BLM, tool of the Marxist

[jimboston]

Mookie and me aren't trying to "win." We are trying to understand.

I don’t need to understand. I already do.

Basically, all you are doing is just saying your opinion and just automatically accepting whatever you say as "fact." That's not how debate or understanding works!

I actually I laid out the step-by-step process pretty plainly.

I don’t need studies... as I’ve said the statistics that prove my thesis are the same numbers you’ve cited.

You’re saying “black families don’t stay together... and that’s why they’re poor and less educated”
I’m saying “the families don’t stay together because poverty and low education”
(This is just one example of systemic bias.)
We aren’t debating the fact that there are too many homes with no fathers.
We aren’t disputing the fact that black Americans are poorer than white Americans.
(Are either of those points debated?)
No... we are debating the Cause.

I’m saying it’s a cycle.... that dates back to slavery.
Yes the two go hand in hand, BUT...

At the end of the day, society/government CAN’T MAKE black fathers stay in the home.
We (society/government) CAN do something to address poverty and education

I DON’T NEED STATISTIC OR STUDIES OR DATA TO MAKE THIS POINT.
THE POINT IS CLEAR CONCISE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

I also not sure if we are even arguing about the same thing... and feel we may be understanding the phrase “systemic bias” differently.

If you think “systemic bias” is solely an issue related to laws and formalized institutions... then maybe you’re right.

I think “systemic bias” involves all aspects of modern american society... which includes not only laws/rules of formal organizations, but also innate biases perpetuated by the structure of our society. but not necessarily formally condoned.

for example....
*bias of police officers, that although not officially approved it’s generally been ignored.
*bias in how society funds schools and other public works in lower-income/black majority areas.
*bias in college admissions... look at things like disparity of SAT scores and what are the root causes of those issues.
*bias in job/advancement opportunities... not planned bias, but innate bias that gives advantage to people based on their family/social networks... many jobs are never advertised, candidates are found through social networks. This perpetuates advantage to people of privilege.

I’m NOT saying we can make rules or laws to fix all these things, I’m NOT saying these are easy problems to recognize or address, I’m not saying these can be addressed overnight.

I am saying that the first step in addressing these issues is to acknowledge they exist.

If you think the four * points are not real or not real problems... then fine... I’ll provide evidence to prove those points.
If you think the four * points are real but are not examples of “systemic bias” then we have a problem with how we re defining “systemic bias”.
If you think the four * points are real but are cause by “Black American Culture”... then you need to wake up.

[mookiemcgee]

Are you just trying to win an argument or are you actually wanting to discuss ideas by supporting your claims? I understand what systemic racism is, it's not a hard concept to grasp. Your biggest problem is that you STILL have provided no backing evidence to support your claim. And again, just saying "systemic racism is a feedback loop" without making an argument doesn't make it true.

I’m pretty sure I not only made an argument, but also won it.

I’m sorry you’re not able to follow.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was talking about!

Here is a read you might find enlightening:

[jimboston]

Are you just trying to win an argument or are you actually wanting to discuss ideas by supporting your claims? I understand what systemic racism is, it's not a hard concept to grasp. Your biggest problem is that you STILL have provided no backing evidence to support your claim. And again, just saying "systemic racism is a feedback loop" without making an argument doesn't make it true.

I’m pretty sure I not only made an argument, but also won it.

I’m sorry you’re not able to follow.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was talking about!

Here is a read you might find enlightening:

I don’t have to coddle you.

You actually seem to agree with most of what I say...

.. but the time for coddling and worrying about the feelings of ‘white Americans is long past.

Too many black men are being killed.
I think acknowledging this is a problem is more impothan worrying about people’s feelings.

[saxitoxin]

Too many black men are being killed.

7,756 black men are annually victims of homicide

1,134 black men are annually killed by police - of these only 170 were unarmed at the time they were killed

In other words, a black men who does not carry a weapon with him has a 1-in-129,000 chance of being killed in a police interaction every year or 1-in-2156 lifetime odds ... which is twice the odds a black man has of dying in his lifetime from fire. So far no one is attacking firefighters over their inaction in protecting black men.

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/whe ... k-homicide
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -black-men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

[mookiemcgee]

Chapter 1: "If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive"

Seriously man, this would be a good read for you...It's not about coddling, it's about how if you try to sound less like an asshole people might actually listen to you.

[jimboston]

Chapter 1: "If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive"

Seriously man, this would be a good read for you...It's not about coddling, it's about how if you try to sound less like an asshole people might actually listen to you.

I started out nice... but I can only fake it for so long if he’s gonna be rude to me.

Seriously man, look back.
My initial post was polite... and then he insulted me.

