So articulate? Let’s not get carried away now. I’ll be honest, I have to look up a good 11.6% of the words you use.
Yes, I’ll repeat that. You, like most white folks, are not ready to engage in a discussion on race. My time is limited and it would not be fruitful for me to engage with you on race. It would be a waste of your time and my time. So, I’ll move on to your other point regarding autism. You do know that your third cite confirms that white folks have a higher prevalence of autism, right? I’m just making sure we’re clear and on the same page on that point. What your cites are saying is that, for the most part, the observed differences in autism prevalence is due to under reporting by people of color. Seems all-too convenient if you ask me. To me, at worst, the idea reeks of white privilege and white supremacy - because it reinforces the the idea that only white folks would take their ostensible special needs child to the hospital, while people of color would deliberately leave their children to suffer; at best, the explanation attempts to obfuscate an uncomfortable facts by inventing stereotypes from whole cloth. But let’s set all of this aside (not just because this is becoming an exercise in semantics) because this all it begs the question: why would Somali rate of reported autism be higher if their poverty rate is higher than African-Americans as a whole (and it is, 54% vs. 27% cite for African Americans here and cite for Somalis here). If the theory - poverty and/or lack of affordable health care is the primary contributors - held true, it would mean autism rates by Somali population would be lower not higher. This isn’t the case, in fact, the observable facts are the reverse: Somalis are poorer and have less access to health care yet have higher rates of autism. The Somali population is a great population to study because there is strong evidence of inbreeding due to religious reasons. Further, inbred animal strainsare used by autism researchers to model autism. Although I will read your reply, if you wish to discuss autism further, open up a thread. We shouldn’t loiter in Diamond and Bricks thread.
Yes, I generalize. No, John Roberts is a product of white supremacy from the United States. White folks reject expert opinion from climate scientists who warn about global warming, and, instead, trust their own non-expert judgment. White folks reject expert opinion from doctors and scientists and believe it is safe to bathe your child in lead-tainted water, but then a few days later white folks say “Flint water is not safe to bathe a newborn.” Which is it, white folks: is it safe to bathe in lead-tainted water or not? White folks have even co-opted EPA to tell people of color that it’s OK to bathe, shower, or drink lead-tainted water but curiously remains silent on the high levels of trihalomethanes and coliform bacteria found in the water. White folks gutted education to the point white women were protesting in the street. White folks won’t allow researchers to study gun violence because reasons. White folks have expunged experts from the EPA because reasons. White folks have abandoned facts and truth to walk into dark woods of conspiracy theories, fake news, and talk radio. White folks actually believed that the U.S government let Obama be President without confirming whether he was a U.S. citizen. If people of color behaved this way, we’d be ridiculed. Truth doesn’t matter to white folks anymore, they just make shit up. So, no, John Roberts rejecting facts and evidence isn’t an anomaly, it is exactly what what whiteness is and does.
I want to talk a bit more about truth. Do you know why people of color were convinced of Dr. Ford’s testimony? It’s because people of color spend our lives listening to white folks lie all of the goddamned time. Whether it be your reasons for gerrymandering,for suppressing our votes, for showing solidarity with white supremacy, for tainting our water supply (and then blaming it us), or denying our ability to exist without suspicion, all we hear are your lies, your equivocations, and your falsehoods. So, when you have this white woman, Dr. Ford, come out there and tell the truth, it’s like being jolted by a bolt of electricity, or watching Season 5, Episode 18 of the sitcom 227, or watching Moses part the Red Sea. You actually saw a white person tell the truth (but you know your friends aren’t gonna believe you). The tragedy of Dr. Ford was that she was cannibalized by her own people who refused to rely on experts on rape and sexual abuse but, instead, relied solely on their own non-expert judgement - “Why would Dr. Ford wait till now to come forward?” or “She is a liar”. White folks are incapable of believing in the truth because they are not true to themselves.
You do realize that by not using a simple adjective such as “some” in front of “white folks” or wypipo you needlessly alienate many that are on your side. It’s almost like you are trying to write in a counterproductive manner. :dubious:
There’s no such thing as white people. White is not a quality, it is the absence of qualities. My redneck cousins share almost nothing in common with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, even less with a recorder player in Vermont. Most all of us on the Boards type white. But I have no idea how many of us are African-American, and am not the least bit curious.
