Specify-percentages gleaned from raw population numbers, or from police stops for reasonable suspicion?
The raw numbers do tell a story-but some will never see beyond their own visceral feeling.
Thanks for your kind words of support, @JohnCarson.
You said, “Racism is still a huge problem in our nation.”
I actually think that, if you are white, saying this has a lot of power, especially the more you do it, and the more you say it to other white people.
HA
2 Likes
Yes, exactly. I almost added the point that even in non-white people wanted to dismantle racism they couldn’t, since by definition racism is based on a power relationship, and at the moment, whites have the power to perpetuate racism, and non-white people do not have enough power to oppose that in any meaningful way. However, as you say, non-whites have skin in the game, and certainly can do a lot still.
Indeed. Sometimes it seems like success will never be possible. My fallback is to say, if nothing else, I will stand as a witness.
Thanks, @Timo.
I said:
You said:
In response:
You are not telling the truth.
The chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the chief tool of deceit are words.
I am not calling you a racist.
You said:
In response:
Racism is white supremacy. That is its only functional form.
This means that I cannot be racist, because I am not white. Indeed, this fact is part of the design of racism, itself.
You said:
In response:
If that is a true statement, @Timo, quote me.
Find the place(s), in the tens of thousands of words I’ve written here, over all of these years, that credibly say this, or even suggests it.
You said:
In response:
I suspect that you do got “it,” Timo. 
HA
No Harry, you call yourself an anti-racist.
Yet your words do not ring true.
Twisting white supremacy into a möbius strip vis a vis synonymous with racism indicates you have merely reversed racism-and are again deceitful-and racist- in your claim that only white people can be racist.
No one-except their own attitudes and false beliefs-is holding blacks back.
Shifting final vestiges of responsibility by the failure of a culture to apprehend said rights to another race does two things. Racism-reversed-will boomerang back, and second, will further disempower the culture and enable the, for lack of a better word, "learned helplessness.
Essentially, your statement that somehow blacks are incapable of addressing and changing the problem is problematic, as is your other that only whites can.
The adage that you become what you view is a wise one.
At great blood capital, 1776 put 1619 to death.
Read some Steele, and Woodson
-they have a much more hopeful view than yours.
You do not h a v e to try understand me, my empathy, my understanding, and you may choose to blithely dismiss or ignore me, or redefine it with your convoluted, invidious constructs and words, but at the end of the day you have changed no hearts and minds, and merely steeled yourself into pugnacious exhaustion.
The problem is not merely skin deep. To put it there consigns it to a place where the real problem continues to get bigger, as they all do.
There are larger voices calling-one is the throb of minions.
The other, a still, small one-oft unheard.
Thanks, @arkdrey.
I said:
You said:
In response:
@Arkdrey, I’ve said before—to you, in fact—that my response to racism is, to a great extent, word-based.
It focuses, to some degree, on what people say, and it requires me to do the same…as it pertains to myself.
I don’t know what the “assumption” is, to which you’re referring. What is it?
I don’t know what you mean by, “basically projecting guilt on skin color.” What is that?
Put another way, if I’d said, “Basically, I project guilt on skin color,” I would understand of what you are accusing me. As it is, I have to guess.
It’s odd: I tell white people, all the time—especially the ones with whom I’m in debate: Just quote me. Make it easy on yourself. Take the words I say, and accuse me, based on those words.
I use the same words, all the time, over and over and over.
This should be be easy to do, especially with computers, where one can search for text, cut and paste, etc.
I don’t understand why, instead, they make stuff up.
Oh: Wait a minute….
You said:
In response:
What’s interesting, @Arkdrey, is the questions that I ask you—the ones you “simply don’t have time…to respond to”—are ones that would usually best show your arguments to be the hill of beans they frequently are.
I read what you write. I think about what you say. And then I ask a question. That question is never random. It’s always very specific. Typically, if you answer it, the only way that it won’t explode in your face is if you change the whole schema.
For example, that’s what happened when you said, a year ago, “This ‘new civil rights’ context…fixates on race. It reminds everyone that they are black or white.”
