Pioneer1

23 minutes ago, Cynique said:

What a crock of BS, coming from 2 people who can't get over Kalexander hurting your widdle feelings. 

Speaking of hurt feelings....

Have YOU gotten over your 73 year old "stud muffin" of a stallion hurting YOUR feelings when he sent you back home from vacation earlier than you expected???

I'm sure he was angry he wasted all that money on plane tickets to Guyana, a hotel, and 3 bottles of those "magic pills" only to come in the room every night and find you sprawled out on the bed next to a bottle of rum staring at your laptop with your eyes glazed over trying to keep up with me and the happenings of AALBC....lol.

Troy

It's hard to really support the brother because I don't know his aim.

What's the "end game" of all this?

I WANT to support him because I admire him standing up for his beliefs and I don't like to see a Black man who....well HALF Black man....lol....who stands up for his beliefs to be left out in the cold.

But DAMN.....

What is the kid fighting for?

You have a problem with racist cops shooting down unarmed Black men, so you get down on your knees when the national athem is played???
THAT is your solution to the problem???

And now the plan is to expect Black men nation wide to voluntarily give up one of their favorite sports and forms of entertainment to try and "punish" rich old white men who have enough money to pass down 7 generations????

Come on bro.

We need to think this thing through all the way from the rooter to the tooter.

Again, EXACTLY WHAT are the goals or the end game supposed to be and look like?

Boycott the NFL until WHAT?
What would the conditions that would have to be met be?


If we had THAT much unity I would waste it on a boycott, I'd use it to build our own football league and let the owners do whatever the hell they WANT to do while I focused on my own games and championship matches....lol.

Delano

You know something?

Very very few women I've ever been with have ever taken the time to ask me what I actually wanted.
Perhaps they figured they already knew since or made assumptions, but most didn't so much as seriously ask the question.

But I'm also guilty because I rarely asked them either.
I figured I already KNEW what they wanted too, lol.

Cynique

When you're using terms like "smart women" and "strong women" or "smart men" and "strong men"....you're talking about EXCEPTIONS and not the general rule.

Not to say that there aren't smart and strong women out there, but most young women in their teens and 20s ARE NOT very smart nor are they very strong.
But despite this fact, they STILL attempt to put up useless defense mechanism and play pittiful games that they often end up losing BECAUSE they aren't mature enough and wise enough to know what they're doing or why they're doing it.

Aspects of my question remain unanswered because despite the games being played, no one  has really articulated what benefit or positive result they expected for these psychlogical.....actually pathological...games to have on our community as a whole and in the long run.

I think much of the problem is the fact that in the age of social media, people simply can't GET THE F*CK AWAY from eachother...lol.

Back when I was a kid, if you were fighting with or being picked on by someone at school....you could atleat go home or back to your neighborhood to get away from them.
You could even have some peace and quite even in school as you changed classes through out the day.
If you got into it with someone in the neighborhood you could get away from them and have a little peace and quiet at school.
If you were having trouble with a family member you could escape them by hanging out with your friends....and vice versa.

This was time for the conflict to cool off, calm down, and people forget about their beefs and move on.

Today everyone has easy access to you 24/7 365 days of the year!

All it takes is the wrong tweet or message on facebook and a war of insults and threats  not only start but become more intense with all your friends watching and instigating it.

Whether you're at home or at school or in a park or sitting on the toilet, the easy access allows you to continue engaging in conflict without any type of cooling off period and this leaves most people emotionally drained having to deal with engaging in so much negative energy non-stop.

12 minutes ago, Cynique said:

There's a difference between clearly spelling out and correctly spelling out.  It never ceases to amaze me how you misspell simple words.  i could understand your doing this will long complicated ones.  But, whatever.  

If you want to refuse to admit your obvious error, go right ahead.

Like you said......wwwwhateva'

Del

K2 is your fawning Lapp dog.

Ofcourse he is.
He purposely PUT himself in that position as part of his strategy.

