Joyner Lucas - I’m Not Racist

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:32 pm

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Spoiler: Show

Seriously why are you such a Trumpy?

Why wouldn't I be

Deflecting, typical.

yikes. care to debate me on trump? pm me

Xanderian wrote:

KRYPTiC wrote:

Smiles wrote:

Y'all need to enjoy the song and write something good or dont write anything at all and make it all political...

The whole point of the song was to be political, to talk about white and black and people's political views.

Exactly. So of course people are going to talk political about this. And honestly, that's a good thing. We can't ever fix these problems if we just shrug them off and refuse to discuss them.

Synthic wrote:

It seems like you're brushing off both of the sides arguments because they were generalizations. Black culture has a lot to do with why they are in the position they are. When you are kept in poor environments for so long by the government, those in the environment stick together. They form gangs, groups, or other subcultures. For example, the "fuck the police" hip hop movement you can see in the 80s. This culture that many black people have created and taken part in is a large factor in why they are still in the position they are. Their culture majorly focuses on hedonistic and material things. Drugs, sex, money, weed, every rap song in a nutshell. Many black people take part in those values because it is the culture they have created as a tribe. The problem comes when the media tells them they are oppressed because of muh white privelege, and that they are being killed by police all the time. So their culture becomes one of victimhood, where they are being told constantly that they are being oppressed by everyone.

Yeah, but not every black follows into that same "black culture". I hardly view it as "brushing off" their arguments, but I'm saying that both arguments are flawed, because they are generalizations. That's the whole point of the song. People are generalizing things to the entire opposite race based on these stereotypes going around. I get what you're saying though, and it's true. Media does paint those people who are down as being martyrs and victims, and that they're down because all whites are racists or that the system is flawed in favor of whites. And, don't get me wrong, there are racists out there, and there are people who do try to keep blacks down, but it's not all whites that do that. It's not even a majority of whites that do that. It's a fairly small minority of whites, but somehow those few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Xanderian · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:13 pm

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:23 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

claiming that an argument is wrong because it's a generalization, and not focusing on the argument itself, doesn't disprove anything. please stop trying to type walls of text if you cant understand that simple premise. my argument didnt even have a single generalization in it

Xanderian · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:09 pm

Synthic wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

claiming that an argument is wrong because it's a generalization, and not focusing on the argument itself, doesn't disprove anything. please stop trying to type walls of text if you cant understand that simple premise. my argument didnt even have a single generalization in it

I never said your argument did. But, you're arguing that an argument can still be correct when it's a generalization. I'm arguing against that. Also, yes I can say that it's wrong because it's a generalization, because that 'is' the argument. You're claiming that I'm not focusing on the argument itself, but the argument itself is that blacks are all ratchet, or that all whites are racist, etc. That's a generalization, and that's the argument in the video.

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:25 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

claiming that an argument is wrong because it's a generalization, and not focusing on the argument itself, doesn't disprove anything. please stop trying to type walls of text if you cant understand that simple premise. my argument didnt even have a single generalization in it

But, you're arguing that an argument can still be correct when it's a generalization. I'm arguing against that.

you literally cant

Xanderian · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:47 pm

Synthic wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

claiming that an argument is wrong because it's a generalization, and not focusing on the argument itself, doesn't disprove anything. please stop trying to type walls of text if you cant understand that simple premise. my argument didnt even have a single generalization in it

But, you're arguing that an argument can still be correct when it's a generalization. I'm arguing against that.

you literally cant

Except, I can. Because for it to be completely correct, it has to have no flaws. Generalizations have flaws.

North · **Posted:** Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:07 pm

Xanderian wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Just because an argument is a generalization does not make them flawed, they still apply to members of the group, or else the generalization wouldn't be made in the first place, that's the entire point.

Generalizations imply that the argument applies to all members of the group (in this case all blacks or all whites), which is wrong. Because it doesn't apply to all of them. So, if the point is to say that the points made in the argument in the video apply to all white or to all blacks, then yes, that argument is flawed. Even if the majority of blacks acted in the stereotypical manner, it's still flawed, because not all of them do. Generalizations about race essentially are saying that if somebody is black, they are also this, that, and the other thing. If they are white, they're racists, bigots, etc. The whole video is essentially generalizing the "white man's argument" and the "black man's argument", as if somehow the writer actually understands every single white or black person and their opinions on the matter. Now, I went ahead and ignored the fact that the writer has no clue what all whites or blacks think, and just looked at the arguments of both characters in that video. Both of them make generalizations about the other race, and treat it like it applies to the other character simply because they're the same race as the people that character is referring to. And then they go on to claim that they're not racists, despite making a huge generalization, one that's fairly unfounded.

You hate the idea of white privilege, which is a generalization that all whites have it easy in life because they're white, yet you can't seem to see that generalizations lead to unfounded ideas about the group being generalized. The whole notion that somehow you are to blame for the shortcomings in the lives of minorities, simply because you are white and they are not, is generalizing both your life and theirs. And we can all see how that ends up. People play the victim card and don't stop playing it, and suddenly race disputes ensue. Also, just because there was a purpose for a generalization being made, that doesn't mean that it was a good one, or that the generalization is any more correct.

I can agree.

Uchies · **Posted:** Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:31 am

Synthic wrote:

White guy's arguments focus on the black guys position, and that he got himself in it. Black guys arguments blame white people for his position while playing the victim card. Black guy's arguments are partially correct in that the government keeps them down, which it does. However I think the majority of black people just don't understand what exactly is keeping them down in the first place.

Great video to watch her summarizing my argument

Spoiler: Show

uh, you do know that it's one guy doing the song and that he's showing two point-of-views that he's neither holding nor endorsing?

the whole message of the song is the be open-minded and willing to listen to an argument contrary to your beliefs and weigh and reason them accordingly. "theres two sides to every story, i wish that i knew yours"

Spoiler: Show

ChickenMcDerps · **Posted:** Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:08 am

I was watching an interview that they had with him, and I am not sure if I heard what he said correctly, but he said "Sagging Pants, and Wearing Gold" is apart of who they are as black. That's where Immediately lost all respect for the message being conveyed, sagging pants isn't apart of anyone's culture. Besides plumbers, sagging your pants started from inside of Prison where prisoners would sag their pants to air their ass out after getting screwed up their butt.

Now I can agree to disagree with a lot of what is being said in this song. Though what continues this race riot is the justification that people who are black went through a rough time years upon years ago and feel that all of the sudden they deserve some kind of respect, sympathy, re-payment for what went on. I don't condone what people of my race did to another race years ago, and you don't see me complaining about years upon years upon years upon years ago, do you? Yes, there is much corruption in politics, however the funny part of the whole mess is it all started with people of one race who had power saying that their race didn't have anything. Yet, all these people who keep claiming they have nothing, and keep claiming that life is so hard, are usually the people who have access to everything and are just too lazy to do something as basic as cleaning the yard to earn some cash to do something.

Life would be easier if people stopped feeling that because of the past, or their race, that they're entitled. If anyone is entitled the American Indians are the first whom deserve re-payment for having complete genocide towards their kind. I don't know, the song has a great point and great stances, however it only continues to bring more controversy towards the table for people to debate whether it's right or wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqhjpQxfq4Q : Link to Genius Interview

Register

Login

Joyner Lucas - I’m Not Racist

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online