I asked you, “It does that…more than this?” And I showed you eight pictorial representations of white supremacy.
You then basically hommina-hommina’d yourself away from the question. This has been typical. Most of your contentions are undermined by simple, well-placed questions which show that the logic of what you’re saying to be discontinuous. (This took place most recently re: the statistic on police shootings.)
You say, “neither I have to respond to every question you ask.” Which is interesting, because part of the Code by which I’m attempting to exist says that, if I’m asked a question, I should answer it, and tell the truth.
This is the reason I have responded to every question that you’ve asked me, in the time we have been in correspondence.
Also, because racism is deceit and secrecy, primarily and secondarily, I pay close attention to white people who don’t answer the questions of non-white people, especially when they appear deceitful in doing so.
You said:
In response:
I’m curious: Why do you feel that you can speak to what people in this forum owe, as a group, or as individuals? Don’t you think that this is something each person has clarified, or must clarify, for themselves?
For example, if you’re @2ndOpinion, @JohnCarson, or @bness, do you think that they believe, “I don’t owe anything to anyone, here, other than some basic consideration and civility”? These are people who, apparently, have deep commitments to “the social good.” How did you come up with what they “owe”?
It’s amazing to me how comfortable you, a person who primarily speaks against “collectivism,” seem to feel speaking for me, not to mention everyone on this forum, about what “we” all “owe.”
Please: Minimize error, as well as deceit. Just speak for yourself.
You said:
In response:
None of this is anything I’ve said, or that I believe.
You said:
In response:
It’s goofy, watching you trying to reconstruct my rather nuanced texts from memory. That’s why I urge you to quote me, and stop paraphrasing.
Here’s what was actually said, in this regard, back in good ol’ June 2019:
In one of our first exchanges, you said:
the vast majority of “white people” don’t think of ourselves as “white people” in our day to day relationships with people.
I responded:
Even though I can’t validate this statement, I think I believe it to be true.
However, I’m not talking about how you and other white people “think,” but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.
I realize that this previous statement may strike some as a meaningless redundancy. But I don’t think it is.
What I’m saying is that the people who classified themselves as white did so for a reason. That reason, apparently, was to practice white supremacy. Otherwise, why call yourself white?
I am still waiting for your answer to that question.
Then, in a subsequent correspondence, you said:
“There are no monolith of ‘white people’. There are people with varying cultural backgrounds that don’t look or behave the same way, and that have varying beliefs that all fall under category of ‘white race’, and such category is purely subjective.”
I said:
You don’t even see the contradiction within your own statement do you?
You begin by saying, “There are no monolith of ‘white people.’”
But of course there is: It’s the monolith of people who are white. Even if they vary, they don’t vary as to whether they are white, or not.
So, when you say, “There are people with varying cultural backgrounds that don’t look or behave the same way, and that have varying beliefs,” well, that may be true. (It’s not clear how true it is.) But it’s also not clear how significant it is.
I, then, made this critical analogy:
It’s like saying, “Yeah, a Cadillac Escalade can run you over and kill you, but there are all kinds of cars, including Mini Coopers, which are small.”
OK. But Mini Coopers can run you over and kill you, too. In fact, all cars can run you over and kill you. In a certain sense, when you think of it, a car that can’t run you over and kill you is of no use as a car.
In a similar way, white people have all kinds of beliefs, backgrounds, and behaviors. So do cars; that is, they reflect these. But they’re still all cars.
Then, I closed, by saying this:
Likewise, white people are still all white people. The first requirement for being a white supremacist is that you be white. This doesn’t mean that all white people are white supremacists. But it does all mean that they could be; in other words, they all meet the first, minimum requirement.
As for your conclusion that the “category of ‘white race’…is purely subjective,” well, no, you haven’t proven that, either. For example, I’ve never met a white person whose skin looked like Flavor Flav’s, or even like Kamal Harris’s. So there is something objective about being white; it can’t just be anything.
But, even more—and this is truly problematic—you seem to be implying that subjective things are not real. Meanwhile, I’d argue that they’re always really to those who hold them to be real…that being a great analogy about whiteness, also.