Now, if you are going to presume to the authority to speak for African-Americans, then how do you speak for any of the rest of us? You claim to be able to tell us what white people think, but you aren’t one. And at the same time, you claim authenticity for blackness on account of being one. Bit of a contradiction there, don’t you think?
True, I can’t dance a lick, but Kanye West doesn’t know a do-si-do from an allemagne right! And neither does Obama.
Who you were is not who you are. Life is change, how it differs from the rocks…
You do realize that #NotAllWhitePeople is a pathetic response when discussing race issues.
Consider the source.
True enough. I’m sure he doesn’t realize.
Maybe someone who doesn’t realize that is a pathetic response when discussing race issues but who actually wants to have that discussion will learn.
Not the shitstain, of course.
Yeah. You folks are really effective at crafting a message and advancing policy. 
Like it or not, Whites are the majority in this country and will be for the next 25 years or so. If you’re interested in actually winning elections, gaining political power and enacting systemic changes that will materially benefit marginalized groups in this country, then it actually does matter that you don’t alienate White voters.
Well then it’s a good thing that Huey hasn’t (yet) been invited on Fox News.
This is the Pit on a website devoted to fighting ignorance. Plain talk, stripped of diplomacy, is appropriate here, insofar as it promotes clarity of thought.
I’m with** Measure for Measure** on this. Huey Freeman is posting from a place of frustration and exasperation; he’s expressing his feelings on the state of race relations in this country. And he’s owned up to the fact that some of his opinions may seem insulting to people and he seems genuinely sorry about that. As a white man who sees myself as a liberal and have (actually) worked to improve race relations, I take no offense when he broad brushes wypipo. I am secure in what I have done and am open to the fact that I may be unaware of some of my hidden (to me) racism. And, as he has said, there is a difference between criticism and insult, and too many times I seen posters here take as an insult what was meant as a criticism. I think it’s a shame that he has basically been run out of a thread that he started, in a forum specifically designed for rants and raves, because a bunch of whiners got their feeling hurt.
As for Bricker; why should anyone care if he’s playing both sides of an issue? Does he have an agenda? Probably, but, don’t we all? He’s been a member of this community for quite some time and has an expertise that is in demand here. I have been irked, as well, by his ocd to frame even philosophical discussions in the letter of the law, but I view that as my failing, not his: different people approach things from different directions and I should allow for that.
mc
No, I think #NotAll_____People is a marvelous response to a generalization about an arbitrary group, because people are individuals.
GQ is about fighting ignorance and everything else is a social club. But, nevermind—what have we learned? Huey’s taught me he’s angry about racism and that he pisses me off. When I’m pissed off, I don’t think as clearly. I’m more ignorant now than before I read his posts.
For many, this board is not a place to “fight ignorance” or even have a proper debate. Rather, it’s a place to virtue signal for acceptance into a toxic in-group. This bizarre need for validation from dysfunctional strangers should find its way into ICD-12.
Then you’re a defensive moron who doesn’t want to discuss actual issues. You and the other shitstain have that in common evidently.
Don’t blame him. You were quite ignorant before.
As has already been established, you are willfully ignorant and actually don’t want proper debate. That’s why you #NotAllWhitepeople.
Lol. Established by whom? A group of no-life nuts with OCD? :eek:
If you want to discuss issues, tell me what’s wrong with #NotAll[SomeRandomGroup], because I don’t see it. If you want to call me names because I disagree with you and I said another poster made me angry, then life’s too short for this bullshit; goodbye.
That’s easy. Those are always strawmen, because the other side has never said that all [SomeRandomGroup] are bad. It also tends to be a way to undermine a legitimate issue.
The most common is #NotAllMen. Currently, that is a response to #MeToo. It is thus implying that #MeToo is about attacking men, when it never has been. The hashtag accuses #MeToo of being sexist against men. Otherwise, why would you need to remind them that “not all men” are rapists?
You must not be reading this thread.
Conflating? I’m not the one taking the term “racism”, which has a well defined meaning, and then using it in the place of “systemic racism” which also has a well defined meaning.
Seriously, look at the original quote:
“Huey can’t be a ‘racist’.” - I’d argue that a person who calls someone else the hispanic equivalent of a “House Nigger”, or accuses another group of being prone to autism due to inbreeding, is most likely racist.
“Huey can’t be a systemic/institutional racist” - Fair point.