To be fair, she's criticized him and his behavior on many occasions quite openly but he either ignores it or patronizes her with false humility.
He'll do anything BUT strike back...lol.
 

I think they are both using eachother:

-He's using her because after getting into it with me and you he needs an ally on this board so he can't afford to get into a fight with Cynique also, despite the stones she occasonally throws at him.

-She's using him because of his adversarial relationship with us.
She figures constantly tossing his name out and comparing us to him would somehow frustrate us.
 

Someone should remind her that silly psychological games like that may work on some men in real life, but it's not nearly as effective when practiced online.

She may have to break out her old "male bashing" and  "ball busting" manuals and brush up on her techniques...lol.

 

10 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Your simply saying this is not adequate for me.  Elaborate on your claim please.

Cynique........

Just look at the word I wrote.

It clearly spells out:  W-R-I-T-T-E-R-S

Lol, how much more elaboration do you need beyond what's visually obvious?

Troy

You make a good point I forgot to include which is....you KNOW they aren't gonna get rid of those pictures no matter how much you pay them simply for the reason you gave.
They can always use it to milk you for more money.

Probably the best thing to do is sit down and figure out to track down the source, and see what LEGAL actions....if any....can be taken.

I sincerely believe there is atleast one solution to EVERY problem.
You may not live long enough to find out that solution, but it does exist.
 

They don't call me "johnson" for nothing

I've been meaning to ask you for a minute, I know Johnson is a common last name but are you related in any way to THEE famous "Johnson" who used to run Harlem back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s....lol.

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:51 PM, Cynique said:

The word is "writers", not "writters".   It's satire, but not irony.  It could also be called a lampoon. 

Actually you're wrong (again...lol); the word is "writters".

I think this entire protest of the national anthem is creating more problems than it's worth.

I defend the brothers' right to express themselves and not stand for the anthem if they choose but this does NOTHING to combat police brutality or racism.
It's nothing more than a deflection and a waste of time.

Tangibly speaking, what exactly are these players seeking to get out of this?

Don't tell me about "rights" and "respect".....you can't eat that, buy a masion with that, or pass it down from one generation to the next.

What the hell are they fighting and protesting for?

If you want to boycott the NFL to get more money out of the owners or to wrestle power and control away from them and put it in the hands of AfroAmericans....I agree and support it.
But just acting a fool and fighting rich White men who write your paycheck without clear goals and clear benefits is foolish...in my opinion.

"Hey yall!!
Let's come together, lock arms, and kneel on the field!!"

Now what fool????

Did that publicity stunt stop that racist cop or citizen from shooting down an unarmed Black person????

If you have a problem with police brutality then go down to the police station where it occured and THAT will have more of an impact than throwing a temper tantrum on the football field like an overgrown child.


A White man just got off for pulling out a gun and shooting a Black man to death over a parking space down in Florida.
So what next, are Black folks going to lock arms and protest Disney World????

We need some REAL leadership today.

Del

A defense mechanism is not a sign of strength. It's an internal weakness or insecurity.

Exactly!!

And by the way, my question has YET to be answered.
 

Chevdove

It's true that many if not most Black men play a lot of games with women, however the reason is simple.....they want sex.
Most AfroAmerican men I know don't play games with women to purposely ruin their lives, hurt them, or cause confusion....these are BY PRODUCTS of their pursuit of sex.
The problem is in THIS society where the morals and rules of engagement have been set up by Caucasian men who are less focused on sex and more focused on violence and warfare....sex is pretty much either condemned or restricted to a very limited area with a limited amout of people.
Trying to live and get along in a society that wasn't designed by or for AfroAmericans forces too many of us to act outside of our nature and it leads to pathological relationships.

Cynique

If you know the answer to the question, why ask it?

I DON'T know the answer to the question.....lol.

I know it's a defense mechanism but I don't understand exactly WHO are these women trying to defend themselves from and WHAT are they trying to defend themselves from.

Clearly most of the men who end up passing the test have babies with them outside of wedlock, don't have jobs, and abuse them.