Thoughtful, reflective people will see that my reflections on race are a wholly different kind, and quality, of statements than, “All white people on earth ‘act like white people’ in a way that’s detrimental to everyone else.”
Hopefully, you do, as well.
HA
Sure I was referring to the context of my contention for our previous conversation, where you said this…
Because I hold that racism has a sole functional form—white supremacy—I also hold that “a call of racism,” if made by a non-white person, cannot be “racist in itself.”
Further, as I told @Arkdrey, Black people, in such instances, are not talking about how you and other white people “think,” but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.
So, as I was saying… the way you defining racism is already circularly presupposes racism, as it projects racist on “whiteness”, and thus anyone else can’t be racist. And then you go on and say that “white people collectively function as white people” and things like …
I’ve interacted with white people, individually, all of my life. But when I see how white people tend to act as an aggregate, it does not make me wonder, “How can this be?”, given my one-on-one interactions with white people, generally. It does not confuse me, or make me second-guess my interactions with white people, individually. It seems to “fit.”
No. What I’m saying is that you tend to unload a scope of complex issues that I don’t have time to write up detailed deconstruction for. If you agree to focus on singular issue, I’d be more than happy to have a discussion with you. But, circling back to our discussion a year ago, where I have to re-examine the entire flow of our debate and then remember the context… it’s not something I’m interested in doing.
If you have something specific to ask… then ask it in this thread instead of pointing back to some conversations.
I don’t care really. You can pay attention or not pay attention 
I know I’m not going to change your mind. I’m not native about that. My purpose in this discussion is to see whether my arguments are problematic. If someone else benefits from our discussion… then that’s likely the best I can hope for.
Come on, man. You are playing “gotcha” to extreme. If it’s not obvious what I meant by it, then it’s pointless for me to discuss anything else, since you are seemingly looking to undermine my arguments by any means necessary now.
I wasn’t speaking “for people”. I was expressing generic mode for any open forum discussion in a scope of obligation to answer every question. If you find somewhere a rule where people are obligated to answer all of the questions… please shoot it my way.
Perhaps you should clarify again what you mean by :
Black people, in such instances, are not talking about how you and other white people “think,” but how you function. White people, collectively, function as white people.
Thanks, @Arkdrey.
I said:
You said:
In response:
Again, you are incorrect: I have mentioned them many, many times.
I’m speaking on behalf of Black people who a) believe that racism is white supremacy, and/or who b) want to replace white supremacy with justice.
You said:
In response:
It’s fascinating that you consider yourself competent to debate, with me, what Black people want. 
Eerie.
You said:
In response:
Is the person, with whom you had lunch, Black, or not?
You said:
In response:
A few thoughts:
• There are a lot of Black people like your “friend.” I’ve met some, and have heard about a lot more of them from others.
— Many such Black people believe statements, like the ones your “friend” seemingly made, deeply, and they will hold these opinions until they decease.
— Many other such Black people believe such statements, but this belief is a “surface” belief.
By this, I mean, they “believe” these things in the way a person “believes” things when they belong to an organization of which they feel they need to be a member, but of which they do not really want to be a member.
When that “belief” is part of how one keeps their membership, they will “believe.”
— Many other such Black people believe these ideas deeply, but, eventually, they will suffer some kind of racial trauma or mishap, under white supremacy (racism), and this will cause them to adjust what they think about those beliefs, sometimes radically. One reads their testimonies of conversion, all the time.
• As I said, previously, I’m speaking on behalf of Black people who a) believe that racism is white supremacy, and/or who b) want to replace white supremacy with justice.
— Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, finding such people is not difficult. It’s far easier than finding people like your “friend.” You can, probably, literally, throw a Nerf ball into a crowd of Black people and hit ones, all day, who, at least, think these ideas—e.g., racism is a global system—are reasonable.
Because of this, I’m convinced that the majority of Black people do not find a leap to other ideas—e.g., that racism has a sole, functional form, namely white supremacy—problematic.
