Every day it gets tougher to be black

That's correct. It was the NBA...essentially the other owners. And let's not forget, there's no government action involved in that process. Strictly private individuals and owners making a determination based on facts gathered (other than from his girlfriend) that Sterling was a racist.

You want a team in the NBA...you have to play by the NBA's rules.

 

A person is free to utilize labels as they see fit. Labels speak to a greater degree to the person labeling than the assingnee.

The need to determine if a peson is racist or not is part of the problem.

What purpose does the labeling of racist serve in the BBS?

 

And for the record, I wasn't applying a label to you...but trying to determine why there's so much frustration with RFKA for passing judgment on folks based on their posts and his perception.

 

Didn't Clinton & Gore fly the flag during their presidential run?

 

RFKA does not exist. I have met a few people from the Beeb. I don't consider their posts to be sufficient information to determine their character. Again, YMMV.

 

So, it is frustration now. I get it.

 

So, I think it is best if I don't post anymore on the subject on this thread. I definitely would not want to have anyone here reaching the conclusion that I was frustrated of having that perception of me.

 

Isn't racism such a salient issue that identifying a racist serves a purpose. You identify that person as a racist in an effort to disavow their behavior, to show your disapproval of their thoughts and philosophies, to distinguish yourself as someone that doesn't believe in racism. Why would a person sit by while another person employed racist rhetoric. I believe the label serves a purpose -- disapproval.

Just my thoughts...

 

My thought are that you need to properly define racism and not confuse it with bigotry. There are a hell of a lot more bigots than there are racists. I disapprove of perpetuating ignorance.

 

I don't know if a "proper" definition of racism will lead to a different conclusion. Some folks believe that "bigotry" is simply an all-inclusive philosophy of negative thoughts about a wide-range of people (i.e. race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation). So race is captured in bigotry. So, I don't know how that affects the discussion. Should RFKA simply change his labeling and call the person a "bigot"? Maybe it's less egregious to call a person a bigot than racist. I just don't know.

This is definitely an interesting thread. Frankly a thread that's been years in the making...for some.

 

All people are bigots about one thing or another. Many are bigots concerning race. Not all bigots are racist. In the context of today's label obsessed social media culture, a label can mean losing a job, a company or more. That is why I object so strenuously to the misapplication. The accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the label is not always relevant to the amount of damage done.

 

Good thing no one stalked IYC or egg fart and associated their real names with their posts.

 

If you could hear what some white men say behind your back you would get off your high horse.

 

Fixed for accuracy.

 

You first stalked me years ago, when you made a thread about me "always being wrong," and then bumped it a week or two later, after it didn't get any attention the first time, and another week or two later, after it didn't get any attention the second time.

Your analogy is off base. I didn't tell you where I was or who I was. I told you that it wouldn't be hard to find out, as my race number and region are right in my signature. I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean that you taking the time to investigate isn't stalkerish.

A better analogy would be if you asked a guy for directions to VIR, and their only reply was "it ain't hard to find." A few months later, you used your GPS, and got to VIR, but the guy didn't tell you where it was.

I posted the picture as a defense to my online attackers, to show that I'm proud of how I earn my living. The stalking was already well underway by that point. If a group of people assaulted you, and after taking a few blows, you fought back and defended yourself, would that mean that they didn't assault you?

That picture is from myspace, so that and the poster suggest that it's from around 2008. It's a party I djd at a retail store. The items you describe, aside from the poster, were for sale.

 

Good point even though it was in fun.

 

Makes sense on the single shoes, the poster less so

 

His perception is the problem and the whole of the problem. He sees and hears only what he expects to see and hear. It is indeed frustrating to see someone so lacking in depth pass judgement on others. I've tried to avoid labelling most dungeon dwellers, but if the totality of one's posts are sufficient to do so, he deserves what he gets. There is one other poster in here that I simply refuse to engage. I have tried to hold to the same policy for Steelcity, but his smug stupidity tends to cloud my judgement. I will do better moving forward.

 

I don't even take it seriously enough to shut anyone out. Not liking what someone says and not feeling like you need to respond to it is one thing. Blocking it out all together is another.

Doesn't matter to me if I don't like what you have to say. I can't be willing to tune out others and expect them to listen when it comes my turn to say some magnanimously stupid.

 

You are not the one. I don't have anyone blocked. I just try not to respond to totally inane statements, unless they are obviously intended as levity.