How to Avoid a Discussion on the Race Relations Forum

This is a curious forum in that almost no one who posts here is interested in a discussion.

Monologue, lecture, insult, venting, emoting, and lying seem to make up 99% of what goes on here.
You start first and see who shows he is classless. What’s the subject you want to discuss? Affirmative action? BLM?
Why don’t you express an opinion first and we will react.

Ps. Aren’t most of your threads designed to get other people to respond and then all you ever come back with are insulting one liners?

Fake pretend intellectuals like unkotare crack me up.
 
Last edited:
This is a curious forum in that almost no one who posts here is interested in a discussion.

Monologue, lecture, insult, venting, emoting, and lying seem to make up 99% of what goes on here.
You start first and see who shows he is classless. What’s the subject you want to discuss? Affirmative action? BLM?
Why don’t you express an opinion first and we will react.

Ps. Aren’t most of your threads designed to get other people to respond and then all you ever come back with are insulting one liners?

Fake pretend intellectuals like unkotare crack me up.
If he can’t even explain his position how smart can he be?
 
Watching television you would think that black ghettos in the big cities are the poorest and most dangerous parts of America. Well, it is not quite that simple.

In 2007 the four precincts in New York City with the worst rates of major crimes were these:

  • Bed-Stuy
  • East Harlem
  • Midtown South (42nd to 34th Street)
  • Lower East Side
Only Bed-Stuy is mainly black. East Harlem is Hispanic, Midtown South is white and the Lower East Side is Asian and Hispanic.

True, taken as a whole the black and Hispanic parts of the city have a higher crime rate than the white and Asian parts. But each part of the city is different. You cannot just go by race or even poverty or even the two together. For example:

  • The middle of Harlem, which is mainly black, is safer than Midtown Manhattan, which is mainly white – and far richer.
  • In the late 1980s Jamaica, Queens and Harlem were both mainly black, but Jamaica had way more of a black middle-class – and yet it was far more violent.
So you cannot make general rules. Different things are in play in different parts of the city. You have to go case by case.

Likewise, here are the five poorest parts of America:

  • Indian reservations
  • South-west Texas
  • The middle of Alaska
  • The Mississippi Delta
  • Appalachia
Only the Mississippi Delta is mainly black. Appalachia is mainly white, south-west Texas is Hispanic and the Indian reservations and the middle of Alaska are Native American.

Most people do not even think about these places because you hardly ever see them on television or even hear much about them in school.

The reason black ghettos star on television is because they are the main example of poverty – and of Black America too – if you live in the two places where most of American television comes from: Hollywood and New York.

Most poor people are white. Most poor people do not live in cities, but in places where reporters and film-makers hardly ever go.

And, just as you almost never see the poor Indian reservations on television, so you barely ever see black suburbia either – further strengthening the idea that most black people are poor and most poor people are black, neither of which is true.

And even when television does present poverty it rarely explains it. So people think what they want about bootstraps and all that – a comfortable thing to believe if you are middle-class or rich.

Television is not a mirror of American society. It is not even an imperfect mirror. Television is the creation of a very small number of people – most of them white, male, liberal and well-to-do – who have their own ideas about America. Many of those ideas are not true and many come from yet older Hollywood output, so the thing feeds on itself.

But their picture of America becomes our picture of America – even if the little bit of America that we know first-hand is nothing like what we see on television.
 
This is a curious forum in that almost no one who posts here is interested in a discussion.

Monologue, lecture, insult, venting, emoting, and lying seem to make up 99% of what goes on here.
You start first and see who shows he is classless. What’s the subject you want to discuss? Affirmative action? BLM?
Why don’t you express an opinion first and we will react.

Ps. Aren’t most of your threads designed to get other people to respond and then all you ever come back with are insulting one liners?

Fake pretend intellectuals like unkotare crack me up.
If he can’t even explain his position how smart can he be?

That's a very good question.
 
Watching television you would think that black ghettos in the big cities are the poorest and most dangerous parts of America. Well, it is not quite that simple.

In 2007 the four precincts in New York City with the worst rates of major crimes were these:

  • Bed-Stuy
  • East Harlem
  • Midtown South (42nd to 34th Street)
  • Lower East Side
Only Bed-Stuy is mainly black. East Harlem is Hispanic, Midtown South is white and the Lower East Side is Asian and Hispanic.

True, taken as a whole the black and Hispanic parts of the city have a higher crime rate than the white and Asian parts. But each part of the city is different. You cannot just go by race or even poverty or even the two together. For example:

  • The middle of Harlem, which is mainly black, is safer than Midtown Manhattan, which is mainly white – and far richer.
  • In the late 1980s Jamaica, Queens and Harlem were both mainly black, but Jamaica had way more of a black middle-class – and yet it was far more violent.
So you cannot make general rules. Different things are in play in different parts of the city. You have to go case by case.

Likewise, here are the five poorest parts of America:

  • Indian reservations
  • South-west Texas
  • The middle of Alaska
  • The Mississippi Delta
  • Appalachia
Only the Mississippi Delta is mainly black. Appalachia is mainly white, south-west Texas is Hispanic and the Indian reservations and the middle of Alaska are Native American.

Most people do not even think about these places because you hardly ever see them on television or even hear much about them in school.

The reason black ghettos star on television is because they are the main example of poverty – and of Black America too – if you live in the two places where most of American television comes from: Hollywood and New York.