Many have to get a handle on the details. “Does this mean that all white people are racist?”, they might say. “Sometimes, Black people can be a little racist, too.”
Sometimes they have white sexual partners, which, of course, makes this model a little harder to digest, at least at first.
However, because I’m Black; because I’m commonly in conversation with Black people; because I expect to primarily be around Black people until I no longer exist; because this has been my life’s course before you ever saw Miami; because of ongoing “successes”; and, most of all, because white supremacy is dominant, I’m confident that the work I’m doing can reach the people it needs to reach.
Your “friend” may simply not be one of them.
Or, as I said, he may simply not be one of them yet.
HA
Harry, thank you for discussion, but I’m not sure we will get too far, since now you are seemingly questioning the legitimacy of my personal relationships (perhaps you should explain your use of “friend”), and subsequently questioning motives of people who align with my views … claiming that they will eventually come around and see things your way. Again… your position seems to be largely presuppositional. So, I can’t really say or do anything to make any difference in your worldview. And your arguments are progressively less coherent, and are going in circles.
I with you best of luck on your efforts for dismantling “global white supremacy”.
Thanks, @Timo.
I said:
You said:
In response:
No, you didn’t.
You crossed out words that I wrote; ones to which you, apparently, objected, and replaced them with your own.
Then you reposted the whole mess 
, with the sign-off, “Fixed it for you Harry.”
You said:
In response:
Because you’re a generous person—generous with your time, clearly, to write all of this, and generous with syllables—you will be kind when I say that I have no idea of what you are speaking.
You said:
In response:
This is irrelevant.
HA
Thanks, @Arkdrey.
I said:
You said:
In response:
I’ll believe that when you eliminate the system of white supremacy and replace it with justice.
You said:
In response:
No, I am not being dishonest here: 1) This is not what I’m interested in discussing, and 2) this is not my area of expertise; namely, how these ratios correlate.
My relative expertise is in the logic of race. I’m not a quantitative researcher on police shootings.
HA
The figures I found were for the years 2008 to 2012 in which the statistics showed an even greater proportion of Blacks killed by the police, at 2.8 times higher than white men.
Thanks, @Timo.
You said:
In response:
No, @Timo, you’ll never find a place where I call myself “an anti-racist.”
You said:
In response:
Which words are these, again?
You said:
In response:
You said:
In response:
Are you a white supremacist?
I’m asking, because this is the kind of statement that a white supremacist would—like, classically—make.
You said:
In response:
This is almost clear, I think, but I need you to try again.
You said:
In response:
To which problem are you referring?
Put another way, the only problem I’ve given serious consideration in this forum—“I Can Breathe”—is white supremacy.
Are you saying that I made this statement, a), below:
a) “that somehow blacks are incapable of addressing and changing [white supremacy]” and “that only whites can.”
and
b) That that statement, a), “is problematic”?
If so, I didn’t say that. However, I have made statements in the vaguely general area of what you may be trying to say.
For example, @bness and I had this exchange, recently:
He said:
So, I said:
Now, is this is the exchange, containing the comment by me, to which you object?
If so, please:
-
Directly quote the statement, by me, that you oppose, then
-
Say why you oppose it.
I will respond to that.
You said:
In response:
Next…
You said:
In response:
To quote comedian Pete Davidson’s Saturday Night Live character, “Chad”: “OK.”
You said:
In response:
Again, this sounds like you’re refuting conclusions that you’ve imagined I’ve made, but that I have never stated.
You said:
In response:
[insert the sound of a spookily played theremin, here]
HA
Harry, you gave me the complement of a long post. Thank you.
But it is just too much. I gave the example of my church because they do not see me as racist. They asked for me back, telling the conference they really loved me. If I were so racist, why would they do that? They would want someone else.
Race is seldom spoken of, but not forbidden. There are tensions between some individuals. But the congregation is diverse, and the issues are not racial ones but personal ones. Race may be in the background, but I endeavor to make the board representative. And since it is a small church, everyone who wants to have a position, may have one.
Harry, you come to this site to speak of one thing, race. The rest of us speak of other things as well, WO, homosexuality, church governance, etc. Look at the home page. There is a lot about race beccause of the recent issues, but usually it is more diverse. Since your focus is race, and you don’t really have another issue, your approach may be a bit narrow.
No one can prove they are not racist. If one is accused, what defense is there? That is why I bring up the minority majority church that I pastored for 12 years without a hint of racism. You will say, well they just don’t want to offend you. Well I got criticism on other fronts for sure. In fact there is a godly black woman who was unafraid to approach me on any topic, because she wanted me to succeed. In fact, she was a wonderful elder, of very high caliper. We were good friends. We would even joke about race; hard to believe, right, but we loved each other. I am not sure you would believe it. She was such an asset to the church and to me in my ministry. I wanted to make her head elder, but her black sisters did not like the idea of a female head. So I dropped it after she asked to be let off. She did not want to cause trouble.
Your idea of handing out a paper with questions was just not in the culture. If I wanted to know about race, or someone had an issue, it would have been brought up at the board, openly. Have you ever belonged to a group where you could do that freely? We were brothers and sisters regardless of race. And we treated each other that way.
That is why they loved me.
Thanks, @Arkdrey.
I said:
You said:
In response:
This. Is. Progress.
Not all the way, however. While these appear to be statements that I’ve made—they strike me as such—what would have helped is if you’d included a link to the text—the post—in which they appeared; i.e., using the link icon, symbolized by the graphic of a chain, and the end of each post.
In other words, I’m hesitant to say that these are statements I made without that source of verification.
However, I will proceed, guardedly, as though they are my words, with the condition that I can withdraw this at any time in the future, should these not prove to be exact quotes.
You said:
In response:
I just grabbed this great definition of “circular reasoning” from softschools.com:
“Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by beginning with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is already true.”
Here’s an example they offer:
“The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.”
In other words, this would be a bad way of proving that either the Bible is true, or that the Bible is the word of God.
Now:
The definition of racism I typically offer is white supremacy. I say, “Racism is white supremacy, and this is its sole, functional form.”
Here is the definition, in full:
Race, and/or Racism =
(1) A system of thought, speech, and action, operated by people who classify themselves as “white”, and who use deceit, violence, and/or the threat of violence, to subjugate, use, and/or abuse people classified as “non-white”, under conditions that promote the practice of falsehood, non-justice, and incorrectness, in one or more areas of activity, for the ultimate purpose of maintaining, expanding, and/or refining the practice of White Supremacy (Racism).
(2) Unjust speech, action, and/or inaction, based on the color, and/or non-color, of persons, and/or factors associated with, the color, and/or non-color, of persons.
(3) White Supremacy.
So, what is the assumption that I’m making—and with which I’m beginning—that what I am trying to prove is already true?
You said:
In response:
I’m not sure what you are saying, or asking, about this statement.
I said:
You said:
In response:
This seems truly disingenuous.
In one of our exchanges, you said the following:
If you are going to suggest “white” uniformity between French, British, Spanish, Portuguese, or Slavic cultures, which were in constant warfare with each well into 20th century… then you are immensely ignorant about European history, and need to take a break from “Black American History” and venture out a bit more beyond it.
In response, I said:
I’m sure you’re correct. I don’t read nearly enough.
So, let me ask you this:
Q: A “British” ship is full of non-white slaves. The slaves don’t like the way the trip is going, so they start to attack the “British.”
Meanwhile, a “Spanish,” “French,” and “Portugese” ship, each also full of non-white slaves, come across the struggle going on.
Do the “Spanish,” “French,” and/or “Portugese” ships:
a) Ignore the “British,” and keep sailing?
b) Help the “British”?
c) Help the non-white slaves?
In other words, what I was asking you was this: Which of these three outcomes was, historically, most likely?
I’m still waiting for your answer to this question.
I asked it at least twice.
It was multiple choice.
Arguing “a scope of complex issues that I don’t have time to write up detailed deconstruction for” does not really cut it.
If you don’t have time to pay attention to the conversation, why do you engage in it? Things are moving fast, @Arkdrey ….
