[QUOTE=Muk;36781]
Right-o! it's his prerogative, but that doesn't excuse the original Post. Sure, it was a joke (unfunny joke. I mean...if you're going to make a racist joke, at least make it funny. I'll laugh with you)
Also, I want to point out that racism isn't illegal, it's what you do with it that may or may not be illegal. Hell, I've been accused of being racist against black people for saying what's on my mind, and not caring about being PC. Stereotypes don't exist because they're false, and I've called out plenty of blacks for being ghetto, ignorant, crybaby losers.
The Right to Free Speech is granted by the Federal Government to prevent Gvmnt entities from stifling opposition and trying to control popular opinion. I'm not a gvmnt official and I didn't say that he couldn't have his opinion. I simply used MY freedom of speech to call him out on it.
Relevance to anything in this thread?? What do I care about some "Black Liberation Theology"? or some wacko racist preacher? You're not trying to lump me in with those yahoos, are you? Not cool
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Lion"][B]Finally, some hot & sexy Black chicks[/B] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d9WDlSv5JE&feature=player_embedded#"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d9WDlSv5JE[/URL]
Check it out.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Racist Joke"][B]Why don't sharks eat niggers?
They think it's whale shit.[/B][/QUOTE]
See the difference? Get over yourself. Like I said, he wasn't racist.
Freedom of speech is not granted by the federal government, get that straight. It's an inalienable right granted to us from god that our founders recognized and said all men should have such a right. Plus, that's not what the 1st amendment is only there to protect from. The 1st amendment does much more than that. Besides, are you telling me that it's not "popular opinion" (popular opinion for many blacks that is) to cry racism at virtually anything a white says? [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVv6tCMSn44[/URL]
Look Black Liberation Theology up, you might be surprised how much it actually does fit in to what we are talking about. Once you do actually look it up (if ever), come back and tell me it doesn't.
[QUOTE="Rhody"]"I don't agree with you, but I regret that my actions have upset you."[/QUOTE]
What about, "He wasn't racist" do you not understand? Regret implies he feels at fault. There was no racism and as such is ENTIRELY Muk's problem.
Look, this country is in a crap load of problems. Part of the problem is that people can't sit down and have an honest conversation. Whenever such a conversation pops up people, like you, say we should just move on. Agree to disagree and such. What happens is that when we do "move on", the people who have cried racism when there wasn't any are allowed to be the "victims" regardless of whether or not there was actually any problem or not and thus they are allowed to continue crying wolf. It effectively gets rid of open communication and progress, thus actually ever getting closer to this country being integrated.
This type of environment isn't what MLK had in mind when he was marching. He didn't saying, "I have a dream that one day white people will be afraid to say anything to or about blacks for fear of being racist."
My point is simple, Don't cry racism when there wasn't any and there won't be any problems.
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
Finally, some hot & sexy Black chicks
by Guest » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:16 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;36791]What about, "He wasn't racist" do you not understand? Regret implies he feels at fault. There was no racism and as such is ENTIRELY Muk's problem.[/QUOTE]
This embodies the problem with this thread. People care more about being right than they do about relating to people. We in the community learn very early that perception is reality. If a woman perceives that you are high value, then you are high value. If a woman perceives that you are a creep, then you are a creep. You can't convince her that her perception is wrong with logic. So, if you accept that, then you can see that if someone is offended then there is no right or wrong. There is a way to acknowledge a person's state without accepting blame or trying to convince them that they are wrong for feeling what they feel. What I suggested was just one way. Here are some others:
"I see that you are offended, which was not my intention."
"I regret that you were offended by my post, because that was not my intention."
"I disagree with your interpretation of my post, although I do understand it."
This is an important skill to have in order to be successful in a career, business, or any relationship. This is how you diffuse a situation with a boss, customer, disgruntled employee, girlfriend, sibling, or anybody, without sacrificing your principals. If a person goes around trying to be right all the time, he will just end up fighting with everyone instead of relating to them. That being said, I do not see this as entirely Muk's problem.
[quote]Look, this country is in a crap load of problems. Part of the problem is that people can't sit down and have an honest conversation. Whenever such a conversation pops up people, like you, say we should just move on. Agree to disagree and such. What happens is that when we do "move on", the people who have cried racism when there wasn't any are allowed to be the "victims" regardless of whether or not there was actually any problem or not and thus they are allowed to continue crying wolf. It effectively gets rid of open communication and progress, thus actually ever getting closer to this country being integrated.
This type of environment isn't what MLK had in mind when he was marching. He didn't saying, "I have a dream that one day white people will be afraid to say anything to or about blacks for fear of being racist."
My point is simple, Don't cry racism when there wasn't any and there won't be any problems.[/quote]
Your intentions are noble, but your execution is lacking. I wouldn't call this thread "open communication." I hesitate to call it "communication." When Muk questioned the thread, people jumped all over him. Nobody asked him why he thought it was racist, they just started trying to prove that he's wrong, or, more accurately, that all people who "cry racism" are wrong. When he backed off, people jumped all over him. I mean, nobody said, "it's cool that you said it's no big deal." Instead, people just kept trying to prove their point. Then, when he gave his side of the argument, few attempted to understand his side. This thread is an example of terribly ineffective communication, something aspiring PUAs should move away from.
I'm not saying, "we should just move on." I'm saying that "open communication" should result in the two sides moving closer together, not further apart. You do that by acknowledging the situation, not by explaining it away with logic.
This embodies the problem with this thread. People care more about being right than they do about relating to people. We in the community learn very early that perception is reality. If a woman perceives that you are high value, then you are high value. If a woman perceives that you are a creep, then you are a creep. You can't convince her that her perception is wrong with logic. So, if you accept that, then you can see that if someone is offended then there is no right or wrong. There is a way to acknowledge a person's state without accepting blame or trying to convince them that they are wrong for feeling what they feel. What I suggested was just one way. Here are some others:
"I see that you are offended, which was not my intention."
"I regret that you were offended by my post, because that was not my intention."
"I disagree with your interpretation of my post, although I do understand it."
This is an important skill to have in order to be successful in a career, business, or any relationship. This is how you diffuse a situation with a boss, customer, disgruntled employee, girlfriend, sibling, or anybody, without sacrificing your principals. If a person goes around trying to be right all the time, he will just end up fighting with everyone instead of relating to them. That being said, I do not see this as entirely Muk's problem.
[quote]Look, this country is in a crap load of problems. Part of the problem is that people can't sit down and have an honest conversation. Whenever such a conversation pops up people, like you, say we should just move on. Agree to disagree and such. What happens is that when we do "move on", the people who have cried racism when there wasn't any are allowed to be the "victims" regardless of whether or not there was actually any problem or not and thus they are allowed to continue crying wolf. It effectively gets rid of open communication and progress, thus actually ever getting closer to this country being integrated.
This type of environment isn't what MLK had in mind when he was marching. He didn't saying, "I have a dream that one day white people will be afraid to say anything to or about blacks for fear of being racist."
My point is simple, Don't cry racism when there wasn't any and there won't be any problems.[/quote]
Your intentions are noble, but your execution is lacking. I wouldn't call this thread "open communication." I hesitate to call it "communication." When Muk questioned the thread, people jumped all over him. Nobody asked him why he thought it was racist, they just started trying to prove that he's wrong, or, more accurately, that all people who "cry racism" are wrong. When he backed off, people jumped all over him. I mean, nobody said, "it's cool that you said it's no big deal." Instead, people just kept trying to prove their point. Then, when he gave his side of the argument, few attempted to understand his side. This thread is an example of terribly ineffective communication, something aspiring PUAs should move away from.
I'm not saying, "we should just move on." I'm saying that "open communication" should result in the two sides moving closer together, not further apart. You do that by acknowledging the situation, not by explaining it away with logic.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:24 pm
[QUOTE=Rhody;36797]
Nobody asked him why he thought it was racist, they just started trying to prove that he's wrong,
[/QUOTE]
You're right, we didn't. I just assumed it was because of some experience he had in the past.
Muk, why did you think that was racist?
Nobody asked him why he thought it was racist, they just started trying to prove that he's wrong,
[/QUOTE]
You're right, we didn't. I just assumed it was because of some experience he had in the past.
Muk, why did you think that was racist?
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:56 pm
In our society there are certain universal truths...some things are right and some things are wrong.
What is the point of trying to understand where someone is coming from if their view of the world is wrong?
This is a huge reason why we have so many issues in this country, because we spend too much time trying to empathize with dissenters instead of showing them, with logic, why they are wrong. It's called tyranny of the minority and we were warned of this in the Federalist Papers.
Some things are right, some things are wrong. I'm not sure I care about why Muk thought this was racist. He is wrong. Period. End of story. And, for being wrong, he needs to be educated as to why he's wrong. I'm not going to spend time trying to empathize or relate to someone else when they just don't get it. Why should those that are right be forced to bend and contort to the wrong-headed thinking of a few?
It's called standing up for your beliefs. If Muk thinks he's right, then fine, allow him to think so. But, I think this thread speaks to a bigger issue...most of us are sick and tired of keeping our mouth shut about sensitive issues like this because people that make these kinds of claims are just plan wrong. By saying we're racist, it demonizes us. But, by fighting back, we're still demonized. So, what's better? Be demonized while apologizing and trying to empathize or be demonized while standing up for what you believe? What would a man do?
Finally, this has nothing to do with women. PU teaches us a lot of great skills with respect to women but most of the tools we use to attract and seduce women exist to bridge the gap between a man's logic and a woman's emotions. Telling a girl that you're gay, that you're not having sex tonight work to seduce women...but, where is the logic in saying such things? There is no logic to PU. This is why the Community exists at all and why a lot of guys never seem to 'get it' once they're here: they continue to act logically with women when true success is found by taking advantage of a woman's lack of logic.
In cases where you deal with men, your best weapon is logic. When dealing with women, your best weapon is to get them emotionally charged.
What is the point of trying to understand where someone is coming from if their view of the world is wrong?
This is a huge reason why we have so many issues in this country, because we spend too much time trying to empathize with dissenters instead of showing them, with logic, why they are wrong. It's called tyranny of the minority and we were warned of this in the Federalist Papers.
Some things are right, some things are wrong. I'm not sure I care about why Muk thought this was racist. He is wrong. Period. End of story. And, for being wrong, he needs to be educated as to why he's wrong. I'm not going to spend time trying to empathize or relate to someone else when they just don't get it. Why should those that are right be forced to bend and contort to the wrong-headed thinking of a few?
It's called standing up for your beliefs. If Muk thinks he's right, then fine, allow him to think so. But, I think this thread speaks to a bigger issue...most of us are sick and tired of keeping our mouth shut about sensitive issues like this because people that make these kinds of claims are just plan wrong. By saying we're racist, it demonizes us. But, by fighting back, we're still demonized. So, what's better? Be demonized while apologizing and trying to empathize or be demonized while standing up for what you believe? What would a man do?
Finally, this has nothing to do with women. PU teaches us a lot of great skills with respect to women but most of the tools we use to attract and seduce women exist to bridge the gap between a man's logic and a woman's emotions. Telling a girl that you're gay, that you're not having sex tonight work to seduce women...but, where is the logic in saying such things? There is no logic to PU. This is why the Community exists at all and why a lot of guys never seem to 'get it' once they're here: they continue to act logically with women when true success is found by taking advantage of a woman's lack of logic.
In cases where you deal with men, your best weapon is logic. When dealing with women, your best weapon is to get them emotionally charged.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:10 pm
So you mean to say that I had no valid points at all? come on guys, I don't believe I've disrespected you at all, please don't disrespect me. It's pretty fucking obvious where I was coming from.
Maybe I'm the weird person who believes that arguments should be from the position of mutual respect. I have my points, you have yours.
you disagree with me, fine but at least understand where I'm coming from.
don't give me the whole "YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG IT'S ALL YOUR PROBLEM GET OVER IT" when there is validity to my side of the argument. I wouldn't do that to you, don't do it to me.
Maybe I'm the weird person who believes that arguments should be from the position of mutual respect. I have my points, you have yours.
you disagree with me, fine but at least understand where I'm coming from.
don't give me the whole "YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG IT'S ALL YOUR PROBLEM GET OVER IT" when there is validity to my side of the argument. I wouldn't do that to you, don't do it to me.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:19 pm
[QUOTE=Muk;36805]So you mean to say that I had no valid points at all? come on guys, I don't believe I've disrespected you at all, please don't disrespect me. It's pretty fucking obvious where I was coming from.
Maybe I'm the weird person who believes that arguments should be from the position of mutual respect. I have my points, you have yours.
you disagree with me, fine but at least understand where I'm coming from.
don't give me the whole "YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG IT'S ALL YOUR PROBLEM GET OVER IT" when there is validity to my side of the argument. I wouldn't do that to you, don't do it to me.[/QUOTE]
That's the only point I was trying to make. I don't even agree that the original post was racist, but I understand why you did. But somehow you walked into hornets nest. You are a dissenter, so you must be dealt with properly using the weapon of logic or we all risk being subject to the tyranny of the minority.
Actually, reading the thread again you have been pretty agreeable, respectful, and humorous throughout. I'm not worried about tyranny from you.
Maybe I'm the weird person who believes that arguments should be from the position of mutual respect. I have my points, you have yours.
you disagree with me, fine but at least understand where I'm coming from.
don't give me the whole "YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG IT'S ALL YOUR PROBLEM GET OVER IT" when there is validity to my side of the argument. I wouldn't do that to you, don't do it to me.[/QUOTE]
That's the only point I was trying to make. I don't even agree that the original post was racist, but I understand why you did. But somehow you walked into hornets nest. You are a dissenter, so you must be dealt with properly using the weapon of logic or we all risk being subject to the tyranny of the minority.
Actually, reading the thread again you have been pretty agreeable, respectful, and humorous throughout. I'm not worried about tyranny from you.
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest