HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It's kinda weird to me how a few here have issues with the way I argue my points (fair and to each their own), but when I make the effort to draw from a historical base it basically goes unnoticed or gets mocked by someone. Zombie seems to dig it at least. I do it for y'all!

I gathered that you're using it as a springboard to justify the behavior of black power/BLM/Antifa groups. When they are criticized in these boards, you turn to that history.

I'm not "turning to" anything. For fuck's sake, you're so brainwashed by Trump you think me adding context to a discussion is dishonest spin. It's history. It's there. It exists. It affects the present. It's not an "excuse". And what behavior have I even needed to justify? I've been critical of Antifa and you've yet to provide anything worth criticizing BLM or now Black Power for.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:"Black Power" going back to its roots is a message meant to inspire self-determination in black people. It decidedly has less to do with wanting everyone who isn't black being treated as subhuman.

Get it?

"The black power movement connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

MLK's naivete

WHAT?!?!?

OMG u r a racist piece of shit i cant believe u just said that you need to check your privilege you evil person i cant believe u just say this about MLK this is so unbelievable seriously.

You live in a fantasy world nobody but you subscribes to. Black people are always quick to acknowledge they needed Martin, but they also needed Malcolm. And they DEFINITELY needed Stokely. Civil rights wasn't just MLK saying he had a dream and Rosa Parks not getting up, even if your textbooks fooled you.

Cool. We're in 2017.

What does the current year have to do with anything? You think enough days passing solves problems by itself, especially when they're deeply ingrained in the political system? That makes no sense.

Yup. Because every citizen in this country of every race and all those genders have equal opportunity here in 2017. Whining about not having it in 1817 does nothing for this retarded cause. Only drives race relations further back.

Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

When you interpret everything as condescending, it's time to look in the mirror. The problem is probably you. And it's not like you'd be open to exploring a different perspective anyway, let's not pretend that made any difference. You just want your context-less echo chamber for Trump's voice to fill.

Also, am I misremembering you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

When you interpret everything as condescending, it's time to look in the mirror. The problem is probably you. And it's not like you'd be open to exploring a different perspective anyway, let's not pretend that made any difference. You just want your context-less echo chamber for Trump's voice to fill.

I'm not telling you to stop being condescending. I'm not saying I don't do the exact fuckin' same thing. I'm just calling BS on the way you tidied up your approach in the very next post when your original, condescending post is the reason I responded the way I did.

Headhunter wrote:Also, am I misremembering

probably

Headhunter wrote:you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Are you talking about the post you made that day after I said I had to go to bed?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

When you interpret everything as condescending, it's time to look in the mirror. The problem is probably you. And it's not like you'd be open to exploring a different perspective anyway, let's not pretend that made any difference. You just want your context-less echo chamber for Trump's voice to fill.

I'm not telling you to stop being condescending. I'm not saying I don't do the exact fuckin' same thing. I'm just calling BS on the way you tidied up your approach in the very next post when your original, condescending post is the reason I responded the way I did.

But it's a pointless response...unless you'd actually be willing to explore those perspectives independent of my bullshit. Is that the case?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, am I misremembering

probably

Headhunter wrote:you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Are you talking about the post you made that day after I said I had to go to bed?

No, I mean the post I made that you refused to answer, then later said you had to go to bed. I have pretty good memory and the thread is there for everyone to see...

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

When you interpret everything as condescending, it's time to look in the mirror. The problem is probably you. And it's not like you'd be open to exploring a different perspective anyway, let's not pretend that made any difference. You just want your context-less echo chamber for Trump's voice to fill.

I'm not telling you to stop being condescending. I'm not saying I don't do the exact fuckin' same thing. I'm just calling BS on the way you tidied up your approach in the very next post when your original, condescending post is the reason I responded the way I did.

But it's a pointless response...unless you'd actually be willing to explore those perspectives independent of my bullshit. Is that the case?

Just not Al Sharpton's perspective, yeah.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Who said anything about 1817? This is why you need to study black history, you won't be so confused about dates.

I'm not interested in reading "Everything You Need to Know About Black History" by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But thx.

I'm sorry I had the audacity to suggest you explore perspectives that could challenge your own. I won't make the mistake of assuming you can handle that idea ever again.

Condescendingly accusing me of having no knowledge of black history =/= suggesting I explore perspectives that could challenge my own.

When you interpret everything as condescending, it's time to look in the mirror. The problem is probably you. And it's not like you'd be open to exploring a different perspective anyway, let's not pretend that made any difference. You just want your context-less echo chamber for Trump's voice to fill.

I'm not telling you to stop being condescending. I'm not saying I don't do the exact fuckin' same thing. I'm just calling BS on the way you tidied up your approach in the very next post when your original, condescending post is the reason I responded the way I did.

But it's a pointless response...unless you'd actually be willing to explore those perspectives independent of my bullshit. Is that the case?

Just not Al Sharpton's perspective, yeah.

Then why did you mention Al Sharpton at all? You knew I wasn't going to reference him. The hyperfocus on Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is just funny to me. Is it 2017 or 1987?

In either case, I do have some actual recommendations if you're at all interested.

"Negroes with Guns" by Robert Williams
"Slavery by Another Name" by Douglas Blackmon

Those two cover nicely some of the things I've talked about pertaining to black issues in this thread. Agree, disagree, whatever, just do yourself a favor and give it the time of day if you have it.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, am I misremembering

probably

Headhunter wrote:you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Are you talking about the post you made that day after I said I had to go to bed?

No, I mean the post I made that you refused to answer, then later said you had to go to bed. I have pretty good memory...

*looks back*

Oh. Yeah. The quiz thing. I ignored your quiz game for multiple reasons. You were making the questions, so you already had the advantage, unless my views completely matched yours on the questions there was no winning, I legitimately had to go to bed, I could see that you were going to use it as a springboard to try to strengthen points you had made earlier in the discussion, and if I had said I wasn't going to play along, you would've pulled my "seemore hershey" shit. And I wasn't gonna let that happen. :p

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, am I misremembering

probably

Headhunter wrote:you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Are you talking about the post you made that day after I said I had to go to bed?

No, I mean the post I made that you refused to answer, then later said you had to go to bed. I have pretty good memory...

*looks back*

Oh. Yeah. The quiz thing. I ignored your quiz game for multiple reasons. You were making the questions, so you already had the advantage, unless my views completely matched yours on the questions there was no winning, I legitimately had to go to bed, I could see that you were going to use it as a springboard to try to strengthen points you had made earlier in the discussion, and if I had said I wasn't going to play along, you would've pulled my "seemore hershey" shit. And I wasn't gonna let that happen. :p

Nah man, I honestly wasn't gonna make any questions, no gotchas or anything. I didn't want to frame shit, I wanted to give you an open canvas to spill your thoughts and ideas onto. My views had nothing to do with it, we can interpret historical facts alternatively but it was never about my opinions. Sometimes the history doesn't need the commentary and can speak for itself, regardless it's not what I was looking for in this case.

You got me all wrong, man.

Headhunter wrote:In either case, I do have some actual recommendations if you're at all interested.

"Negroes with Guns" by Robert Williams
"Slavery by Another Name" by Douglas Blackmon

Those two cover nicely some of the things I've talked about pertaining to black issues in this thread. Agree, disagree, whatever, just do yourself a favor and give it the time of day if you have it.

Williams I will consider.
Blackmon is a WSJ reporter. I don't care that he is completely liberally biased, he is associated with a news outlet that completely lies to gain ratings. I will forever be a skeptic.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, am I misremembering

probably

Headhunter wrote:you weaseling your way out of a brief summary of postbellum African American history? I inquired and you got really defensive and looked pretty ridiculous. I wasn't even asking for much and was catering to simplicity, just wanted something out of you. There was nothing for me to condescend in that case, your absurd reaction spoke volumes.

Are you talking about the post you made that day after I said I had to go to bed?

No, I mean the post I made that you refused to answer, then later said you had to go to bed. I have pretty good memory...

*looks back*

Oh. Yeah. The quiz thing. I ignored your quiz game for multiple reasons. You were making the questions, so you already had the advantage, unless my views completely matched yours on the questions there was no winning, I legitimately had to go to bed, I could see that you were going to use it as a springboard to try to strengthen points you had made earlier in the discussion, and if I had said I wasn't going to play along, you would've pulled my "seemore hershey" shit. And I wasn't gonna let that happen. :p

Nah man, I honestly wasn't gonna make any questions, no gotchas or anything. I didn't want to frame shit, I wanted to give you an open canvas to spill your thoughts and ideas onto. My views had nothing to do with it, we can interpret historical facts alternatively but it was never about my opinions. Sometimes the history doesn't need the commentary and can speak for itself, regardless it's not what I was looking for in this case.

You got me all wrong, man.

Saul Good Man, yo.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:In either case, I do have some actual recommendations if you're at all interested.

"Negroes with Guns" by Robert Williams
"Slavery by Another Name" by Douglas Blackmon

Those two cover nicely some of the things I've talked about pertaining to black issues in this thread. Agree, disagree, whatever, just do yourself a favor and give it the time of day if you have it.

Williams I will consider.
Blackmon is a WSJ reporter. I don't care that he is completely liberally biased, he is associated with a news outlet that completely lies to gain ratings. I will forever be a skeptic.

Hey, I'll take it! Negroes with Guns was the biggest inspiration to more militant groups like the Black Panthers, your perspective may not change but it will be widened at least. And no matter what, you'll have extra ammo to defend your perspective.

I'm not supported by any news outlet and the work he did was excellent and supported by primary sources. Man, you gotta know when to pick your battles.

The Wall Street Journal is about as centrist as a paper gets, though. Unless your spectrum puts Fox News directly in the middle, it's not leftist at all. It's less conservative leaning than it used to be certainly but you're way off base here.

And that isn't my opinion. From a relative perspective, WSJ is as in the middle as you can get. And relativity is how you define the spectrum.

It doesn't matter though, because political bias only takes you so far. You don't get to blatantly make up unsupported facts to support your ideology, you'd be tarred and feathered out of the profession so fast. Obviously you could make a case that there's some political bias in how the facts are presented (after you actually read it) but the facts themselves, the primary sources included...that's not spin. We're not talking about an internet argument, we're talking about academic work.

And here's Robert Williams' Wiki page for anyone interested. The ideological father of Black Power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

This all ties back to the fear-mongering of the Black Power symbol in the first post. So I thought it's fair to note what that symbol actually means. It meant adamantly standing up for your right to have equal opportunity in America by any means. You may disagree with their perception of inequality in today's America and even the militancy, but you can't shame the intention of what drives them, it's noble and by definition liberal, not in the modern American sense, but in the original 1700s sense, which everyone should find agreeable. How can you equate that with KKK/Neo-Nazi/White Supremacists? Their goals are just to strip opportunities away from everyone who isn't them and worse. As should be president Mitt Romney said, morally not in the same universe. Racism should not be a political issue.

TL;DR - A black cop raising his fist is definitely better than a white cop heiling Hitler.