You said:
In response:
[shocked, head jerks back at this statement]
O.K. Let’s talk about the system of white supremacy.
You said:
In response:
I cannot help you.
You said:
In response:
Is that an order?
I said:
You said:
In response:
Expected, and ditto, though I would use the word naive, instead.
You said:
In response:
My purpose in this discussion is to refine my development of a counter-racist logic system.
I said:
You said:
In response:
You may be “flattering yourself.”
I don’t know what “gotcha” is, and I don’t play it.
You made a statement about what we are all doing here, collectively. This is in contradiction to earlier, repeated statements, against “collectivism.”
So, I asked you to explain the contradiction.
You said:
In response:
This is incoherent.
You said:
In response:
Think: You’re “bait-and-switching.”
I never said that there’s “somewhere a rule where people are obligated to answer all of the questions.”
I spoke about what I do, what I think of people who do otherwise, and why.
You are the one that, then, made a statement about what we all are supposed to be doing. Again: This is a contradiction to your earlier statements.
Please: If you find the rule you were citing, shoot it my way.
You said:
In response:
Which specific part is unclear, and, if you are able to state it, why is it unclear?
HA
Thanks, @ajshep.
You said:
In response:
Well, I take what I do very seriously. I wanted to be as clear as I am able, re: what I mean, when I say it.
You said:
In response:
You’re welcome.
You said:
In response:
So, since you raised the question:
How do you know that some of the people in your church don’t see you as racist?
How do you know, given the views that you’ve expressed here, if someone might have heard you say something, or read something that you wrote, and thought, “Pastor Shepherd’s a racist”?
If someone, non-white, thought that you were a racist, they might not say it publicly. They might not admit it to anyone but a family member, or a spouse. If a vote was taken at the church, re: your return, they might even abstain. Or, even more confusingly, if a vote was taken at the church, re: your return, they might vote, “YES,” thinking, “Yeah, he’s a racist, but I can deal wit’ 'im!”
The point of this is not that you’re a racist, or that your congregants think you are.
The point is that you said, “My church…do not see me as racist.”
I would ask you, a) how many people are in your congregation, b) are you speaking about all of them, and c) how do you know what they “see”?
However, even more, I would say that the point of the exercise I suggested was not to determine if your church members think that you are a racist.
The point was to better illuminate my response to your affirmed notion about how racial discussions should take place. My response was one that, apparently, troubled you a great deal.
I’ve said this many times. So, I don’t know why your focus is on the question of whether your church thinks that you are a white supremacist.
You said:
In response:
So, again, I wonder how you know all of this stuff; e.g., that “race is seldom spoken of,” and “the issues are not racial ones.”
As well, I would love to see you circulate some of our written exchanges, here, to your church members.
Were we to do this, I would pick them, but, of course, you would have to agree on them.
If this were done, I wonder what your church members would say about what they read?
You said:
In response:
I think that this is more of your conjecture, @ashep, though, here, run a tad amok. 
I’ve never said that I “come to this site to speak of one thing, race.” I’ve never said, “my focus is race, and I don’t really have another issue.”
These are your conclusions. In fact, it may be my only issue, but I haven’t said that to you. Or, it may be that I’m interested in all of these other subjects, and post about them all. Or it may be, when it comes to race, this is where I post the most, because all of you white people keep saying racist stuff, and I stand out the most, because I don’t say racist stuff.
I’m not saying that this is the case. What I’m saying is that I’ve never said that I “come to this site to speak of one thing, race,” or that “my focus is race, and I don’t really have another issue.”
You said:
In response:
The only proof that any white person could offer me, to show that they are not racist, is to eliminate the global system of white supremacy and replace it with justice.
You said:
In response:
You say, “without a hint of racism,” but, in my impression, few white people are attuned to the presence, or stench, of racism.
As I’ve said, before, typically, asking white people if the environment is racist is like asking a fish if it is “wet.”
You said:
In response:
Well, certainly that, but not that only.
You said:
In response:
OK.