So WHO are they defending and protecting themsevles from?
Good men?

Obvioulsy bad men are passing the test for most of these women.

I don't see Asian women putting up a "defense mechanism" and they clearly have a higher incidence of positive relationships with men.
 

Not sure where Cynique is going with this thread but as far as having a "thick skin" on the internet.....it's a must.

It's a shame so many children and young adults are commiting suicided because they feel they are being "bullied" online.
Which pretty much means they're so weak-willed and desparate for the attention of social media that they can't resist the urge to stay online, even if it means being victimized.

I'm not sure if you got the clearest understanding of what I just said, but actually it's even colder than what you just described.

From a business owners perspective whether or not your employees or subjects are receiving "better opportunities" is irrelevant.
The only thing relevant is whether or not your'e getting rich or generating a profit.

Now most owners will CLAIM to be concerned or PRETNED that they care about their workers, but I don't believe most do.

So perhaps the slave owners tried to convince the SLAVES or those who witnessed the brutality of slavery from the outside that what they were doing were for the benefit of the slaves....but THEY THEMSELVES couldn't give a damn about their slaves or their benefit.
The only thing that mattered was the money and work they could get out of them.



As far as me......

I'm not fond of using other people's lables to describe myself or putting my ideaology in a box.

In today's society there word "Capitalist" could mean a million different things.
Everyone has their own definition for it.

The same thing could be said for "Socialist".

I believe in AfroAmerican controlled and influenced Free Enterprise were Black people are free to own and operate their businesses however they like as long as they aren't posing a danger to the community.

aren't you asking for proof in this statement? This reads to me as if you are asking for proof. What did I miss?

I think you're mixing up two separate statements on two separate positions....

In the case of the above quote,  I was talking about in the above quote was whether or not those in prison commit more crime than the general public.
And I wasn't so much ASKING for proof as much as I was simply establishing my disagreement on the issue unless your provided proof. But if you see this as asking for proof, OK...I can' see how it could be interpreted as that.

BUT.......

A related but SEPARATE issue that I HAVE NOT asked for proof on is whether or not less educated people are more violent.
THAT position was what I was refering too when I said I'm not asking for proof.

I know it's a defense mechanism, but I guess my question is how great is your defense if you STILL end up choosing the wrong men in your life despite your "tests".

Most of the women I know who deploy this technique have a history of miserable relationships and have several children by several "baby daddies" who obviously passed whatever test they had for them at the time.
 

Is this what writters commonly call "satire"?

Troy


If you were worth a few hundred billion of dollars could you live with yourself having the people who work for you making $9 an hour?

Let me answer your question honestly......

Yes I could, as long as that was what they agreed to work for BUT- I wouldn't, because I would pay them more.
I personally wouldn't mind taking a SLIGHT decrease in my profits to makes sure my workers are receiving a decent living wage.

However if paying them MORE than $9 an hour means I won't make a profit at all....they'll only get $9 for the time being.

The goal of most business owners isn't to be nice, or even to be fair, it's to get rich and accumulate wealth.
When we understand this, we are no longer suprised or disappointed in why they do what they do.

 

Chevdove

Glad to see you back!

The information you're providing is so powerful and detailed, it reminds me of those giants they allegedly found in western China a while back.
They were said to have blond hair and white skin.

Are you suggesting that the particular giants that you're speaking off are descendants of what many Christian scholars refer to as "fallen angels" ????




Troy

I agree that reading about a place AND visiting it would most likely be better than just flying over and visiting it with no direction or guidance; however the problem with ONLY reading about it is that you're getting SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion about a place from THEIR perspective.
Everyone processes information differently and we know how other people see life and interpret their surroundings may not always line up with yours.

I used to live down South and MY interpreration and opinion of the South is different from most of what I read about in books or online....especially articles and reports written by Caucasians.

I was born and raised in Michigan.
When I hear the word "Michigan" my understanding of the word and the images it brings will be entirely different than YOURS or someone else who knows far less about the state because of so much of the first hand knowledge I have of this place.

If given a choice between the two....and it's safe to do,,,,,it's better to go and see for yourself because you're taking in far more sensory information that match up with YOUR senses and mindset so that you can interpret and process the information in YOUR way.
Unless danger is involved, first hand direct knowledge is almost always better than second hand knowledge you're receiving from others.

Even the courts don't see eye witness testimony as very credible because of the errors in human memory and perception.

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:09 PM, Troy said:

@Pioneer1 is your argument; "He is arguing  class as  a function of income." as @Delano asserts?

 

Please answer this simple question.  Thanks.

I WOULD answer the question if I could figure it out....lol.

Can you re-phrase it or break it down to where it's a little clearer?
 

Del

I've come to the conclusion that when you sweep aside all of the insults, projecting, and trying to get into our heads to figure out what REALLY mean or how we REALLY feel.....

The fact is, I don't think Cynique even HAS a serious opinion on the subject of these corrections officers getting pregnant.
And because of that....she is trying to divert attention from it.

Troy

Pioneer why do you keep demanding proof. You have no proof and I've never said i have proof. I have presented a factual correlation. all the gradious assumptions are yours (and Del's).

I'm not asking for proof, just more evidence to JUSTIFY why you so ardently belief this.

Again, there are serious social and political implications for promoting this belief.

Do you see how evil people could use that position to PURPOSELY miseducate or undereducated an entire class of people they don't like in order to lable them as violent and use that as an excuse to eliminate them from society?

Well first of all, I never did understand why some people needed magazines and porn videos to masturbate too....lol.
I have a vivid imagination.
Even as a teenager if I was alone that night and needed to "beat that meat" all I had to do was close my eyes and Thelma Evans (among others) would pop up grinning at me.
But..............

To be honest, if I really thought they had the goods on me AND I thought paying them off would protect me.....I wouldn't have a problem paying them.
But again, those two criteria must be met.
It's not enough for them to prove they have the goods on me, they must also demostrate that me paying them will get them off my back.


It also depends on how much harm their information would cause.
I don't jack off to porn, but if they just had a picture of me nude or having sex....I ain't paying them $50, lol.

I mean, really my friends and family KNOW I have a diick and they KNOW I need to get "treated" from time to time, either by my woman or by myself...lol.

It's nature, so what....am I supposed to be "embarassed" by this or something?????

Obviously this thread is open to discussion from everyone.....
 

Cynique said something in another thread that I've been meaning to question her on for weeks but when I log on I tend to get so involved in other topics that I forget to ask.
She said:
 

"All my female friends tended to be like me. Our tough bitchy facades were almost a litmus test. If a guy could hold his own with us, we'd let down our guards and be nice and sweet. Unfortunately, i think more flunked the test than passed it. We were in the vanguard of ball-bustin' black sistas. (Something I'm not particularly proud of.)"

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/5260-what-do-you-think-of-the-ongoing-battle-between-pionner1-and-kalexander2/

Now, she already said it wasn't something she's proud of and I'm not accusing her of endorsing it, but I'm just curious as to the purpose or intent behind this behaviour because MANY women have confided in me the same thing but when I ask them why the do this most couldn't give me an answer.

I don't want to say this "dissing" of men who approach you is EXCLUSIVE among AfroAmerican women, but I've certainly observed this type of behavior since childhood even in school and I don't recall observing it or experiencing it from women of other races or ethnicities.

I remember as far back as elementary school a girl could be straight up INLOVE with a boy but will diss the hell out of him in public and repeatedly turn him down UNTIL she she sees him with another girl....then she'll break down and throw herself at him, lol
I've seen it so many times that I started playing games with girls and having a female friend PRETEND to be my girlfriend in order to get the one I wanted.
But it's a shame you have to do all of that game playing in our community.

So this is what I want to know...............


What is the REAL PURPOSE of some women insulting and berating the men who approach them even if those men may be attractive?
Clearly you're trying to weed out people....but WHO and WHY?

Are the men who "pass the test" somehow emotionally stronger or smarter than the average men?

And if so how is hooking up with THESE men (who past the test) benefiting the community?

This type of "game playing" between the men and women has been occuring for generations so:
Has it produced stronger men?
Stronger relationships?
Has it produced stronger or smarter children?

What benefit are we getting out of this type of game playing and testing that so many of our people engage in?

Del

This is why I decided to challenge that position in the first place.
Like you said, it CERTAINLY could be used as propaganda!

Those beliefs taken to the extreme could be very dangerous and damaging politically and socially in this society because it could lead to masses of people being unfairly incarcerated and quite possibly "eliminated" for no other reasons except the fact that they are considered "uneducated".

This has historically been one of the arguments for negative eugenics.

Troy

I don't really understand what you mean by that statement, but I'm sure it is not a position that I've asserted here, or in our in previous conversations, nor is it related to the title of the conversation you started: "Are Less Educated People More Prone To Violence?"

When I say I'm challenging the idea, I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue....I'm asking you to PROVE that it IS true.
And statistics on those in who are imprisoned in a legal system that requires money to adequate representation isn't my idea of proof.

 

is obvious, to any educated person, that prisoners are significantly less educated than the general public. Again there is a correlation between education and propensity to violence. This is nt really up for debate. We can debate the reasons for this correlation, but I suspect we will find common ground there.

Yes, I agree that those in prison are less educated than those in the general public.
But what I can't agree on...unless you can find me proof....is that those in prison actually COMMIT MORE CRIME (violent or otherwise) than those in the general public.
By continuing to use that example you're making two broadbased assumptions:

1. You're assuming that everyone in prison are actually guilty of the crimes they are accused of.
2. And likewise you're also assuming that people who are freely walking around in the general public are typically law abiding and non-violent.


I've said before that there are many reasons to CONSIDER why a person may be in prison besides the fact that they are guilty.
-not being able to afford decent representations to clear them (one of the biggest reasons)
-not having the right connections to keep them out of jail
-not being smart enough to keep from getting caught while the smarter person who commited the same crime had a better plan

There are far too many factors involved in why some people are incarcerated and others aren't than them simply being more violent.

I'd like to return to my examples of TRAINED/EDUCATED police officers and military members who engage in far more violence than the average citizen including those who are less educated.

They assault and KILL people.....but arent' incarcerated for it.
How many soldiers do you know have been imprisoned for the killing they've done?

You can't point to those incarcerated as an example of the most violent individuals in society.
 

This is why I am turning to eastern teachings to change the perspective that I have been raised with,

Have you considered that most East Asians are abandoning or have abandoned THEIR OWN  traditional "eastern teachings" for a more Western lifestyle?

Look at Japan, Korea, China, ect.......
For generations now they have abandoned much of that traditonal culture to adopt Western economic, social, and even moral standards.

Even after war with the West and having two of their major cities nuked and hundreds of thousands of their own people maimed and killed by the West, the Japanese have almost totally submerged themselves into Western culture.

There is a reason for this.

Troy


Cynique has been called a LOT of things on these forums over the past 15 years or so but "nonsensical" is not one of them,
 

I'm not trying to put words in Del's mouth but I'm assuming that he called her response to my post "emotional and nonsensical" for the same reasons I thought it was......because it was entirely unwarranted and unrelated to the conversation.

Me and you were talking about class and income and all of a sudden she  leaps in and launches a demonic tirade calling me a loser who hangs out at starbucks begging for spare change and conversation....lol.
Now you'd have to admit that emotional outburst WAS a little over the top.


Why is it so hard for us to stay focused on the topic without the insults?

I've articulated my point that those corrections officers most likely came from the middle class.
Not necessarily the UPPER middle class, but still in the middle....now can anyone disprove that statement with SOLID EVIDENCE that most correction's officers come from either wealth or poverty?