- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
we know why this is as well
Does NT Have a Race Problem?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by SpittaJetLife,
- Start date
SpittaJetLife
Banned
- 12,218
- 8,898
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2019
Lol
darthska
Staff member
- 44,204
- 27,766
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Before
nawghtyhare
quoted me earlier, there hadn't been a reply in an entire 3 hours.Right now it's about every 30 minutes.
Is it silence, or not getting the specific response you want in order to know where to place your support or disdain? The anxiety and tension is amplifying the 'silence' even though it was FAR more silent even just a few hours ago.
- 1,724
- 1,749
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
Do you guys do anything in real life? Have a community? Groups? Black excellence/support programs, anything that actually moves the topic forward Or are you just keyboard social justice warriors?
this is the biggest difference between trolls and real life people. And probably why I never ever took khufu serious. But I will retract everything I said and give mad props, not that it matters, if you guys actually do positive things in the community
how about we post some of that. See khufu it’s not people r racists if they don’t acknowledge what you have to say and all the history andall The other knowledge you have... it’s just what are they supposed to do? You just want to hear people say yes I’m a racists. when your goal should be way more than that
this is the biggest difference between trolls and real life people. And probably why I never ever took khufu serious. But I will retract everything I said and give mad props, not that it matters, if you guys actually do positive things in the community
how about we post some of that. See khufu it’s not people r racists if they don’t acknowledge what you have to say and all the history andall The other knowledge you have... it’s just what are they supposed to do? You just want to hear people say yes I’m a racists. when your goal should be way more than that
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
u dont consider him
trying to bring these issues to light
on this website as not positive???
even if he doesnt do ANYTHING outside of this website
that doesnt invalidate him bringing the awareness here
not to mention i doubt he or anyone else
does it for "props"
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
For the discussion of race and factors surrounding racism? My allegiances are strictly for those of us who are indeed Black. I will never apologize, nor make excuses for that. However, I can and will concede, good faith toward white people who can admit that they will never be able to understand racism, coming from the Black experience. Can you speak to that?Before
Right now it's about every 30 minutes.
Is it silence, or not getting the specific response you want in order to know where to place your support or disdain? The anxiety and tension is amplifying the 'silence' even though it was FAR more silent even just a few hours ago.
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
do u do any of this
to help minorities and their community???
or do u just sit here and type
seemingly annoyed
that folks are calling out racist behavior
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
Let me ask you a question. Do you ask white women if they are doing anything positive in their community, if they discuss sexism and misogyny in public forums?
- 7,326
- 28,737
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
There's a reason why you don't see him posting in the General forum anymore. He can't.
As you can see from the rule itself, partially edited profanity is unacceptable. The quoted post contained completely edited profanity - all asterisks - but the reason it was considered a rule violation, and the reason why the user was penalized for it, is because it was directed at another user in a clearly disrespectful way.
There are five asterisks in the original post. That could imply a racial slur - but it could also imply an even more frequently used sexist insult.
The original pretense here is, "how is it that a White user was able to use a racist slur without being permanently banned," but it's not that clear cut. The word in question is not necessarily a racial slur, and the user in question may not be White. (He has repeatedly claimed otherwise.)
On the latter point, I can understand why you don't necessarily want to take someone at their word or accept a photo of someone's hand as sufficient proof that they are not misrepresenting themselves. That said, what's the more reasonable policy: require 23andme results before we give someone a pass for using racial slurs - or don't give anyone a pass and make racial slurs against the rules across the board?
Had the alleged slur been less ambiguous - if even one letter were present or if it were obvious, from the context, that it was being used or implied (I don't want to see that tired, tone deaf South Park Wheel of Fortune "joke" ever again, much less as a weak attempt at a workaround), a permanent ban would've been the only appropriate response.
As that was not the case, a suspension was implemented instead.
There's no substitute for direct, lived experience - so the underlying issue you're speaking on here emphasizes why it's so important for organizations to value diversity. "Tech company diversity", where a firm hires a White man who may have minored in women's studies to provide a "different voice", is not gonna cut it. At the same time, we're also among the dying breed of websites that still value personal privacy and the largely unfulfilled promise of the early Internet in that area. As such, none of our users are required to disclose information about their race, gender, sexuality, ability, or any other identity attributes - and our moderation team is drawn from the community itself.Methodical Management
If I am debating the topic of racism and its origins, I'd like to know who it is that I am debating with. The race of an individual is incredibly important, and that is because of privilege. If you are not Black, then your opinion on such matters will be tainted through said privilege. It is only fair, especially if you are a moderator, to express what your experience is, especially since you are wielding power in the discussion.
It is just like if a Woman were to speak upon women's rights, in front of nothing but male moderators on a message board. You cannot expect men to truly understand what means to be a woman, and how that actually feels.
When it comes to our volunteers, unless that person has already publicly disclosed that information then it's not something I would know at the time of their appointment to the staff, either.
While I think your request is well intended, the precedent here is not something I can set: which is that you can compel the disclosure of identity attributes without a person's individual, voluntary consent.
Imagine if you'd demanded to know if a certain staff member is a woman, or if they're cisgender, or what their sexuality is. You could be asking them to disclose information that could subject them to harassment.
We want to make sure that we're safeguarding everyone's privacy here, and that includes members of our moderation team. In this very thread, someone claimed (maliciously, in my view) that the photos you've posted have been either inconsistent or inadequate to establish your identity - and the same has been done to shotsrangout.
I don't think we should take credibility for granted, but doxxing people clearly isn't the answer.
Obviously we don't want anyone to feel that way. It's not enough for us just to be "better" than other similarly diverse social media sites, regardless of the resource disparity. It's not exactly a high bar to be less of a hateful cesspool than Twitter. Our goal, from the beginning, was to make our community feel safe, welcoming, and respectful for everyone. Falling short of that goal, for any user, is a disappointment.
as a co-founder of this site
how does it make YOU feel
to have an nter feel like this???
Whenever these sorts of complaints arise, one thing that always strikes me is that no two people have the same experience on NikeTalk. We all view and participate in different discussions at different times, and not everyone is equally attuned to or concerned with the same issues. For that reason, I'm not surprised when different people have directly contradictory views about the types of biases that they believe are the most commonly held or expressed by other community members.
Thousands of new posts are added to our forums each day. We rely on user reports and a small team of volunteer moderators to help us identify and remove content that violates our forums policies and degrades the quality of the experience. I wish we had the ability to review every single post, but if we held each post for screening before it appeared in the forums, this would be less of a forum than a group of pen pals. Real time posting is a necessary element of the community. Nevertheless, we do screen all posts from new users to weed our as many trolls, spammers, and other assorted miscreants as we can. It's kept a lot of bad content off the forums, but it also consumes a lot of staff bandwidth.
We need help from the community to identify problems, and, consequently, the content that is the most frequently reported will be the content that is the most swiftly and consistently dealt with. So, if there are any disparities in reporting, that may manifest itself as though the staff itself doesn't care as much about, say, homophobic or sexist posts (which are, sadly, categorically under-reported) as racist posts.
There are only two ways for the staff to identify problematic content: a member of the staff has to come across it directly, or view a user report. It may seem tempting to suggest adding to the staff to increase our response times and coverage, but sometimes that can do more harm than good. As frustrating as it is to be understaffed, it is far more devastating to place trust in the wrong people. We've had issues with volunteers in the past, which erodes faith in the staff as whole. For example, one staff member - who is obviously no longer part of the community - felt that our approach to moderation was biased against White people. Staffing up sounds great in theory, but the risks are extremely high.
All the major social media platforms are chasing automated solutions, but, even if we had access to such a solution we know that AI systems are also prone to bias - as there are severe racial and gender biases both voice and facial recognition technologies:
There Is a Racial Divide in Speech-Recognition Systems, Researchers Say (Published 2020)
Technology from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM and Microsoft misidentified 35 percent of words from people who were black. White people fared much better.