You said:
In response:
What jokes would you tell each other about race?
You said:
In response:
OK.
You said:
In response:
a) You’re saying that your church never handed out questionnaires, surveys, reports, or documents of that nature to members?
If your answer is, “Yes, we did,” then why couldn’t you hand out the document I suggested?
If your answer is, “No, we didn’t,” then what would happen if you handed out the document I suggested?
b) I didn’t suggest handing out “a paper with questions.” I said:
x) Print out your statement.
y) Print out mine.
z) Ask Black people to read them, then write what they thought about what they’d read.
x’) Send their statements back anonymously.
Also, I didn’t limit this to your church. You could get these Black people from anywhere.
You must not have been following the instructions I described so clearly.
You said:
In response:
When was the last time you brought up something about race on the board, especially something that had not been forwarded to you by a member?
You said:
In response:
All my groups are ones where I can do that freely, because I do that freely.
You said:
In response:
I wonder what that means?
You said:
In response:
This is wildly off-topic.
HA
Got it, Harry, loud and clear, right and wrong, black and white.
Your technical expertise at massaging such artful words that literally do not say what you really mean is unmatched. Your meta-message is loud and clear. Even if someone were to dump a truckload of the motherlode of truth on your doorstep no one is going to disabuse you of your fantastic notions. Almost as if you are unconcerned with nothing but what you construe as whole cloth 'technically provable true" and refuse to see what the entire tapestry says.
I sense if God were to demand from man what you demand from whites he’d be all alone forever.
It is as if the rebuilding effort which American society has undertaken since 1776 is unworthy-and your strategy is to keep dismantling, burning down, destroying and denigrating these efforts, all the while expositing imagined flaws and insisting it all must be done your way-by others-or not at all.
No wonder it’s so tiring, almost as if you keep erecting imaginary windmills and charge at them, haughtily astride Rocinante, systematically knocking them down in your mind only to see more windmills pop up constantly.
Seems harnessing the wind is an easier task than your sisyphean Quixotic quest.
It seems to me your endless redefinitions, ie “friend”, ensures you are always right.
One can always be right-or they can be in a relationship. It’s clear which is your choice.
Be well my friend-many are we here who tried to ride with you, but you sneer at us since we only ride a donkey and cannot keep up with you, and like Sancho Panza, are, in your apparent view, illiterate and uneducated/uneducable. Oh, and thank you for recognizing my polysyllaphilia.
I’m consonantly creating more.
1 Like
I certainly don’t discount that as a possibility. I hope you don’t either when it comes to your worldview. 
Either way, I appreciate the discussion.
I found this video refreshing. I wasn’t sure what to expect when I decided to watch this 11 min discussion, but I’m so glad I did. I may have to go to younger people more often I think. This is how it’s done:
Whether it’s my black friend who told me, “Black people can’t be racist” or my internet friend who insists that they’re not racist, it’s clear that racism is NOT something anyone wants to be associated with. But in this conversation, John shares how vulnerably sharing your personal prejudices can actually be one of the more important steps towards a better future.
Now that is a sensible strategy, rather than stereotypically too broadly blackbrushing an entire segment of people as racist-solely on the basis of their color! Pot-kettle much?
Sharing what (and why) someone did whatever imagined or real offense to you (or someone you posture to care about) as evincing systemic racism, not so much. Perhaps that very posturing is that persons own strategy to disavow his own prejudices, err, racism. Umm, SUPREMACY.
Transmogrifying THAT into elitism on the basis that you can “prove” YOU are not racist/prejudiced/supremacist is the ultimate in societal codependency-and is helpful to no one-except perhaps your own fear YOU will be found out to racist.
Some are so paranoid of being labeled that pariah of pariah-GASP, a RACIST!! will even construct fables claiming they cannot, because of their race, be a racist.
We are completely wrong in our approach to addressing the real boogeyman.
HINT; its not about skin color. But myopia prevents many from seeing beyond that.
Something about easier to blame someone else than take personal responsibility, and initiating appropriate action, by looking towards the horizon-not the rearview funhouse mirror.