Black People : Stephen A. Smith puts "the black community" in it's place.

Eventhough I've seen no name calling in this thread, you do have a point. The reason they don't do this is because they can articulate their views without intentionally being injurious to each other. This is the first thing many blacks do when the don't agree with your opinion, is they call you sell-out, and uncle tom. Selling out is also supplying a crutch, and keeping the victim mentality alive and well.

If you walk into an office dressed, and talking like a thug, looking for a job, and you don't get it, it's not your fault, it's Yt fault.

Peace!
I'm not referring to this thread although the only thing that have kept it from going there within this thread is the rules and enforcers of this site. As Steven A. Smith said, he was said not to be one of us, that he wasn't Black, etc., etc., etc. an all out, full court press on the man just because he spoke words that many of us here agree with. Considering that many of us agree with him, at least for the most part, who does that leave to be Black or one of us???

We have to recognize this tendency to splinter over any attempt to address any problem we face as a self-induced obstacle which hinders problem solving and unified progress.
 
Jamesfrmphilly,

I've watched first take where smith has exposed bayless a number of times
with misplaced trues. He would reveal that skip is only right in the small
context that skip has established. (Bayless can be pretty slick. Smart dude,
but crafty)

Then he turns around and do the same thing. Now dyson agrees with smith
when he says on the clip I reposted:
"So when you talk about victim discourse, you are absolutely right, how
people somehow, you know, ratchet up some kind of passion because
they wanna play the victim".

Then dyson goes on to say:

"What is interesting to me is that a conversation about bigotry and bias
and the violent and the blindly so expression about racism in america,
somehow morphs into black responsibility about 'what we have to
do'".

Dyson stated that he's have that conversation as a baptist minister.
He ends that particular piece with expressing how not to confuse the
two issues. He called it "a confusion of means". Smith said that that's
"the primary objective is you don't get yourself hurt, first"

Smith then wants to get "practical" and bring up how his sister told
her son to not where a hoodie. Now he morphed the issue into
something else.

He then states, that "underlying point is that there are people
who feel this way", regarding cuban's statement about bias
and prejudice. Every black person shot or disenfranchised, it
is not because of their attire.

...I'll get back to breaking down dyson and smiths debate later.
 
Why is it that these types of discussions divide us, get us to throwing rocks at one another and calling each other names??? Why can't we have a civil discussion, hold our opinions, and respect the opinions of others? Smith and Dyson seem to do that without calling one another "sell out" or any other immature name. That I respect.

I don't know Mr. Taylor, why can't you. Why couldn't you hold this opinion? Probably because you didnt want to.. right? If folks believe he's a "sellout", why shouldn't they voice that? Surely you aren't suggesting that "sellouts" don't exist?.. Don't forget also that everyone commenting on the internet is not mature.. literally.. many of them are actual kids. In this wide world there are very many people with very different experiences, opinions and ways of expressing themselves.. it stands to reason that their will be all types of clashes.. clashes of opinion.. conversational style.. disposition.. tone.. information.. etc.. etc.. etc.

What I don't get are the people like yourself that don't get that. Why standup in the middle of a divisive issue and ask why there is division?.. It's obvious that the division stems from different folks having different takes on whatever issue is being discussed. Why not just take it for what it's worth? Why come in with the same ole same ole?.
 
Jamesfrmphilly,

I've watched first take where smith has exposed bayless a number of times
with misplaced trues. He would reveal that skip is only right in the small
context that skip has established. (Bayless can be pretty slick. Smart dude,
but crafty)
What is "misplaced trues"? The context of our reality is that we live under a condition that certain attitudes we hold and certain attitudes held against us can be justified if looked at within a smaller context. The larger context then becomes that no one is willing to discard their attitude because it is justified to the extent that they see their world. Therefore, any serious or real attempt to address the larger context must consider EVERYONE'S smaller context. If all parties come to the table of discussion only considering their perspective or their context, progress is impossible. Neither party can pretend that the other parties perspective has ZERO merit or absolutely no basis in reality simply because that party believes their perspective is more relevant in the larger perspective.
 
I don't know Mr. Taylor, why can't you. Why couldn't you hold this opinion? Probably because you didnt want to.. right? If folks believe he's a "sellout", why shouldn't they voice that? Surely you aren't suggesting that "sellouts" don't exist?.. Don't forget also that everyone commenting on the internet is not mature.. literally.. many of them are actual kids. In this wide world there are very many people with very different experiences, opinions and ways of expressing themselves.. it stands to reason that their will be all types of clashes.. clashes of opinion.. conversational style.. disposition.. tone.. information.. etc.. etc.. etc.

What I don't get are the people like yourself that don't get that. Why standup in the middle of a divisive issue and ask why there is division?.. It's obvious that the division stems from different folks having different takes on whatever issue is being discussed. Why not just take it for what it's worth? Why come in with the same ole same ole?.
There is a constructive way and a destructive way to disagree. Dyson and Smith show an example of constructive disagreement. Voicing a name calling strategy is counter-productive, destructive, and demonstrates an inability to articulate a point.

I don't stand up in the middle of a divisive issue and ask "Why is there division?", I stand up in the middle of a divisive issue and ask "Why can't we disagree in a constructive manner." Do you see the difference between what you are accusing me of and what I am actually doing?
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top