Artificial Intelligence Has a Problem With Gender and Racial Bias
Machines can discriminate in harmful ways. Here's how we fix the problem
time.com
There's no shortcut or easy answer here.
For NikeTalk to be its best, we all have to work together as a community. We know that not everyone has the same level of awareness about every form of discrimination and oppression, because everyone has a different background and perspective. That's why, when we combine our perspectives, we're able to generate a far more complete picture than we could separately.
- 1,724
- 1,749
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
bro i dont give a f about white women. Or anyone who types what they think the world should be like on internet message boards. If there is potential to change the world for the better do it. Dont type about it.
Whatever man. Ill be as sincere as possible, if this is something real to anyone who cares about it- you have potential to actually change people for the better, or your own people to prosper. But putting other people in crosshairs on message boards is actually specifically for 'Props". But again bro honestly im 33 i have a daughter, im married, life is filled with mad things- and i only type this because for real you actually do have mad knowledge about a whole bunch of things. Your potential if its all true and you feel this cause in your heart, is much greater than this shoe message board.
Whatever man. Ill be as sincere as possible, if this is something real to anyone who cares about it- you have potential to actually change people for the better, or your own people to prosper. But putting other people in crosshairs on message boards is actually specifically for 'Props". But again bro honestly im 33 i have a daughter, im married, life is filled with mad things- and i only type this because for real you actually do have mad knowledge about a whole bunch of things. Your potential if its all true and you feel this cause in your heart, is much greater than this shoe message board.
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
u knowThere's a reason why you don't see him posting in the General forum anymore. He can't.
As you can see from the rule itself, partially edited profanity is unacceptable. The quoted post contained completely edited profanity - all asterisks - but the reason it was considered a rule violation, and the reason why the user was penalized for it, is because it was directed at another user in a clearly disrespectful way.
There are five asterisks in the original post. That could imply a racial slur - but it could also imply an even more frequently used sexist insult.
The original pretense here is, "how is it that a White user was able to use a racist slur without being permanently banned," but it's not that clear cut. The word in question is not necessarily a racial slur, and the user in question may not be White. (He has repeatedly claimed otherwise.)
On the latter point, I can understand why you don't necessarily want to take someone at their word or accept a photo of someone's hand as sufficient proof that they are not misrepresenting themselves. That said, what's the more reasonable policy: require 23andme results before we give someone a pass for using racial slurs - or don't give anyone a pass and make racial slurs against the rules across the board?
Had the alleged slur been less ambiguous - if even one letter were present or if it were obvious, from the context, that it was being used or implied (I don't want to see that tired, tone deaf South Park Wheel of Fortune "joke" ever again, much less as a weak attempt at a workaround), a permanent ban would've been the only appropriate response.
As that was not the case, a suspension was implemented instead.
There's no substitute for direct, lived experience - so the underlying issue you're speaking on here emphasizes why it's so important for organizations to value diversity. "Tech company diversity", where a firm hires a White man who may have minored in women's studies to provide a "different voice", is not gonna cut it. At the same time, we're also among the dying breed of websites that still value personal privacy and the largely unfulfilled promise of the early Internet in that area. As such, none of our users are required to disclose information about their race, gender, sexuality, ability, or any other identity attributes - and our moderation team is drawn from the community itself.
When it comes to our volunteers, unless that person has already publicly disclosed that information then it's not something I would know at the time of their appointment to the staff, either.
While I think your request is well intended, the precedent here is not something I can set: which is that you can compel the disclosure of identity attributes without a person's individual, voluntary consent.
Imagine if you'd demanded to know if a certain staff member is a woman, or if they're cisgender, or what their sexuality is. You could be asking them to disclose information that could subject them to harassment.
We want to make sure that we're safeguarding everyone's privacy here, and that includes members of our moderation team. In this very thread, someone claimed (maliciously, in my view) that the photos you've posted have been either inconsistent or inadequate to establish your identity - and the same has been done to shotsrangout.
I don't think we should take credibility for granted, but doxxing people clearly isn't the answer.
Obviously we don't want anyone to feel that way. It's not enough for us just to be "better" than other similarly diverse social media sites, regardless of the resource disparity. It's not exactly a high bar to be less of a hateful cesspool than Twitter. Our goal, from the beginning, was to make our community feel safe, welcoming, and respectful for everyone. Falling short of that goal, for any user, is a disappointment.
Whenever these sorts of complaints arise, one thing that always strikes me is that no two people have the same experience on NikeTalk. We all view and participate in different discussions at different times, and not everyone is equally attuned to or concerned with the same issues. For that reason, I'm not surprised when different people have directly contradictory views about the types of biases that they believe are the most commonly held or expressed by other community members.
Thousands of new posts are added to our forums each day. We rely on user reports and a small team of volunteer moderators to help us identify and remove content that violates our forums policies and degrades the quality of the experience. I wish we had the ability to review every single post, but if we held each post for screening before it appeared in the forums, this would be less of a forum than a group of pen pals. Real time posting is a necessary element of the community. Nevertheless, we do screen all posts from new users to weed our as many trolls, spammers, and other assorted miscreants as we can. It's kept a lot of bad content off the forums, but it also consumes a lot of staff bandwidth.
We need help from the community to identify problems, and, consequently, the content that is the most frequently reported will be the content that is the most swiftly and consistently dealt with. So, if there are any disparities in reporting, that may manifest itself as though the staff itself doesn't care as much about, say, homophobic or sexist posts (which are, sadly, categorically under-reported) as racist posts.
There are only two ways for the staff to identify problematic content: a member of the staff has to come across it directly, or view a user report. It may seem tempting to suggest adding to the staff to increase our response times and coverage, but sometimes that can do more harm than good. As frustrating as it is to be understaffed, it is far more devastating to place trust in the wrong people. We've had issues with volunteers in the past, which erodes faith in the staff as whole. For example, one staff member - who is obviously no longer part of the community - felt that our approach to moderation was biased against White people. Staffing up sounds great in theory, but the risks are extremely high.
All the major social media platforms are chasing automated solutions, but, even if we had access to such a solution we know that AI systems are also prone to bias - as there are severe racial and gender biases both voice and facial recognition technologies:
There Is a Racial Divide in Speech-Recognition Systems, Researchers Say (Published 2020)
Technology from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM and Microsoft misidentified 35 percent of words from people who were black. White people fared much better.www.nytimes.com
Artificial Intelligence Has a Problem With Gender and Racial Bias
Machines can discriminate in harmful ways. Here's how we fix the problem
There's no shortcut or easy answer here.
For NikeTalk to be its best, we all have to work together as a community. We know that not everyone has the same level of awareness about every form of discrimination and oppression, because everyone has a different background and perspective. That's why, when we combine our perspectives, we're able to generate a far more complete picture than we could separately.
even when i dont agree with YOU
i always respect that u are able to at least tell me ur points
provide examples
and provide me with WHY
u feel how u feel
always much respect on that part
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
Cool.There's a reason why you don't see him posting in the General forum anymore. He can't.
As you can see from the rule itself, partially edited profanity is unacceptable. The quoted post contained completely edited profanity - all asterisks - but the reason it was considered a rule violation, and the reason why the user was penalized for it, is because it was directed at another user in a clearly disrespectful way.
There are five asterisks in the original post. That could imply a racial slur - but it could also imply an even more frequently used sexist insult.
The original pretense here is, "how is it that a White user was able to use a racist slur without being permanently banned," but it's not that clear cut. The word in question is not necessarily a racial slur, and the user in question may not be White. (He has repeatedly claimed otherwise.)
On the latter point, I can understand why you don't necessarily want to take someone at their word or accept a photo of someone's hand as sufficient proof that they are not misrepresenting themselves. That said, what's the more reasonable policy: require 23andme results before we give someone a pass for using racial slurs - or don't give anyone a pass and make racial slurs against the rules across the board?
