• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

An Honest Conversation about Race

Josie said:
I tried having this discussion with one of my black friends and she immediately got defensive and cried racism. :sigh:
Click to expand...

Because honesty and a desire to look into and fix the problems are not what is really desired.
 
joko104 said:
It would seem the correct response she should make is "No, you're the racist" back to your complaining of others insulting you by using a worse personal insult yourself.
Click to expand...

I am trying very hard not to react to the onslaught of personal and childish insults that are being thrown at me. I happen to think that, all things considered, I am doing a pretty good job.
 
Josie said:
I tried having this discussion with one of my black friends and she immediately got defensive and cried racism. :sigh:
Click to expand...
I love that you continue to not examine the possibility that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

LOL
 
As Charles Barkley said the other day - there are a lot of white people who are racists but there are a lot of black people who are equally racist. Likewise, he said there are a lot of black idiots and a lot of white idiots. He agreed, as someone who paid attention to the trial, that the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented. Barkley claims that Zimmerman was wrong to leave his car and follow Martin, but he also admits it's obvious from the evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

To me, Barkley is a breath of fresh air in the American game of race baiting. He's always been an honest, opinionate person who doesn't mince words and tells it like it is. If you want to have an honest conversation about race relations in America, you need people like Charles Barkley front and center, not the Al Sharptons who continuously use race as a career builder and defend the indefensible.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I saw the thread title and thought that maybe, just maybe, a conservative on this forum was opening their mind. Then, I saw the first four words: "Here they go again." And it went downhill from there. What a misleading thread title (you have a history of those, by the way). You aren't interested in an "honest conversation about race" - it seems that most conservatives aren't. But honestly, that's okay with me. You have to be ready for that kind of conversation in order to have it. It doesn't seem most conservatives are ready - the rest of us will be here if you ever are.
Click to expand...

Since how members here post about this topic, "conservative" and "liberal" titles don't work. You premise of those damn conservatives means your definition of a damnable conservative is anyone who doesn't agree with you; meaning your message is rank and generic partisan hacking.

"There they go again" refers to someone who decides they want to start from square one and go thru it all again as if the previous hundreds of thousand of pre-trial messages don't exist.
 
opendebate said:
Maybe you can't have an honest conversation about it because you can't see your own views that could easily be interpreted as racist .
Click to expand...

What are my views?
 
If one wants to talk about the issue of race it has to be open and must include the perspective of the African american comunity
 
opendebate said:
Maybe you can't have an honest conversation about it because you can't see your own views that could easily be interpreted as racist .
Click to expand...

ThePlayDrive said:
You aren't interested in an "honest conversation about race" - it seems that most conservatives aren't. But honestly, that's okay with me. You have to be ready for that kind of conversation in order to have it. It doesn't seem most conservatives are ready - the rest of us will be here if you ever are.
Click to expand...

Ah, two more FINE examples of what the OP said. Thanks. The predictability is amazing.
 
opendebate said:
I am trying very hard not to react to the onslaught of personal and childish insults that are being thrown at me. I happen to think that, all things considered, I am doing a pretty good job.
Click to expand...

Naw, once you start calling other members "racist" - regardless of who started it - which contextually may be allowed and even relevant - you still have at that point abandoned your status to complaint of name-calling.
 
Josie said:
What are my views?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. I can tell what they APPEAR to be and you can let me know if I am mistaken or give me more information so that I accurately understand you.
 
opendebate said:
Well, I don't know. I can tell what they APPEAR to be and you can let me know if I am mistaken or give me more information so that I accurately understand you.
Click to expand...

Go for it.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If one wants to talk about the issue of race it has to be open and must include the perspective of the African american comunity
Click to expand...

What does that mean? I would have to say the loudest voices of all are African-American. I haven't seen anyone forcibly turn off their microphones or refuse airtime. Have you?
 
StillBallin75 said:
ho lee ****. blaming hip-hop for Trayvon's actions is like blaming the NFL for Aaron Hernandez's actions. It's ****ing asinine. All of the things you listed (broken families, suspensions, etc.) are symptoms of a wider societal problem. They are not causes in and of themselves.

a TRULY honest discussion about race would treat these issues as part of a bigger picture, instead of being intellectually lazy and saying "oh it's just their black culture" when it comes down to the causes.

Why did Trayvon not call 911? Well you have to begin to understand that traditionally a lot of blacks don't trust the police to respond on time if at all to their problems. Why is that? well we can talk about it, but the conversation can't just start with "well trayvon didn't call the police because he's stupid and listens to hip hop." Why did trayvon confront Zimmerman? I dunno, maybe he was "standing his ground"? Maybe Zimmerman was pursuing him so he had no choice but to confront him? Did Trayvon no Zimmerman was armed?

If we're going to have to really be honest about race, we can't start this conversation was "oh this kid was a wannabe thug who wanted to beat the **** out of a creepy ass cracker because he watched one too many hip hop videos." A real honest conversation about race doesn't begin with trying to blame the victims.
Click to expand...

I'll actually agree with pretty much all of that but would like to point out that the author of the OP DID bring up the "big picture". Yeah, he suggested that Trayvon was smacking Zimmerman around and, based on the evidence, that's the way things went down. The question we then need to ask is "were the precursors to that beating race based and if so, how so?". Once we get going on that issue it will lead us into the larger issue of race in America.

I would also agree that calling Trayvon a "thug" is probably overstating the matter. That's one thing I was able to glean from Rachel Jeantel's testimony. Contrary to the "commercial version" of the word it seems that referring to Trayvon as a "thug" would be akin to calling Zimmerman and "MMA fighter". Trayvon simply hadn't put in the work enough to become a true thug....maybe not even enough to qualify as a "wannabe thug" but I do think it's fair to say that if Trayvon chose to engage Zimmerman then he was, at that point, playing the role of a thug.

Just to get the ball rolling, is that much a fair assessment of things as far as it goes?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'd guess she's parsing every word you've written in the OP to determine the least favorable interpretation as it relates to your views on race.
Click to expand...

Does she know that I didn't write it? ;)
 
Josie said:
What are my views?
Click to expand...

Okay, I just reread your post. This is just my point of view, but....I don't see a genuine invitation to an honest conversation. I see an angry confrontational vent. You name call and degrade people with opposing political views. I can read past that and understand the points you make. But when they are so tainted with your "feelings" you appear to be doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. I do the same thing sometimes and it is difficult not to, we are human and these are emotional issues. But if you truly want a "honest conversation" you will improve your chances greatly if you can curb your emotions and make a genuine effort to hear the other side the same way you wish to be heard and not lump everyone together.

I see assumptions made about who this boy was based on your past personal experiences, I see assumptions made about why he circled back to Z that appear to based on your past personal experiences etc. instead of on what factually occured that night. I see no hint of accepting even the possibility that there are valid arguments to be made on both sides.

From this post I assume that if I had responded with a different perspective on any of the points you made I would get a nasty attack back instead of a response that could actually inform me.

I can promise you, that I am someone you can have that conversation with. So if you mean what you say, let me know.
 
opendebate said:
Okay, I just reread your post. This is just my point of view, but....I don't see a genuine invitation to an honest conversation. I see an angry confrontational vent. You name call and degrade people with opposing political views. I can read past that and understand the points you make. But when they are so tainted with your "feelings" you appear to be doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. I do the same thing sometimes and it is difficult not to, we are human and these are emotional issues. But if you truly want a "honest conversation" you will improve your chances greatly if you can curb your emotions and make a genuine effort to hear the other side the same way you wish to be heard and not lump everyone together.

I see assumptions made about who this boy was based on your past personal experiences, I see assumptions made about why he circled back to Z that appear to based on your past personal experiences etc. instead of on what factually occured that night. I see no hint of accepting even the possibility that there are valid arguments to be made on both sides.

From this post I assume that if I had responded with a different perspective on any of the points you made I would get a nasty attack back instead of a response that actually inform me.

I can promise you, that I am someone you can have that conversation with. So if you mean what you say, let me know.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you have no idea what Joses' beliefs are. (hint - she didn't write the OP)
 
opendebate said:
Okay, I just reread your post. This is just my point of view, but....I don't see a genuine invitation to an honest conversation. I see an angry confrontational vent. You name call and degrade people with opposing political views. I can read past that and understand the points you make. But when they are so tainted with your "feelings" you appear to be doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. I do the same thing sometimes and it is difficult not to, we are human and these are emotional issues. But if you truly want a "honest conversation" you will improve your chances greatly if you can curb your emotions and make a genuine effort to hear the other side the same way you wish to be heard and not lump everyone together.

I see assumptions made about who this boy was based on your past personal experiences, I see assumptions made about why he circled back to Z that appear to based on your past personal experiences etc. instead of on what factually occured that night. I see no hint of accepting even the possibility that there are valid arguments to be made on both sides.

From this post I assume that if I had responded with a different perspective on any of the points you made I would get a nasty attack back instead of a response that actually inform me.

I can promise you, that I am someone you can have that conversation with. So if you mean what you say, let me know.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you think I wrote the OP. :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom