MsPisces.
@MsPisces.
16 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 9 · Posts: 4248 · Topics: 32
Any Interracial Couples? (Page 4)
You are on page out of 5 | Reverse Order
(in both cities and 'burbs), and equitable community development, replete with racial equity "impact statements" to gauge the effects of gentrification, commercial projects of various sorts, and the availability of affordable housing.
To be sure, such efforts would need to be carefully crafted, lest they displace more people of color from urban spaces than there would become space available for them in less-exclusively black communities. Some type of "no net loss" policy, when it comes to housing for folks of color, might mitigate the potentially negative consequences of a large influx of whites into previously black and brown space. And without doubt, any economic "re-development" in those urban spaces that have long been home to folks of color, should require direct input and approval from those who had been there prior to any influx of newcomers. Small-d democratic accountability needs to accompany "new urbanism" or integration efforts, lest they devolve into a form of colonialism. But however we might create more mixed space in practice, there can be little doubt that only by creating a broader and more equitable mix of residents and students in an area will we likely prevent any one group from feeling so empowered by its sheer numbers as to take advantage of those in the minority. Such efforts would almost certainly reduce the tendency towards us vs. them thinking so common today, given the extreme racial isolation and separation to which we are often subjected.
What we cannot afford to do is to allow the effects of institutional racism to torpedo the push for racial equity. We cannot allow our own occasional injury, as whites, to distract us from the real culprit in that experience: not merely the individuals who took advantage or abused us, but also the systemic forces that made the abuse likely. It is white supremacy and privilege that set us against one another to begin with. It is white supremacy and privilege that continues to skew opportunities hundreds of years after they were set in place as systemic norms. It is only the eradication of white supremacy and privilege that can put an end to it--all of it, once and for all.
To be sure, such efforts would need to be carefully crafted, lest they displace more people of color from urban spaces than there would become space available for them in less-exclusively black communities. Some type of "no net loss" policy, when it comes to housing for folks of color, might mitigate the potentially negative consequences of a large influx of whites into previously black and brown space. And without doubt, any economic "re-development" in those urban spaces that have long been home to folks of color, should require direct input and approval from those who had been there prior to any influx of newcomers. Small-d democratic accountability needs to accompany "new urbanism" or integration efforts, lest they devolve into a form of colonialism. But however we might create more mixed space in practice, there can be little doubt that only by creating a broader and more equitable mix of residents and students in an area will we likely prevent any one group from feeling so empowered by its sheer numbers as to take advantage of those in the minority. Such efforts would almost certainly reduce the tendency towards us vs. them thinking so common today, given the extreme racial isolation and separation to which we are often subjected.
What we cannot afford to do is to allow the effects of institutional racism to torpedo the push for racial equity. We cannot allow our own occasional injury, as whites, to distract us from the real culprit in that experience: not merely the individuals who took advantage or abused us, but also the systemic forces that made the abuse likely. It is white supremacy and privilege that set us against one another to begin with. It is white supremacy and privilege that continues to skew opportunities hundreds of years after they were set in place as systemic norms. It is only the eradication of white supremacy and privilege that can put an end to it--all of it, once and for all.
^^^last line is basically, feel free not to respond. i don't want you to burst something while you ill-recollect true events or make shit up out of whole cloth in a futile attempt to win an unwinnable argument.
Come on! You guys are fucking up my article here!
😛
But that's basically what I believe in a nutshell, if anyone actually gives a damn 🙂 Tim Wise articulately illustrates my views, in ways I cannot.
😛
But that's basically what I believe in a nutshell, if anyone actually gives a damn 🙂 Tim Wise articulately illustrates my views, in ways I cannot.
LMAO!!!! i was typing and cooking at the same time. my bad. i didn't even know you had posted the first few posts until after i pushed send. sowwy 😢
@mspisces - good article. i've never read the book. might have to pick that one up. and i guarantee that there will be those who will read the article...or half-read it and still won't get it. i'm sending it to my bf though and i can bet money he's going to go flip the hell out because like the girl in the article, asians and ebony folk beat him up when he was kid.
Here's one more I like:
Another Batch of White Whine:
Obama, Black Voters and the Myth of Reverse Racism
By Tim Wise
March 11, 2008
Somehow I knew it would happen. In fact, I had even made a note to myself, indicating how long I thought it might take: twenty-four hours was my guesstimate, in case you're interested. Turns out I was overly optimistic, because it only took about nine hours from the time that my latest essay hit cyberspace--a piece in which I discussed white support for Barack Obama and what it does and doesn't mean about race in America--until I received the first hostile response, offering the specific critique I had anticipated.
In the original article, I had mentioned (almost in passing, but nonetheless within the first paragraph), that there were still lots of whites who are unwilling to vote for a person of color because of race. Indeed, exit polling from the Ohio primary suggested this clearly, given that one-fifth of voters said the candidate's race was important to their vote, and roughly six in ten who said this voted for Hillary Clinton. In other words--and this is just within the Democratic Party--literally hundreds of thousands of voters voted against Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton because of race. Although this kind of voter racism may not be enough to deny Obama the party nomination, or even the Presidency, and although there are plenty of reasons other than race and racism why someone may vote for Clinton (or ultimately, John McCain), and against Obama, my point was simply that for many whites, race is still the deciding factor in their voting behavior.
Yet I knew as soon as I wrote it what some would say in response. It's what lots of us white folks do whenever the specter of white racism is raised: namely, we try and change the subject and make ourselves into the victims, and black and brown folks into the perps. And there it was, in my e-mail box: the predictable and expected lamentations of white denial and victimhood.
"Funny how you try to spin those Ohio numbers," it began. "So if someone said race was important to their decision, and they voted for the white candidate, that's racism, but what about the forty percent who said race was important to their decision and voted for the black guy? Isn't that racism too, by your logic?"
"Oh no, of course not," the writer continued, "because those voters were probably mostly black themselves, while the Clinton voters who said race mattered were mostl
Another Batch of White Whine:
Obama, Black Voters and the Myth of Reverse Racism
By Tim Wise
March 11, 2008
Somehow I knew it would happen. In fact, I had even made a note to myself, indicating how long I thought it might take: twenty-four hours was my guesstimate, in case you're interested. Turns out I was overly optimistic, because it only took about nine hours from the time that my latest essay hit cyberspace--a piece in which I discussed white support for Barack Obama and what it does and doesn't mean about race in America--until I received the first hostile response, offering the specific critique I had anticipated.
In the original article, I had mentioned (almost in passing, but nonetheless within the first paragraph), that there were still lots of whites who are unwilling to vote for a person of color because of race. Indeed, exit polling from the Ohio primary suggested this clearly, given that one-fifth of voters said the candidate's race was important to their vote, and roughly six in ten who said this voted for Hillary Clinton. In other words--and this is just within the Democratic Party--literally hundreds of thousands of voters voted against Barack Obama and for Hillary Clinton because of race. Although this kind of voter racism may not be enough to deny Obama the party nomination, or even the Presidency, and although there are plenty of reasons other than race and racism why someone may vote for Clinton (or ultimately, John McCain), and against Obama, my point was simply that for many whites, race is still the deciding factor in their voting behavior.
Yet I knew as soon as I wrote it what some would say in response. It's what lots of us white folks do whenever the specter of white racism is raised: namely, we try and change the subject and make ourselves into the victims, and black and brown folks into the perps. And there it was, in my e-mail box: the predictable and expected lamentations of white denial and victimhood.
"Funny how you try to spin those Ohio numbers," it began. "So if someone said race was important to their decision, and they voted for the white candidate, that's racism, but what about the forty percent who said race was important to their decision and voted for the black guy? Isn't that racism too, by your logic?"
"Oh no, of course not," the writer continued, "because those voters were probably mostly black themselves, while the Clinton voters who said race mattered were mostl
mostly white, and only whites can be racist, right?"
In other words, if voting for a white person because of their race is racism, then so too must be voting for a black person because of theirs. So see, those black Obama boosters are every bit as racist as we are, maybe more so, because they're breaking his way by about eighty-five percent, while whites are splitting between Obama and Clinton by about fifty-fifty. So if anything, the e-mailer said, it was blacks who were more racist and whites whose voting behavior portended open-mindedness. And now that Obama has won the Mississippi primary, almost entirely due to the votes of blacks--and among those who said race mattered, nine in ten voted for him--this refrain will only become more prevalent, one supposes.
Such an argument--which is really the political equivalent of "Why can't we have white history month, I mean, we have black history month?"--suggests how far we have to go in this nation simply to have a productive dialogue about race, let alone to really conquer racism.
Simply put, there are any number of reasons why whites voting for a white candidate because of race is altogether different than blacks voting for a black candidate because of the same. For African American voters, voting for Barack Obama--a man of color who actually stands a chance of winning the Presidency--is an opportunity to participate in a major historic moment. The pride and excitement caused by such a possibility (even for black folks who might not agree with all of his positions, and who might wish he spoke more about issues like racism and discrimination) is completely understandable and to be expected. Just as millions of women as women are understandably excited about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency--because it would be a history-making first and a real breakthrough in terms of gender (at least symbolically)--and just as many Catholics were likely inspired to vote for JFK because of a shared religious background, so too are many people of color likely to hop on board the Obama train as a way to make a statement. So if black folks say race was important to their vote, and they voted for Obama, it is this sense of achievement, and "firstness" that likely animates them. That, and of course the fact that they really do believe him to be the best person for the job.
Or if not the historicity of the moment, then perhaps black voters casting their ballots for Obama, and saying that race matters to t
In other words, if voting for a white person because of their race is racism, then so too must be voting for a black person because of theirs. So see, those black Obama boosters are every bit as racist as we are, maybe more so, because they're breaking his way by about eighty-five percent, while whites are splitting between Obama and Clinton by about fifty-fifty. So if anything, the e-mailer said, it was blacks who were more racist and whites whose voting behavior portended open-mindedness. And now that Obama has won the Mississippi primary, almost entirely due to the votes of blacks--and among those who said race mattered, nine in ten voted for him--this refrain will only become more prevalent, one supposes.
Such an argument--which is really the political equivalent of "Why can't we have white history month, I mean, we have black history month?"--suggests how far we have to go in this nation simply to have a productive dialogue about race, let alone to really conquer racism.
Simply put, there are any number of reasons why whites voting for a white candidate because of race is altogether different than blacks voting for a black candidate because of the same. For African American voters, voting for Barack Obama--a man of color who actually stands a chance of winning the Presidency--is an opportunity to participate in a major historic moment. The pride and excitement caused by such a possibility (even for black folks who might not agree with all of his positions, and who might wish he spoke more about issues like racism and discrimination) is completely understandable and to be expected. Just as millions of women as women are understandably excited about the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency--because it would be a history-making first and a real breakthrough in terms of gender (at least symbolically)--and just as many Catholics were likely inspired to vote for JFK because of a shared religious background, so too are many people of color likely to hop on board the Obama train as a way to make a statement. So if black folks say race was important to their vote, and they voted for Obama, it is this sense of achievement, and "firstness" that likely animates them. That, and of course the fact that they really do believe him to be the best person for the job.
Or if not the historicity of the moment, then perhaps black voters casting their ballots for Obama, and saying that race matters to t
their decision, were animated by a desire to elect someone who, because of his own identity, might better relate to their daily struggles. It would be nice, one imagines, to have a President who could understand because of some of his own life experiences, what it means to be a person of color in America. In that sense, identity and the experiences that such an identity likely gives a person, become bona fide qualifications and credentials in the eyes of persons sharing that identity.
But one thing we can almost guarantee is not among the reasons why a black voter might say race matters to their vote, and then vote for the black candidate, is deep-seated anti-white bias. After all, black folks have been voting for white people for years. They have voted for white Presidential candidates, white Governors, and white Congressional candidates time and time again, seeing as how they are often given very little in the way of a choice. So it's not like black folks refuse to vote for white people. Indeed, the kind of black person whose anti-white biases were that deeply rooted, would probably be the kind of person for whom Obama would be unacceptable too (given his biracial ancestry, generally moderate positions, and fairly bland approach to addressing racial concerns), and who wouldn't vote for him, in spite of a shared skin color. In other words, we can rest assured that when blacks vote for Obama, after saying that race mattered to their vote, they were casting a ballot for the black man, not against the white woman per se.
On the other hand, for a white voter to say race matters to their vote, and then to vote for the white candidate and against the person of color, is almost by definition about something else. It certainly can't be due to excitement at the prospect of electing the first white President, or breaking with tradition, since we've had forty-three white guys in a row. And it's not likely to be about the desire to vote for someone who can relate to their "struggles" as white people. After all, although there are millions of white people in the U.S. who are struggling to make ends meet, none of them are in that position because of their race, but rather in spite of it. So the "white struggle" as such simply doesn't exist. The class struggle is real--and if a white, working-class candidate stood a chance of winning the Presidency lots of white working class folks would turn out for him or her because of that shared experience, and understandably
But one thing we can almost guarantee is not among the reasons why a black voter might say race matters to their vote, and then vote for the black candidate, is deep-seated anti-white bias. After all, black folks have been voting for white people for years. They have voted for white Presidential candidates, white Governors, and white Congressional candidates time and time again, seeing as how they are often given very little in the way of a choice. So it's not like black folks refuse to vote for white people. Indeed, the kind of black person whose anti-white biases were that deeply rooted, would probably be the kind of person for whom Obama would be unacceptable too (given his biracial ancestry, generally moderate positions, and fairly bland approach to addressing racial concerns), and who wouldn't vote for him, in spite of a shared skin color. In other words, we can rest assured that when blacks vote for Obama, after saying that race mattered to their vote, they were casting a ballot for the black man, not against the white woman per se.
On the other hand, for a white voter to say race matters to their vote, and then to vote for the white candidate and against the person of color, is almost by definition about something else. It certainly can't be due to excitement at the prospect of electing the first white President, or breaking with tradition, since we've had forty-three white guys in a row. And it's not likely to be about the desire to vote for someone who can relate to their "struggles" as white people. After all, although there are millions of white people in the U.S. who are struggling to make ends meet, none of them are in that position because of their race, but rather in spite of it. So the "white struggle" as such simply doesn't exist. The class struggle is real--and if a white, working-class candidate stood a chance of winning the Presidency lots of white working class folks would turn out for him or her because of that shared experience, and understandably
so--but it is simply silly to think that whites would vote for Hillary Clinton, after saying race mattered to their vote, because they think she will be more understanding about their plight as white people.
What this leaves us is the very real likelihood that when whites say race mattered to their vote, and they voted for the white candidate over the candidate of color, the vote so cast was largely an anti-black vote. It wasn't cast for the white person out of some form of in-group bonding so much as it was cast against the man of color, as an act of out-group rejection. And given the way in which the Clinton campaign has made Obama's presumed inexperience and "lack of qualifications" the big issue in the primaries--and given how the "qualifications" trope plays so neatly into longstanding white biases about black ability and competence--it is hard to imagine any non-racist reason for someone to say "race matters" to their vote and then to cast it for Clinton.
In the end it really is as simple as this: for persons belonging to groups that have been consistently subordinated to view the world through the lens of their group status is both predictable and rational. It would be hard, indeed, not to do so. One's identity as a subordinated group member shapes one's experiences to such an extent that it will naturally come to inform how one views the world, and how one operates within it. This has been true for all subordinated groups. Even those groups whose institutional subordination has largely ended in the U.S. (like Italian or Irish Americans, or Jews) often see the society through the frame of their particular ethnic experience--and certainly did so in generations past. So naturally, for persons of color whose subordination has continued to be institutionalized, engaging in acts of racial bonding makes sense. Voting for Obama may be one such act, for at least some black voters.
But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to "think with their skin" or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance. It can't be about "getting a piece of the pie," since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting theirs, from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled. It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek t
What this leaves us is the very real likelihood that when whites say race mattered to their vote, and they voted for the white candidate over the candidate of color, the vote so cast was largely an anti-black vote. It wasn't cast for the white person out of some form of in-group bonding so much as it was cast against the man of color, as an act of out-group rejection. And given the way in which the Clinton campaign has made Obama's presumed inexperience and "lack of qualifications" the big issue in the primaries--and given how the "qualifications" trope plays so neatly into longstanding white biases about black ability and competence--it is hard to imagine any non-racist reason for someone to say "race matters" to their vote and then to cast it for Clinton.
In the end it really is as simple as this: for persons belonging to groups that have been consistently subordinated to view the world through the lens of their group status is both predictable and rational. It would be hard, indeed, not to do so. One's identity as a subordinated group member shapes one's experiences to such an extent that it will naturally come to inform how one views the world, and how one operates within it. This has been true for all subordinated groups. Even those groups whose institutional subordination has largely ended in the U.S. (like Italian or Irish Americans, or Jews) often see the society through the frame of their particular ethnic experience--and certainly did so in generations past. So naturally, for persons of color whose subordination has continued to be institutionalized, engaging in acts of racial bonding makes sense. Voting for Obama may be one such act, for at least some black voters.
But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to "think with their skin" or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance. It can't be about "getting a piece of the pie," since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting theirs, from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled. It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek t
to secure the table you already have from the intrusion of others. White bonding, in other words, amounts to racism because it is redundant: it amounts to having those who are already largely in control, secure that control in perpetuity. It results in the maintenance of racial inequity, unequal opportunity and massive disparities in access and life chances. Black and brown bonding, on the other hand, is about gaining access, securing a spot, and collectively lifting up members of subordinated communities to a place where they can compete as equals with those who have always been in charge. There is nothing supremacist or racist about that at all, unless one presumes that--as Jesse Jackson and others have long said--there is no fundamental difference between a "Welcome" mat and a "No Trespassing" sign.
But there is a difference, in both practical and ethical terms. Those black voters (and for that matter non-black voters) who vote for Obama because of his race are striving for the welcome mat, however naive they may be in thinking that his victory would really open the door all that widely for others. Those white voters who vote for Clinton because of hers, on the other hand, are quite clearly continuing to hang the "No Blacks Need Apply" sign from their electoral window. And if we can't see the distinction between those two things, it becomes hard to imagine how we will ever conquer the larger racial inequities that continue to plague us as a nation. How indeed.
But there is a difference, in both practical and ethical terms. Those black voters (and for that matter non-black voters) who vote for Obama because of his race are striving for the welcome mat, however naive they may be in thinking that his victory would really open the door all that widely for others. Those white voters who vote for Clinton because of hers, on the other hand, are quite clearly continuing to hang the "No Blacks Need Apply" sign from their electoral window. And if we can't see the distinction between those two things, it becomes hard to imagine how we will ever conquer the larger racial inequities that continue to plague us as a nation. How indeed.
amen!
SHABOOM they are all racist hide your green ass until this blows over.
Posted by sortilege85
Last thing I checked, it went from interractial coupling of skin color to nationalistic pride to gender pride to color pride *regardless of ethnicity and nationality* to pride pride...
I can sense the totalitarianism of somebody who rules ignornace...
Fuck, tubby you want to bring back the third reich don't you?
I knew it, you really are AH. 😉
Shaboom is going to kick your ass!
where are your nuts?
^^^not funny or clever
Posted by ianthefish
Kennedy in Mid-Indiana by Hortense Myers
"Kennedy said at a Fort Wayne reception that the reaction to King's death 'could be the beginning of a final successful effort to make one nation for all our people, equal in justice and in opportunity. Or' ,he said, 'it could foretell a continuing civil strife which threatens to transform our cities into armed camps and our streets into passageways for violence and fear.'" (United Press International)
i guess JFK must have meant only watts when he said cities....
watts was 1965 and involved a drunk driver
1968 riots broke out across several cities and was due to the death of MLK.
you know, it'd be nice to like debate with folks who were more concerned about getting it right than proving others wrong. damn shame...you seemed intelligent before.
ok, i gotta go. play nice
ian, sweetie...poor thing...*sigh*
time and time again you have been wrong wrong wrong. now you sat here and went so far as finding irrelevant quotes and after the fact have the balls to say, i'm not sure why you brought it up?
you know, if you stopped ASSuming, if you stopped making this about flexing your impotent mental prowess or lack thereof, if you actually listened and comprehending with other parts of your anatomy, we could actually get some where. but that's not what this is about is it?
you just wanna play fight, twist your own words and engage in a one-sided conversation in which you don't even bother to understand what others are stating. i mean if you didn't know what i was talking about why didn't you ask? you don't want greater understanding, you just want to be right.
now, i wonder why race relations in this country are in the crapper? it's probably cause since the start, whether it's women, native americans, african americans, irish americans, italian americans, jewish americans, mexican americans, SOME white folk and SOME men have made it their primary aim to place the blame at the foot of the oppressed. when you state, this is how you've harmed me, their rebuttal is this is how i've been harmed. you lack integrity dude and the more you write, the more it shows. so you keep writing and i will continue to point out just how foolish you are. it's surprisingly easy.
now i'm already late. hopefully this will give you something to think about but...i doubt it. you don't think!
lata
time and time again you have been wrong wrong wrong. now you sat here and went so far as finding irrelevant quotes and after the fact have the balls to say, i'm not sure why you brought it up?
you know, if you stopped ASSuming, if you stopped making this about flexing your impotent mental prowess or lack thereof, if you actually listened and comprehending with other parts of your anatomy, we could actually get some where. but that's not what this is about is it?
you just wanna play fight, twist your own words and engage in a one-sided conversation in which you don't even bother to understand what others are stating. i mean if you didn't know what i was talking about why didn't you ask? you don't want greater understanding, you just want to be right.
now, i wonder why race relations in this country are in the crapper? it's probably cause since the start, whether it's women, native americans, african americans, irish americans, italian americans, jewish americans, mexican americans, SOME white folk and SOME men have made it their primary aim to place the blame at the foot of the oppressed. when you state, this is how you've harmed me, their rebuttal is this is how i've been harmed. you lack integrity dude and the more you write, the more it shows. so you keep writing and i will continue to point out just how foolish you are. it's surprisingly easy.
now i'm already late. hopefully this will give you something to think about but...i doubt it. you don't think!
lata
for the small minded, since you like to think in terms of black and white, maybe you should take time to learn more about the history of race in this country and ask yourself...why was it easier for some cultural groups to absorb into the mainstream and others not so much? the answer is as simple as black and white.
since you like wikipedia's distorted info, i threw a couple of them in here. this should keep ya busy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism#Violence_against_Italians<BR>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism#19th_century<BR>
http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml<BR>
since you like wikipedia's distorted info, i threw a couple of them in here. this should keep ya busy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism#Violence_against_Italians<BR>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism#19th_century<BR>
http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml<BR>
ok, NOW i'm out. playalata
Posted by ianthefish
i bet tubby scubby is a light skinned sister....
shes probably been getting shit dealt to her all her life about not being a real sister....
you cant blame her for her superiority complex really....
Hey, hey, hey - backupoffalightskinnedsistasweneedlovetoo! LMAO!
Just a little humor here. Seriously though, while this is topical and relevant to .... people, I feel that everyone needs to be true to who THEY are. I don't give a rats ass about anything that doesn't pertain to my upbringing. Sorry, just don't, and that doesn't mean I've "forgotten where I came from", but there are people from every socio-economic background/race/religion, etc that have been down trodden, and disrespected and I say ...."GET OVER IT." My mom told me when I was 16 years old, "You are no better or worse than ANYBODY else, but because you are a minority AND a woman you will ALWAYS have to work 150% harder than everyone else to get where you need to be." You know what, she was right, but with all that b.s., I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything I've worked for, I've earned. That's good, bad and ugly." I date whomever, I WANT to date, and I have no problems with it. I have nothing against those who only want to date within their race, nor do I have anything against those who want to date outside of their race - it's called, PREFERENCE. I'm not 5"6' weighing in at 115 lbs with green/blue/grey eyes, and creamy, alabaster skin, but guess what? I pulls a lot of men from EVERY race/creed/age/religion, and it's because I rock me. There are millions, and millions of women who are skinnier/prettier/smarter/wealthier, etc, than I am, but I know how to do me...everything else is just gravy. Peace out.
Posted by ianthefish
😄
yeah ive seen you, with nothing but a scarf around your neck...
;]
*turnsaroundandlooksbehindme - bats eyelashes* "What? Me?" LMAO. You get my point though, I'm not what is considered the epitome, or traditional beauty 😉 (smartass Ian! I still love ya though!)
Plus, I just looked at that, and it should be --- 5'6"---- OY!! I was typing too fast! I hate when I do that!
Hey, btw, why are you posting under your old moniker—?? I thought you were trying to ween us off of this one!!!
Yeah, you got us Taurus women wrapped around your....fin...you thought I was gonna say something else! LMAO!
Yeah, you got us Taurus women wrapped around your....fin...you thought I was gonna say something else! LMAO!
leave it up to pian to say someone's not black enough
if i'm going to have to continue leading you around, i'm going to require that you start wearing a leash and a muzzle....you're also picking up your own poo.
technically i'm always in an interracial relationship. i'm of mixed ethnicity (swedish, filipina of spanish descent, german, welsh, touch of french) and all my bf's happen to be white looking but one had native blood and the guy i'm with now is 1/4 spanish.
I don't know much about U.S. hostery but wasn't JFK dead before king?
^^^yeah, but the quote was from robert, his brother. he was a senator form ny and was poised to run for pres. he died like months after MLK. remember there's footage of it...he was like leaving the stage and exiting through a kitchen or something when he was shot.
would've been great if ian attributed it to jfk because he probably didn't know the difference either. regardless, he's still full of poop.
would've been great if ian attributed it to jfk because he probably didn't know the difference either. regardless, he's still full of poop.
sorry but what I read on page 20 Ianthefish quotes Jfk after kings death no big deal just trying to get it stright.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! 2-pt conversion!!!!
thanks for the assist. i didn't go back and read it what he actually wrote about the quote. i just naturally attributed the quote to rfk. look what happens when you give ian credit for having some integrity and knowledge.
i told yall he was dip. it's about being right. since when does a fish think it can challenge a bull. silly little fishy.
james, i shall be nice to you for the rest of the day...GMT + 0 ...so that gives you like 7.5 hours. enjoy it.
thanks for the assist. i didn't go back and read it what he actually wrote about the quote. i just naturally attributed the quote to rfk. look what happens when you give ian credit for having some integrity and knowledge.
i told yall he was dip. it's about being right. since when does a fish think it can challenge a bull. silly little fishy.
james, i shall be nice to you for the rest of the day...GMT + 0 ...so that gives you like 7.5 hours. enjoy it.
only a complete douche would point a finger when they are repeatedly proven wrong.
you small, teeny, tiny little man.
you small, teeny, tiny little man.
i keep the following handy for people like pian...
—The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.??
—He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.?? Albert Einstein
—Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.?? Benjamin Franklin
—The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.?? Elbert Hubbard
—Fear always springs from ignorance.?? Ralph Waldo Emerson
—Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.?? Martin Luther King, Jr.
—Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.?? Dalai Lama
—There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.?? Ralph Waldo Emerson
—Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind.?? John Tillotson
—The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:
a) willful ignorance and
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth.?? George MacDonald
—The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.??
—He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.?? Albert Einstein
—Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.?? Benjamin Franklin
—The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.?? Elbert Hubbard
—Fear always springs from ignorance.?? Ralph Waldo Emerson
—Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.?? Martin Luther King, Jr.
—Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.?? Dalai Lama
—There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.?? Ralph Waldo Emerson
—Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind.?? John Tillotson
—The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:
a) willful ignorance and
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth.?? George MacDonald
lmao this guy I know who's functionally illiterate was just texting me a few mins ago trying to tell me something about a person we know....He keeps saying 'u kno Een' and I keep saying who the fuck is 'Een'...we keep going back and fourth until he finally tells me where he lives to get me to remember, and come to find out the guys name if IAN. lmao I told him to take his ass to school and leave me the hell alone. I probably hurt his feelings, but he pissed me off with that one lol
Just thought I'd share. Kthanksbye.
Just thought I'd share. Kthanksbye.
Just got done reading the whole thread...if anyone cares.
I lol'd atleast 30 times.
I lol'd atleast 30 times.
at least when i quote i don't misquote....like you did.
POP QUIZ
Pian, who said the following:
"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error."
A. Samuel L. Jackson
B. Andrew Jackson
C. Tito Jackson
D. One o' dem
Pian, who said the following:
"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error."
A. Samuel L. Jackson
B. Andrew Jackson
C. Tito Jackson
D. One o' dem
you know the miss quote was no big deal I could care less I just was wondering if I were wrong about JFK.
it's funny you ask. i'd tell ya but it'd ruin the fun in being here.
i've been self-employed for 10 years...almost directly out of college.
you now how i spend my days? any way i like.
i've been self-employed for 10 years...almost directly out of college.
you now how i spend my days? any way i like.
@james - is your time up yet?
the quote is part of the bigger picture that is pian. he enjoys being combative so i am more than willing to oblige. me being unemployed and all 😉
the quote is part of the bigger picture that is pian. he enjoys being combative so i am more than willing to oblige. me being unemployed and all 😉
wow, so you think so lowly of your fellow dxp members who are of the ebony persuasion that you would be so crass, disrespectful and small to accuse them of being capable of lynching.
you're one sick puppy.
the us isn't the only place where slaves were imported.
you're one sick puppy.
the us isn't the only place where slaves were imported.
you know, you can try not participating in a thread that you don't like instead of continuing to engage and show your immense stupidity.
pian, let me guess. your people are from Latveria?
yeah, that's exactly where it came from.
you're starting to bore me again.
why don't you say continue saying something insulting about the other black members on the site as a whole simply because of me. i really enjoyed that.
you're starting to bore me again.
why don't you say continue saying something insulting about the other black members on the site as a whole simply because of me. i really enjoyed that.
yeah, i bet some of your best friends online are black 😉
*sigh*
so let me get this straight. the trend here when you don't have anything relevant to say, are incapable of a unique thought or your brain is at maximum capacity, you...
a. compare people to domino, q-bone or p-angel
b. use vulgarity
c. inquire about medication
ok, i get it. before dom,q and p, who were your villains? and at this rate, seems much better to be them than you. you're an idiot. at least they can get right with fantasy meds. you, you're a quarter of your way through life and you still don't have a clue.
so let me get this straight. the trend here when you don't have anything relevant to say, are incapable of a unique thought or your brain is at maximum capacity, you...
a. compare people to domino, q-bone or p-angel
b. use vulgarity
c. inquire about medication
ok, i get it. before dom,q and p, who were your villains? and at this rate, seems much better to be them than you. you're an idiot. at least they can get right with fantasy meds. you, you're a quarter of your way through life and you still don't have a clue.
or would that be a third? hmm...anyhoo, i think my floor is dry now. i'm going to try staining my concrete. should turn out cool. ciao!
Posted by ianthefish
i dont really know much about q....
im not sure why you would think i dislike p-angel or domino....
i just treat them the way they want me to treat them....
laughable
I wish Tubby had a friend maybe she wouldn't need to rant so much here lets all try to be tubbys friend.
^^^yea the articles that msp posted were on point. the author's blog is pretty good as well.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
I saw a quote the other day and thought it to ring so true for so many... We waste time looking for the perfect love
For the love of all that is holy, never EVER say the following to a guy on the first, let alone blind date even. I
OK Ive been a member for quite some time and Ive been in a few relationships in that time and Ive recently come back and
My 13 year old niece is going out with a 17 year old boy...my brother and his wife are ok with it and they spend time to
When the honeymoon phase is over, you wake up and realize that his dirty socks will always be there and your morning bre
old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poke me in the ribs and say your next. They stoped doing that after I start
Hi! Ive got a serious crush on a coworker who works for a different department, but in the same building. We are both
i repeatedly tell myself...its just one guy. just one. there is noting that special about him, in fact, remember all his
I am in an unusual situation and I have not a clue what to do. I am in LOVE with a capricorn and his ways are very st
I have had a bit of a turbulent realtionship with a cancer sun, leo rising, aires moon man and we got back so many itme
Tell me...What is your opinion on Men in relationships who go to strip clubs? Does it depend: on how many TIMES he goes/
liked a person too much or too quickly that it scared them? And did you back off in anyway? What happened or what did yo
Is sitting on a guys lap considered an intimate thing to do? or just something to be taken lightly? girls have you ever
i think a lot of people gain some weight when they're in a relationship (my boyfriend totally got a little padding in th
so i have been involved with a guy long distance for the past few months. we met once in person and we live in separate
LOL it hurted at the time but funny now. I was dating this guy for about 3 months, one night we were suppose to go to th
Lately I've been feeling differently abt the person I'm seeing. As with all relationships evertything was good in the be
Okay.... so.... I've been dating this Sag guy now for a little over two months. Some of you know the deal here and know
this may sound really sad or probably insecure or desparate..tell me what on earth do these cap men want?? can someone
Anyone ever do a composite chart for a relationship? I find it to be reallllyyyy confusing. HELP lol
But that's the easy part, in much the same way that advocating the locking up of rapists and armed robbers is easy, but stops neither rape nor armed robbery in the long run. I, for one, am interested not merely in getting tough with criminals and abusers, but on reducing criminal victimization and abuse: a very different concept. Understanding a phenomenon--whether rape, drug abuse, child molestation, terrorism, or racial intimidation and hate--does not require the coddling of those who engage in these things. I want to understand what motivated the Columbine shooters, or the 9/11 hijackers, or any number of serial killers, not to excuse their deeds, but so I might gain some insight into how to prevent such a thing from happening again.
To write off such behavior and criminality to "evil," perpetrated by people who are just "bad" (which appears to be the operative and sophomoric response to everything nowadays), is to leave society with very few tools to diminish such behavior. It's about as helpful as saying that the cause for all the world's woes is Satan. After a while, these kinds of answers are not merely evidence of an ignorance so detached from reason as to boggle the imagination; worse, they become formulas for continued suffering, seeing as how they hold out almost no hope for betterment, other than prayer, exorcism, mass incarceration or perhaps the dropping of bombs to eradicate the evildoers. Never has such a pessimistic set of choices been seen as valid among an otherwise moderately intelligent population.
Like it or not, moral lectures won't stop kids from abusing those like the young woman that evening. If we wish to keep others from experiencing what she experienced (whether those kids are white, black or anything else), the best thing we could do is break up hyper-segregated, racially-concentrated communities (in the citie