Had the alleged slur been less ambiguous - if even one letter were present or if it were obvious, from the context, that it was being used or implied (I don't want to see that tired, tone deaf South Park Wheel of Fortune "joke" ever again, much less as a weak attempt at a workaround), a permanent ban would've been the only appropriate response.
As that was not the case, a suspension was implemented instead.
There's no substitute for direct, lived experience - so the underlying issue you're speaking on here emphasizes why it's so important for organizations to value diversity. "Tech company diversity", where a firm hires a White man who may have minored in women's studies to provide a "different voice", is not gonna cut it. At the same time, we're also among the dying breed of websites that still value personal privacy and the largely unfulfilled promise of the early Internet in that area. As such, none of our users are required to disclose information about their race, gender, sexuality, ability, or any other identity attributes - and our moderation team is drawn from the community itself.
When it comes to our volunteers, unless that person has already publicly disclosed that information then it's not something I would know at the time of their appointment to the staff, either.
While I think your request is well intended, the precedent here is not something I can set: which is that you can compel the disclosure of identity attributes without a person's individual, voluntary consent.
Imagine if you'd demanded to know if a certain staff member is a woman, or if they're cisgender, or what their sexuality is. You could be asking them to disclose information that could subject them to harassment.
We want to make sure that we're safeguarding everyone's privacy here, and that includes members of our moderation team. In this very thread, someone claimed (maliciously, in my view) that the photos you've posted have been either inconsistent or inadequate to establish your identity - and the same has been done to shotsrangout.
I don't think we should take credibility for granted, but doxxing people clearly isn't the answer.
Obviously we don't want anyone to feel that way. It's not enough for us just to be "better" than other similarly diverse social media sites, regardless of the resource disparity. It's not exactly a high bar to be less of a hateful cesspool than Twitter. Our goal, from the beginning, was to make our community feel safe, welcoming, and respectful for everyone. Falling short of that goal, for any user, is a disappointment.
Whenever these sorts of complaints arise, one thing that always strikes me is that no two people have the same experience on NikeTalk. We all view and participate in different discussions at different times, and not everyone is equally attuned to or concerned with the same issues. For that reason, I'm not surprised when different people have directly contradictory views about the types of biases that they believe are the most commonly held or expressed by other community members.
Thousands of new posts are added to our forums each day. We rely on user reports and a small team of volunteer moderators to help us identify and remove content that violates our forums policies and degrades the quality of the experience. I wish we had the ability to review every single post, but if we held each post for screening before it appeared in the forums, this would be less of a forum than a group of pen pals. Real time posting is a necessary element of the community. Nevertheless, we do screen all posts from new users to weed our as many trolls, spammers, and other assorted miscreants as we can. It's kept a lot of bad content off the forums, but it also consumes a lot of staff bandwidth.
We need help from the community to identify problems, and, consequently, the content that is the most frequently reported will be the content that is the most swiftly and consistently dealt with. So, if there are any disparities in reporting, that may manifest itself as though the staff itself doesn't care as much about, say, homophobic or sexist posts (which are, sadly, categorically under-reported) as racist posts.
There are only two ways for the staff to identify problematic content: a member of the staff has to come across it directly, or view a user report. It may seem tempting to suggest adding to the staff to increase our response times and coverage, but sometimes that can do more harm than good. As frustrating as it is to be understaffed, it is far more devastating to place trust in the wrong people. We've had issues with volunteers in the past, which erodes faith in the staff as whole. For example, one staff member - who is obviously no longer part of the community - felt that our approach to moderation was biased against White people. Staffing up sounds great in theory, but the risks are extremely high.
All the major social media platforms are chasing automated solutions, but, even if we had access to such a solution we know that AI systems are also prone to bias - as there are severe racial and gender biases both voice and facial recognition technologies:
There Is a Racial Divide in Speech-Recognition Systems, Researchers Say (Published 2020)
Technology from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM and Microsoft misidentified 35 percent of words from people who were black. White people fared much better.Artificial Intelligence Has a Problem With Gender and Racial Bias
Machines can discriminate in harmful ways. Here's how we fix the problem
There's no shortcut or easy answer here.
For NikeTalk to be its best, we all have to work together as a community. We know that not everyone has the same level of awareness about every form of discrimination and oppression, because everyone has a different background and perspective. That's why, when we combine our perspectives, we're able to generate a far more complete picture than we could separately.
- 1,724
- 1,749
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
bruh... i dont post my sociological views here . If i did then you can question whether i do things for the community. Otherwise what is a man's word? its just for fun?
And really that question is not meant to put you down, im genuinely curious if you fight in real life for the causes you stand up for on the net.
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
and u have the right to
no judgment there
but in that same breath
u cant criticize others
who choose to post their sociological views
whether u agree with them or not
i mean its a free country
and we have free speech so u can
but im sure u get what i mean
darthska
Staff member
- 44,204
- 27,766
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
I can.
I completely agree with what you said. I completely agree that a white person CANNOT understand racism, PERIOD... and ESPECIALLY in regards to the black experience.
This country has been BUILT on white dominance; it just has. A white person can try to say they empathize with the horrors of nearly being wiped out like the Indigenous people nearly have been, but that's the best they can do: try to empathize. But speaking to the reality of someone who bleeds Navajo blood, right now? No white person has any idea what that means, no matter how much they might try to talk about it.
This country has been BUILT on black people being taken advantage of, literally considered less than human... for... CENTURIES. No white person can fathom that existence, a person not knowing their family lineage because their ancestors weren't important enough to have records kept of them, literally having it be AGAINST THE LAW to drink from the same water fountain as the dominant race around them. No white person can wrap their mind around that, no matter how much they talk about their Irish slave ancestors.
And any white person convinced that all this was a former time, any white person convinced that the time for moving past all that is now because segregation is illegal now, any white person convinced of any of that crap: They are not only wrong, but they're in the way.
It takes GENERATIONS to undo the mental consequences of black people being considered less than human for GENERATIONS. Segregation being illegal (which has only been a few decades) hasn't even TOUCHED the collective negative perception Amerikkkans have of black people, so the GENERATIONS of changing that mental framework hasn't even started yet, and any white person convinced that racism exists only because people keep bringing it up is type: ignorant.
- 63,609
- 50,737
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
You do realize that you are asking someone who is Black, to be Black when it is convenient, correct? The real issue is, when you constantly see racist commentary be used, and those who use such commentary to think that it is okay, why should anyone Black simply sit still and take it?! It does not make you cool, nor a good guy, to simply let comments like those slide. Conscious Black people have a right to feel comfortable here as well. I refuse to simply kerp it about the shoes, when there are higher stakes at hand.
TBH I dont have a problem with racists as individuals.
I really couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me - especially when it comes to race.
My problem is when those opinions are put into action against me, whether I know it or not.
Racism is worse than any cancer.
Covid 19 aint got nothin on racism.
There has been a global pandemic of racism for hundreds of years.
It literally kills black people.
There is zero immunity.
We are born into it.
No choices, no opinions, no options.
Day by day.
Minute by minute.
Down to the second.
The constant disrespect.
The constant gaslighting.
The constant logical fallacies.
The constant doubt.
The constant surveillance.
The constant stress.
The constant anger.
The constant fear.
The constant anxiety.
The constant fighting.
The constant desire.
These seconds, add up to minutes, that add up to hours, that add up days...
Years turn into decades...
Under the constant burden of other people's willful ignorance, conscientious stupidity, and morbid fear of the truth.
A life spent with eyes that can see, surrounded by those who refuse to look.
No handouts, no apologies, no help, and no words from you...
Just step aside, and take your institutionalized racism with you.
That's all.
We don't want or need your love, admiration, money, respect, understanding, sympathy, agreement, or anything else.
We don't care about your appropriation, confederate flags, statues, tiki torches, white women, white hoods, or your extra mayo.
You can keep all of that...enjoy!
We know you well and know you're nothing without us.
We know thats why you won't simply step aside and let us do our thing.
After all - why would a "superior race" such as yours be so afraid of honest competition?
Out here calling yourselves "proud boys" for losing a game you created?
Superior huh?
I really couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me - especially when it comes to race.
My problem is when those opinions are put into action against me, whether I know it or not.
Racism is worse than any cancer.
Covid 19 aint got nothin on racism.
There has been a global pandemic of racism for hundreds of years.
It literally kills black people.
There is zero immunity.
We are born into it.
No choices, no opinions, no options.
Day by day.
Minute by minute.
Down to the second.
The constant disrespect.
The constant gaslighting.
The constant logical fallacies.
The constant doubt.
The constant surveillance.
The constant stress.
The constant anger.
The constant fear.
The constant anxiety.
The constant fighting.
The constant desire.
These seconds, add up to minutes, that add up to hours, that add up days...
Years turn into decades...
Under the constant burden of other people's willful ignorance, conscientious stupidity, and morbid fear of the truth.
A life spent with eyes that can see, surrounded by those who refuse to look.
No handouts, no apologies, no help, and no words from you...
Just step aside, and take your institutionalized racism with you.
That's all.
We don't want or need your love, admiration, money, respect, understanding, sympathy, agreement, or anything else.
We don't care about your appropriation, confederate flags, statues, tiki torches, white women, white hoods, or your extra mayo.
You can keep all of that...enjoy!
We know you well and know you're nothing without us.
We know thats why you won't simply step aside and let us do our thing.
After all - why would a "superior race" such as yours be so afraid of honest competition?
Out here calling yourselves "proud boys" for losing a game you created?
Superior huh?
Last edited:
- 36,573
- 48,786
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
Playing victim, when you're the suspect.meh at this point I would be fine with meth perma banning me. you and alchemist iq and dc some grown *** 40 year old dudes still trolling. if I never gotta read y’all posts permanently, that would be fine with me.
i’ve posted proof that I am black but y’all continue to troll me. if this could get elevated to the niketalk supreme court,
Mr Dink
formerly foamposite xi
- 12,049
- 10,113
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
So I guess it’s pretty clear, this site does indeed have a race problem. Now its out there in the open, let’s see if those passive aggressive jabs, those like that of shut up and dribble, continue.
darthska
Staff member
- 44,204
- 27,766
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
To some degree, sure. Anywhere there are people of different races, there is racism and/or prejudice to some degree. That's just a given. We are a VERY large collection of different people of different races.
So the question we have to ask our individual self is "What am I going to do to help that?" I'm not responsible for your answer, and you're not responsible for mine. There's a plethora of people willing to ask 'What are you going to do about this problem?' There's a surplus of that. But 'What am I going to do to help that?' There's a shortage.
- 10,957
- 19,973
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
Well one thing is for sure, I am not about to try and help people feel comfortable with Blackness.
darthska
Staff member
- 44,204
- 27,766
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Nor should you have to. I get that, but 'Here's a list of what I won't do' doesn't set forth what you will do.
Right?
That's just how I've always looked at things that I won't do, and in many facets, I have been more focused on what I won't do than what I will do. That's problematic and counter productive.
- 'So how will you benefit our company?'
- 'Well I'll tell you what I don't do, and that's smoke during my shift.'
- 'Sweet. You won't smoke on shift. So what will you do for us?'
- 'Another thing I won't do is date coworkers.'
- 'Awesome, no smoking and no dating. So what will you do?'
- 'And you'll never have to worry about me stealing.'
- 'All right, you won't smoke, won't date employees, won't steal. What... WILL... you do?'
That's how I've always looked at it. Establishing what I won't do doesn't help anything because there's no focus on what I need to do.
And I'm not telling you what's what; just sharing something I've learned the hard way regarding what I won't do in situations that require attention.