Most poor people are white. Most poor people do not live in cities, but in places where reporters and film-makers hardly ever go.

And, just as you almost never see the poor Indian reservations on television, so you barely ever see black suburbia either – further strengthening the idea that most black people are poor and most poor people are black, neither of which is true.

And even when television does present poverty it rarely explains it. So people think what they want about bootstraps and all that – a comfortable thing to believe if you are middle-class or rich.

Television is not a mirror of American society. It is not even an imperfect mirror. Television is the creation of a very small number of people – most of them white, male, liberal and well-to-do – who have their own ideas about America. Many of those ideas are not true and many come from yet older Hollywood output, so the thing feeds on itself.

But their picture of America becomes our picture of America – even if the little bit of America that we know first-hand is nothing like what we see on television.
It’s true I think the south is like Dallas Mayberry petticoat junction or green acres only racist. Milwaukee is like happy days. California saved by the Bell. Good times Chicago. Welcome back cotter different strokes Archie bunker and Jefferson’s New York and of course Miami vice.
 
It might be entertaining, but it won;t solve our problems.
Entertaining for whom?
...

Unkotare, who’s responsible for the ghettos? Blacks or whites?


Yes, Americans of every hue are "responsible" for the America we were, the America we are, and the America we will be. Always the greatest nation, however imperfect.

That's the way idiots like you imagine things to be but who made the laws that created the problems?
 
The time to debate the subject is long past.
Why do you believe this?

I looked into the difference between discussing an issue and debating it and I think the following fairly covers things for the most part:
Socratic Seminar as Dialogue vs. Debate
The best Socratic Seminars are those in which something new and unexpected is discovered. This happens
when the seminar is approached as a joint search or exploration through dialogue rather than a defense of ideas

You all are too afraid of debate.
 
Might have something to do with you marking through half of the things that denote debate in your little chart.
I've already explained that it's not MY chart. You were the one who stated "the time for debate is long past" which is why I attempted to find a mechanism which can be used to discuss the subject matter that is less confrontation and allegedly designed to be more productive. I don't understand why you seem to be taking this so personally.
 
It might be entertaining, but it won;t solve our problems.
Entertaining for whom?
...

Unkotare, who’s responsible for the ghettos? Blacks or whites?


Yes, Americans of every hue are "responsible" for the America we were, the America we are, and the America we will be. Always the greatest nation, however imperfect.
How are the whites responsible for today’s poor black communities?
 
It might be entertaining, but it won;t solve our problems.
Entertaining for whom?
...

Unkotare, who’s responsible for the ghettos? Blacks or whites?


Yes, Americans of every hue are "responsible" for the America we were, the America we are, and the America we will be. Always the greatest nation, however imperfect.
What things should the federal government do to help correct the wrongs of the past and present?
 
This is a curious forum in that almost no one who posts here is interested in a discussion.

Monologue, lecture, insult, venting, emoting, and lying seem to make up 99% of what goes on here.
That is more words than you normally use. Usually your posts are like "not true" "you're a pinhead" etc.
 
The time to debate the subject is long past.
Why do you believe this?

I looked into the difference between discussing an issue and debating it and I think the following fairly covers things for the most part:
Socratic Seminar as Dialogue vs. Debate
The best Socratic Seminars are those in which something new and unexpected is discovered. This happens
when the seminar is approached as a joint search or exploration through dialogue rather than a defense of ideas

You all are too afraid of debate.
If you got something to say let’s hear it
 
Might have something to do with you marking through half of the things that denote debate in your little chart.
I've already explained that it's not MY chart. You were the one who stated "the time for debate is long past" which is why I attempted to find a mechanism which can be used to discuss the subject matter that is less confrontation and allegedly designed to be more productive. I don't understand why you seem to be taking this so personally.

I don't take anything here personally. I will point out bullshit though.
 
This is a curious forum in that almost no one who posts here is interested in a discussion.

Monologue, lecture, insult, venting, emoting, and lying seem to make up 99% of what goes on here.
That is more words than you normally use. Usually your posts are like "not true" "you're a pinhead" etc.
When unkotare asks who’s we, slyhunter is one of the people I’m referring to unkotare. He seems to notice too that you’re almost incapable of having a normal conversation. What gives?
 
The time to debate the subject is long past.
Why do you believe this?

I looked into the difference between discussing an issue and debating it and I think the following fairly covers things for the most part:
Socratic Seminar as Dialogue vs. Debate
The best Socratic Seminars are those in which something new and unexpected is discovered. This happens
when the seminar is approached as a joint search or exploration through dialogue rather than a defense of ideas

Your list is exactly why I say time for debate is long gone. Confrontation hasn't and won't do any good. It might be entertaining, but it won;t solve our problems.

MLK used a method of direct confrontation that was non violent. It worked. It's the only thing that has ever worked.



No, it’s not.

Actually it is.




Direct confrontation that IS violent also works.


Of course nothing works as well as being an adult with an education, a backbone, and human decency.













None of which you seem to have.
 
I don't take anything here personally. I will point out bullshit though.
So you don't have anything to contribute? Thus far the only thing you've done is deflect and reject every idea of how we might engage in a meaningful and less contentious "discussion" on race relations. I mean is it really all that offensive to expect people engaging in a "discussion" to be able to explain why they believe or feel the way they do?
 

Forum List

Back
Top