunity than an average baby born in Eastern Europe or rural South Korea could ever imagine, let alone hope for. It's frustrating to see people be given so much when they aren't willing to make even the least effort to improve their own situation and conduct. It's infuriating to be told by them, those in charge and the mainstream that their actions actually proof that they are being victimized. The 20 year old high school sophmore comes to school drunk because he is an asshole, not because the system is racist. The druggie who is responsible for creating half of my school's special ed students is a disgusting piece of shit, not a victim. I could say this out loud if these animals were white. But since these particular animals are black, it's not their fault.
"Wait, I'm confused. I thought that, above all else, women love to ride the black alpha penis. Have you been misinforming me this whole time?"
Women are good at multitasking, haven't you seen those brain imaging studies?
Lucius said...
"...the hypermasculinized culture of (urban) black America, which hasn't figured out yet that SWPLs really have grown bored with hip-hop, indeed the whole legacy of 20th century black culture, and are moving on to other things."
SWPLs still revere "conscious hip hop" acts like Mos Def and Common. But they won't take you seriously if they catch you listening to Lil Wayne or Young Jeezy ... at least not unless you're doing so ironically.
The basic timeline of SWPLdom's relationship with hip hop goes something like the following:
1.) Mid/late 80s, Run DMC - Eric B. & Rakim era:
SWPLs = Not sure what to think of this new urban "rap" thing -- keep listening to R.E.M.
2.) A Tribe Called Quest debuts, Public Enemy's Chuck D says "hip hop is the CNN of tha hood," just tellin' what it's like on tha streetz (circa 1990):
SWPLs = Swoon. Hip hop seen as important, culturally significant art. Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet" is the greatest CD ever! Play Arrested Development's "Tennessee" at every house party.
3.) Era following Dr. Dre's "Chronic" album (mid 90s to early 2000s):
Includes = "Gangsta Rap" era (1993-96)/"Biggie" v Tupac era ('94-'96), Snoop Dogg's prime era (1993-97)/Wu-Tang era ('93-2000)/Puff-Daddy "looped samples" era (1997-2001)
SWPLs = Quietly not feeling hip hop anymore, but afraid to say so.
Dilemma: want to celebrate "authentic black culture," and still desperately *want* to love hip hop, but can't get past the materialistic consumerism, the violent lyrics, the macho posturing, the misogyny (bitches & hoes -- oh noez!) and the "homophobia." Production value of music also not as interesting as older stuff. Damn you Puff Daddy!
Still pay official lip service to affinity for hip hop culture, but listen to the Strokes and the White Stripes instead.
4.) 50 Cent debuts in mainstream (2003):
SWPLs = REALLY not feeling hip hop now. Listen to Yeah Yeah Yeahs.
5.) Kanye West "Dropout" album debuts (2004):
SWPLs = Swoon. Anti-consumerism, smart hip hop! Finally found a hip hop artist to love. Kanye is God.
6.) Kanye becomes big star, shows self to be world class A-hole:
SWPLs = Ugh. Dilemmas again. Listen to The Bravery & MSTRKRFT.
7.) President Obama calls Kanye a "jackass" on national TV:
SWPLs = Thank you Barack! Weight off shoulders: It's officially OK to not like Kanye now!
BTW, hip hop kinda sucks. Listen to Silversun Pickups & MGMT.
I'd like to see anyone shake an apology out of Dave Chapelle. The problem is, once the ball started to roll in the direction of grovel, it became the expected reaction. If those early insulters had just told the offended parties to shut the f&@k up we probably would not have reached this stage. Where are you, Dave? We need you.
Definitely gays over blacks. Who else is willing to be the vanguard moving in to black ghettos and starting the gentrification process?
"Truth said...
Most of the violence on genteel straights is comitted by...uhm...genteel straights."
Wrong, as usual.
"Maya said...
I understand you are being sarcastic, but let me try to explain why many people who used to or who still identify as liberal are getting more and more frustrated with race relations in this country, at least the way I see it."