He’s actually no an idiot.
I suspect he’s in his late 20’s early 30’s and he’ll realize I was right in 15-20 years.

Sometimes no amount of talking work... you just need to experience life.

[mookiemcgee]

Chapter 1: "If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive"

Seriously man, this would be a good read for you...It's not about coddling, it's about how if you try to sound less like an asshole people might actually listen to you.

I started out nice... but I can only fake it for so long if he’s gonna be rude to me.

Seriously man, look back.
My initial post was polite... and then he insulted me.

He’s actually no an idiot.
I suspect he’s in his late 20’s early 30’s and he’ll realize I was right in 15-20 years.

Sometimes no amount of talking work... you just need to experience life.

I see... get back to when you're ready to talk about Chapter 2.

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

[Jdsizzleslice]

[saxitoxin]

One less Biden voter this November ...

United States Attorney Erica H. MacDonald today announced a federal criminal complaint against BRANDEN MICHAEL WOLFE, 23, charging him with aiding and abetting arson at the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct. In his statement to law enforcement, WOLFE confirmed that he pushed a wooden barrel into the fire, knowing that it would help keep the fire burning. If convicted, WOLFE faces a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, with a minimum prescribed sentence of five years.

#OrangeIsTheNewBlue

[jimboston]

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

That’s factually untrue.

It’s probably the best way, the most effective way, the least expensive way, the most sustainable way...

but it’s FACTUALLY INCORRECT to claim it’s the ONLY way to get people to do what you want.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

That’s factually untrue.

It’s probably the best way, the most effective way, the least expensive way, the most sustainable way...

but it’s FACTUALLY INCORRECT to claim it’s the ONLY way to get people to do what you want.

Remember, the title of the book is... How to win FRIENDS, not ARGUMENTS.

[jimboston]

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

That’s factually untrue.

It’s probably the best way, the most effective way, the least expensive way, the most sustainable way...

but it’s FACTUALLY INCORRECT to claim it’s the ONLY way to get people to do what you want.

Remember, the title of the book is... How to win FRIENDS, not ARGUMENTS.

The title of the book doesn’t change the point.
The quote is factually incorrect.

[hotfire]

Jim,
We warned you not to waste effort arguing with that one guy that used to be here. Yet, you continued to waste energy in vain. Now the damage that has been done to your patience is obvious to all. What a shame really.

[jimboston]

Jim,
We warned you not to waste effort arguing with that one guy that used to be here. Yet, you continued to waste energy in vain. Now the damage that has been done to your patience is obvious to all. What a shame really.

[Jdsizzleslice]

The title of the book doesn’t change the point.
The quote is factually incorrect.

Bud, you're missing the point of what mookie and I have been trying to tell you, and that is evidenced by your constant need to "prove" everything correct or incorrect. We haven't been rude or hateful to you at all. No one has called you names or have attacked your character. We are definitely being playful now because you have still yet to see how and why we talk to each other the way we do, and how that type of communication is so very much lacking on this forum.

The point is that saying things doesn't always make them true. You need supporting information. That's why when me and mookie have talked in this post, it's a two-fold type of debate/communication. We provide sources to help back up our claims, but it comes from a viewpoint of trying our best to understand how the other person thinks and if the construct of their argument is valid enough to ponder in our own mind to see if we agree outright, disagree outright, or if we still need some time to formalize an idea. You and mookie probably agree a very decent amount on this subject, and probably have very similar viewpoints, politics-wise. Mookie made his argument, supported his claims, and tried (or is trying) to understand my side. You haven't really made a compelling argument, haven't supported much of your statements, and are just trying to "prove" you are "winning." Statements like "I’m pretty sure I not only made an argument, but also won it. I’m sorry you’re not able to follow" or "I don’t need to understand. I already do" or "I didn’t give hard data... because the facts aren’t in dispute" or "If you think ____________ then you need to wake up." It just further asserts that you really don't care about trying to understand my point of view. Building rapport with someone with whom you disagree is one of the main ways you help convince someone that your idea is worth considering, and that is something you have been unable to accomplish with me, as well as other people who are active on this forum.

[mrswdk]

You haven't really made a compelling argument, haven't supported much of your statements, and are just trying to "prove" you are "winning."

Welcome to Semantics with Jim.

[mookiemcgee]

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

That’s factually untrue.

It’s probably the best way, the most effective way, the least expensive way, the most sustainable way...

but it’s FACTUALLY INCORRECT to claim it’s the ONLY way to get people to do what you want.

This tells me you tried to answer the pop quiz on chapter 2 without ever reading it.

READ THE BOOK JIM, FIRST FEW CHAPTER ARE ALL FREE IN GOOGLE BOOKS PREVIEW

Here is what he says directly after the quote you claim is factually incorrect:

"There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

Of course, you can make someone want to give you their watch by sticking a revolver in their ribs. YOU can make your employees give you cooperation—until your back is turned—by threatening to fire them. You can make a child do what you want it to do by a whip or a threat. But these crude methods have sharply undesirable repercussions."

Do you see where we are going with this? Let's me know when you are ready for Chapter 3.

[jimboston]

The title of the book doesn’t change the point.
The quote is factually incorrect.

Bud, you're missing the point of what mookie and I have been trying to tell you, and that is evidenced by your constant need to "prove" everything correct or incorrect.

I’m not missing your point. I understand your point. I’m just ignoring your point.

We haven't been rude or hateful to you at all. No one has called you names or have attacked your character.

Not hateful... rude yes.
Reread your first response to my post... I think it was my second post.

We are definitely being playful now because you have still yet to see how and why we talk to each other the way we do, and how that type of communication is so very much lacking on this forum.

I agree that’s lacking... but I don’t think you are contributing in the way you believe you are.. not by insulting people.

The point is that saying things doesn't always make them true. You need supporting information. That's why when me and mookie have talked in this post, it's a two-fold type of debate/communication. We provide sources to help back up our claims, but it comes from a viewpoint of trying our best to understand how the other person thinks and if the construct of their argument is valid enough to ponder in our own mind to see if we agree outright, disagree outright, or if we still need some time to formalize an idea. You and mookie probably agree a very decent amount on this subject, and probably have very similar viewpoints, politics-wise. Mookie made his argument, supported his claims, and tried (or is trying) to understand my side. You haven't really made a compelling argument, haven't supported much of your statements, and are just trying to "prove" you are "winning." Statements like "I’m pretty sure I not only made an argument, but also won it. I’m sorry you’re not able to follow" or "I don’t need to understand. I already do" or "I didn’t give hard data... because the facts aren’t in dispute" or "If you think ____________ then you need to wake up." It just further asserts that you really don't care about trying to understand my point of view. Building rapport with someone with whom you disagree is one of the main ways you help convince someone that your idea is worth considering, and that is something you have been unable to accomplish with me, as well as other people who are active on this forum.

Some people and points aren’t worth considering.

I don’t think you fall in that group or i’d have stopped replying by now.

I also don;t understand why I’m supposed to be able to sense the humor (or times where you are ‘having fun with me’... but you can’t sense the humor in my posts. Obviously a communication thing... but half the quotes you pulled above are sarcastic or “extreme to be funny”.

[jimboston]

You haven't really made a compelling argument, haven't supported much of your statements, and are just trying to "prove" you are "winning."

Welcome to Semantics with Jim.

Is that your best dig?

What you call semantics, I call EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MINUTIA!

[jimboston]

Chapter 2: The big secret of dealing with people

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

That’s factually untrue.

It’s probably the best way, the most effective way, the least expensive way, the most sustainable way...

but it’s FACTUALLY INCORRECT to claim it’s the ONLY way to get people to do what you want.

This tells me you tried to answer the pop quiz on chapter 2 without ever reading it.

Some of my best grades in high school literature where when I’d skip the book and just bullshit my way through the test. It was pretty easy to do. I still red, a lot, but I found “The Foundation Trilogy” much better than “Red Badge of Courage”.

READ THE BOOK JIM, FIRST FEW CHAPTER ARE ALL FREE IN GOOGLE BOOKS PREVIEW

Here is what he says directly after the quote you claim is factually incorrect:

"There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

Of course, you can make someone want to give you their watch by sticking a revolver in their ribs. YOU can make your employees give you cooperation—until your back is turned—by threatening to fire them. You can make a child do what you want it to do by a whip or a threat. But these crude methods have sharply undesirable repercussions."

So he corrected himself. Good. Why’d he make a statement he himself proved was wrong. Why didn’t he say “the best way to get anybody to do anything” instead of saying “there’s only one way”? Seems like a lot of extra words. Waste of time to read it.

I already got the people I want to like me liking me. I don;t need to win anymore friends.

Do you see where we are going with this? Let's me know when you are ready for Chapter 3.

If you can summarize it for me in a couple sentences like you did Chapter 2 great!

[mookiemcgee]

This tells me you tried to answer the pop quiz on chapter 2 without ever reading it.

Some of my best grades in high school literature where when I’d skip the book and just bullshit my way through”.

It shows...

READ THE BOOK JIM, FIRST FEW CHAPTER ARE ALL FREE IN GOOGLE BOOKS PREVIEW

Here is what he says directly after the quote you claim is factually incorrect:

"There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

Of course, you can make someone want to give you their watch by sticking a revolver in their ribs. YOU can make your employees give you cooperation—until your back is turned—by threatening to fire them. You can make a child do what you want it to do by a whip or a threat. But these crude methods have sharply undesirable repercussions."

So he corrected himself. Good. Why’d he make a statement he himself proved was wrong. Why didn’t he say “the best way to get anybody to do anything” instead of saying “there’s only one way”? Seems like a lot of extra words. Waste of time to read it.

I already got the people I want to like me liking me. I don;t need to win anymore friends.

Do you see where we are going with this? Let's me know when you are ready for Chapter 3.

If you can summarize it for me in a couple sentences like you did Chapter 2 great!

He doesn't contradict himself at all. I understand you don't want to read a few pages, but can you at least try and pay attention through a paragraph?

Example 1: Someone wants to give you their watch so they don't get shot.
Example 2: Someone wants to do what their boss say's so they won't get fired.
Example 3: A child behaves because they want M&D to stop yelling at them or hitting them.

There is only one way under high heaven to get anybody to do anything. Did you ever stop to think of that? Yes, just one way. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

Can you give me a hypothetical that proves him wrong? You did declare it was factually incorrect, but as has been pointed out to you about 10 times in this thread you don't really offer much beyond stamping your feet and declaring you are the truth teller but that you aren't going to "spoon feed" us.

[jimboston]

Can you give me a hypothetical that proves him wrong? You did declare it was factually incorrect, but as has been pointed out to you about 10 times in this thread you don't really offer much beyond stamping your feet and declaring you are the truth teller but that you aren't going to "spoon feed" us.

Yes.

I want some jerky know-it-all who’s quoting Carnegie Mellon to me to eat mud.

I kick his knee out... knock him to the ground... grab the back of his head... and then shove mud in his mouth.

I’m making him. do something I want regardless of whether he want to or not.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Not hateful... rude yes.
Reread your first response to my post... I think it was my second post.

I agree that’s lacking... but I don’t think you are contributing in the way you believe you are.. not by insulting people.

Where was I rude? By saying you have no constructed argument so stop trying to talk down my argument? Are you really that soft as to call that hurling insults?

Some people and points aren’t worth considering.

I don’t think you fall in that group or i’d have stopped replying by now.

I also don;t understand why I’m supposed to be able to sense the humor (or times where you are ‘having fun with me’... but you can’t sense the humor in my posts. Obviously a communication thing... but half the quotes you pulled above are sarcastic or “extreme to be funny”.

Well, you have definitely made your point that you haven't tried to consider any of my points.

Also, those quotes I got from you were humorous? When I read them, I saw them as being very arrogant. But I was never insulted. It shows more about how you decide to talk to people, really.

Can you give me a hypothetical that proves him wrong? You did declare it was factually incorrect, but as has been pointed out to you about 10 times in this thread you don't really offer much beyond stamping your feet and declaring you are the truth teller but that you aren't going to "spoon feed" us.

Yes.

I want some jerky know-it-all who’s quoting Carnegie Mellon to me to eat mud.

I kick his knee out... knock him to the ground... grab the back of his head... and then shove mud in his mouth.

I’m making him. do something I want regardless of whether he want to or not.

Yes, but the person isn't choosing to do anything in your scenario, you're just beating them up and you're sticking mud in their face. The quote is all about putting people in a scenario where they have to make a choice, and then suffer the consequences of that choice.

[mookiemcgee]

Can you give me a hypothetical that proves him wrong? You did declare it was factually incorrect, but as has been pointed out to you about 10 times in this thread you don't really offer much beyond stamping your feet and declaring you are the truth teller but that you aren't going to "spoon feed" us.

Yes.

I want some jerky know-it-all who’s quoting Carnegie Mellon to me to eat mud.

I kick his knee out... knock him to the ground... grab the back of his head... and then shove mud in his mouth.

I’m making him. do something I want regardless of whether he want to or not.

Yes, but the person isn't choosing to do anything in your scenario, you're just beating them up and you're sticking mud in their face. The quote is all about putting people in a scenario where they have to make a choice, and then suffer the consequences of that choice.

A good hypothetical has to be based in reality...Let's be honest, you wouldn't get passed reaching for the mud before you'd be on the ground crying for your mom. Which isn't what I want, but it most certainly will be what you want at that moment. Lessons for this week are concluded, your final grade is F.

[saxitoxin]

Oluwatoyin Salau, an activist against police brutality, was just brutally murdered by Aaron Glee, a fellow activist against police brutality.

Police are investigating.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/aaron-glee-jr/