Replying to "Truth" is a waste of time. Reply to what he posts in the interest of dispelling it, if you like, but actually trying to reason with him is futile. He's a provacateur and an idiot, and he doesn't argue in good faith.
It's like how a lot of white people were disappointed...
Yeah. I mean, like, I was absolutely devastated.
Your last response was good, Maya. You made some good points. You clearly have some misunderstandings that would take hours to explain, but I don't have the inclination now.
You obviously have the greater good in mind, unlike most people here, who live on another planet, and that's a good thing. You seem like a warm likeable person who genuinely wants to understand and for things to improve for everyone and that's a good quality.*
One small criticism though: Break it into paragraphs, it's easier to read.
(*That doesn't mean I won't stop ridiculing you though, it's kind of like the Scorpion and the Frog crossing the river, ya know.)
Roland Martin has made a career out of race-baiting and constantly calling out GOPers for their "dog whistles." His whole gig is interpreting what people "really meant" when they said something sketchy.
The fact that he got a taste of his own medicine is hilarious. No one was buying his "anti-soccer" explanation -- just as he refuses to listen to others' explanation of their gaffes.
In addition to offending GLAAD, he has built up an entire community of people who dislike him intensely due to his Twitter behavior, where he is notoriously rude to anyone who dares disagree with him.
The night of the Super Bowl he was responding to criticism by calling people liars, idiots and fools -- pretty typical stuff for him, but when you represent a network like CNN, that's a bit over the top.
CNN won't miss him at all ... he was basically a third-rate hack. If he were white, he'd be a weather man in a market like Waco.
By the way, the Roland Martin incident is shaping up to be a mini-OJ case study.
If Twitter is to be believed, blacks overwhelmingly think his comments were no big deal and his suspension is just another example of "The Man" holding them down.
Whites are happy to see him get his due either because they support gay rights or they are gleeful watching liberals fight one another over politically correct speech.
@Reg et. al.
I grew up in Soufeast DC in the 60's and went to a mostly black elementary school.
"Ish" and "Ishy" were commonly used terms of disgust.
Ricardo done throwed up all over!
ISHY!!
Gays over blacks? Temporarily, perhaps, but not over the long term.
Hard to guess the time frame, but it's probably not too far down the road that we find what causes male homosexuality. Could be a year, probably not more than 10 years. It's biological so it's reasonable to assume prevention is likely.
Result: Fewer kis who'll grow up gay born or fewer kids affected in childhood by whatever causes them to be gay.
Blacks? I don't see anything in the future, given the third rail of American politics, that will change policies enough to curb in any significant way the birth rate of blacks.
I can think of policies that would do so, but I can't think of any pol willing to raise the topic.
In the end, gays almost disappear; blacks continue to spread dysfunction.
Would THREE'S COMPANY be considered 'homophobic'? I love that show.
Ah, the glory days of 'fairy humor'. Check 7:20 of the video. Now, such won't even be allowed because of gay oleannas.
Biggot Sanford vs remnants of counterculture.
I saw a picture of baby-faced Roland in a silk cravat. If he's down for some groveling re-invention I think the role of CNN's gay house negro (f--- off, Don Lemon!) is his for the taking. Could be lucrative. How does he stand with Oprah?
These guys who find the idea of gays prevailing over blacks politically an absurdity need to get out of the house more. Smart and nasty beats dumb and nasty every where except a street fight.
But this should be fun to watch anyway.
Exploit the contradictions!
"The basic timeline of SWPLdom's relationship with hip hop goes something like the following:"
I don't know, Drunk Idiot, you seem like kind of an expert. You might be the #1 SWiPpLe authority on hip-hop in America.
"and he doesn't argue in good faith."
Sorry bro, I never got a copy of the rulebook.
"CNN won't miss him at all"
Probably true, just as I don't miss CNN, having given it up many years ago.
You are really creepy. Are you sure you're not "le sighing swan"?
That wasn't me.
Even though Hispanics don't amount to much culturally or economically, their competition with blacks as the 'underclass minority' has also undercut black power. Without a large Hispanic population, Jews/gays might not be so cocky toward blacks. But with rising brown numbers, Jewish/gay attitude is 'we can win with brown votes, so we don't need you blacks so much any more'. This is true enough in CA. So, blacks feel more pressure to play the game.
"Hard to guess the time frame, but it's probably not too far down the road that we find what causes male homosexuality. Could be a year, probably not more than 10 years. It's biological so it's reasonable to assume prevention is likely.
Result: Fewer kis who'll grow up gay born or fewer kids affected in childhood by whatever causes them to be gay."
For one thing, its only like 25% biological, lots of other factors have a statistically large impact:
- single parent home or household of divorce
- growing up in an urban environment
- getting molested by a grown up as a kid
- being in a culture where its common
So I don't think its going away any time soon. Human sexuality is really, really, really plastic. If someone knew some cute Asian girls growing up (me) he is much more likely to wind up like me with an Asian wife. People have fetishes toward maid's outfits, schoolgirls and S&M to name a few of the hundreds out there. Genes or viruses for all that? Not a chance. The only simple, Occam's razor explanation is that human sexuality is really plastic and moldable.
@Drunk idiot: That's an entertaining and erudite breakdown. Though personally, my poison won't be MGMT.
I suppose some novelty like Kreayshawn will continue to amuse hipsters, and they'll collect novelties around the margins to embrace, for, you know, "diversity"s sake.
For clarity's sake, I'll add I'm using "SWPL"s in a somewhat wide-ranging sense, to include a lot of middle class people who haven't thought about popular music that much since they were doing feminist book reports in undergrad on misogyny in "Baby Got Back."
As far as hardcore, coked-up Williamsburgers or their offshoots are concerned, I almost blanch at comparing them favorably with inner city thugs, so offensive can their aesthetics, personal morals, and hygiene be.
Almost. Because, at the end of the day, I can fend off an ass-kicking by making a mildly ambivalent pronouncement about Deleuze, and everybody chills.
Dan said,
"For one thing, its only like 25% biological, lots of other factors have a statistically large impact:
- single parent home or household of divorce
- growing up in an urban environment
- getting molested by a grown up as a kid
- being in a culture where its common"
#################
Dan, I really think you're off base here. Your bullet points have been shot down one by one by a myriad of researchers over the years. This is not to say that a certain percentage of males, for one of those reasons above or a combo of them, given his own sense of adventure or situation might not engage in homosexual behavior, but none of those you've listed have stood up to scrutiny when applied to large numbers of gay men.
You can always find males who in certain situations where females are unavailable engage in homosexual activity, but their preferences are heterosexual and they return to heterosexual activity once women are available.
The most important point is that their desire is for women while a homosexual not only doesn't prefer women, he is not attracted to women at all.
Think of all the hundreds of millions of males who've grown up w/out male influence over our history (divorce just being one reason, war another) who aren't gay. If that were a cause to any great extent, we'd see exclusive homosexuality in a much higher percentage of males.
I'm a bit tired of the references to gay gentrification as if that is a given among gay culture. It exists, yes. However, there are gay "ghettos" that remind one of run-down frat houses where heavy alcohol and drug use pervade the neighborhood and where senior citizens who live in those old houses find themselves surrounded by young, seedy sorts who are quite as far from gentrified as the denizens of the worst parts of Detroit.
"I'm a bit tired of the references to gay gentrification."
From fair housing to fairy housing.
Bentrification?
However, there are gay "ghettos" that remind one of run-down frat houses where heavy alcohol and drug use pervade the neighborhood
Are you sure those are gay ghettos, or hippie ghettos? Straights often have trouble telling two apart.
"Are you sure those are gay ghettos, or hippie ghettos?"
Although straight, I am sure.
agnostic, I'll grant that most Defenders of Decency don't interact too much with illegals outside of having their landscaping etc done by them (them plus Chinese arguably constitute the modern proletariat). But I guarantee that many of the do-gooders frequently interact with gays and/or Jews, often belonging to such categories themselves.
Post a Comment