Troy

Hi Richard for those interested in a physical copy maybe I can help make this happen. Let me read through the information you have shared here what you have shared here.

If you can get to Harlem and want to celebrate Black literature with the folks who create and produce it, join us at our annual Harlem Fete. When: Monday December 4th 2017, 6 to 8 p.m. Where: Settepani 196 Lenox Ave (at the corner of SE corner of 120th street), in Harlem New York More information: 919-492-4806 RSVP: annualharlemfete@gmail.com Just a few photos from last year's celebration:

LOL! @Delano I would think less of you if you would not to disagree with me simply because it puts you into the same camp as Pioneer. So I'll ask you the same question Del. If the universe has a creator, is it logical reasonable to assume that the creator of the universe must also have a creator? If yes why. If not why not?

{sighs with exasperation} @Pioneer1 The dictionary just describes how the race is used. It is not a scientific definition. Wikipedia is not the best sources of information, but if you read the entire document, you will see the evolution of the word over time and across cultures. It also describes how the science has evolved leading to the knowledge that race is purely a social construct. There is no basis in our genetics to allow us to categorize us into "races." All of this information is in the document that YOU referenced Pioneer. It is amazing how people can read a document and come away with completely difference conclusions. But why am I surprised people do this with the Bible, and Cynique can do the with a Merrian Webster article Now I know old habits die hard, and I have had to change my thinking in race too. Dude there is only once human race. I know stubborn and uninformed people will continue say brown skinned people are in the Black race and pink people are in the white race. They will continue to apply all of the racial stereotypes that go with the categorization (i.e. people whose eyes don't have the epicanthic fold are better at math) long after we are gone...

The Tuskegee Experience was evil and terrible, but it was never proven that the men were given syphilis, they were simply not treated for it. To make matters worse, when the men got some other illness, that required antibiotics, medication was withheld as not to screw up the "experiment." So it was a statewide conspiracy. The monster in charge (I forget his name) went to work in (for) NYC... Now we have kids here with not just lead poisoning but all kinds of dysfunction resulting in hyper-incareation, low graduation rate from crappy schools....hmmm @Pioneer1 maybe you are on to something.

I'm not playing the victim. I do not feel victimized nor did I ever imply such a thing. I simply expressed my feelings on the issue. I'm not sure where you are getting the "playing the victim" sentiment from. I can only presume it is your imagination, a reflection of what is in your head. Are you trying to victimize me? You must know by now I've been harassed by people, on this forum, who are far more vile than you might imagine, some of this stuff has even made it onto the board, some I've even shared because i thought it was comical. Playing the victim is not my role, or nature. I'm surprised you would try to pull that one on me My grammer is impeccable, but you already know this. It is also the reason why I generally refrain from using words like f*uck, bromance, or mansplain.

Well @Cynique, I've said my peace on the word. I'm not sure if you understand my point since your entire reaction was spent picking apart and rejecting what I wrote. I'm surprised you did not go after my grammar again...Nuff said. Hi Sarah, do you have a website? Why don't you post a link to it, and save anyone who is interested a step. Thanks

OK let me try a different approach @Cynique: The reality is that I dislike all words in the "mansplain" category. When we artificially combin words like "Bromance," "Manbun," and "Manslain" We become less clear. Besides words like this are inherently sexist. If two men love each other it is just love. If a man wears a bun it is just a bun. The male gender qualifier diminishes the thing it is applied to as if it is only for women. Does this make sense? If a man carries a bag to hold things, it is not a "manbag." it is just a damn bag. If a man explains something it is just an explanation. If the mans does it in a condescending manner it is an explanation done condescendingly It does not matter if the target is a woman or a man; condescension is gender neutral, for women can be condescending too. We do not need words like mansplain, womansplain, Blacksplain, gaysplain, jewsplain, or any of these useless combinations. Again, applying the gender qualifier is unnecessary at best and sexist at worst. The later is virtually always the intent. So cynique you may disagree with the sexist nature of this type of language or may have been completely obvious to it. But when a racist behaves in a racist manner they too can be caught off guard and surprised by the reaction. Hey @Del that is very interesting--maybe you are right. I think my reasoning above may explain why. What do you think?

Well that would be true if you buy into the premise that this was a conspiracy in the first place. I do not believe that white people got together and say hey well can damage some Black people if we introduce led into their environments. I do not believe white conspired to do this. Now hite folks have conspired to to some really devilish sht against Black folks. I dn not think this is one of them. The world already knows the U.S. does not give a crap about the future.

I'm gonna get you @Cynique Y'all looking good.

What?! @Pioneer1 that statement is illogical. If it is true then who created the "Someone" that brought the universe into existence? As you can see you can infinitely regress and get nowhere with this. "Creation" is just our limited way of understand the order of things. It is based upon the passage of time which is how we perceive the universe, but time may not be the true nature of the universe.

@Pioneer1, the science is clear. There is only one race and the world is an oblate spheroid not flat. This is not "my word" or "your word." These are just facts man. Again, this is my point: you have no problem disputing facts based upon your own limited knowledge and intuition. The only saving grace in our conversation is that you now know the truth. Now if you continue to reject that reality and form conclusions based upon this falsehood, that is up to you. But once someone makes it clear to me that the will reject facts in favor of their opinion I try not to pursue the argument any future. I did previously present you with a lot of information, but I guess you missed, ignored, or failed to understand it. At this point you can simply look it up on your own.

@Pioneer1 you continually assert there is a Black race, a white race, as well as a few others.

I'm not familiar with this Brother, but he has a nice website, a book, and a documentary film (trailer below). He apparently grew up in a housing in project, like myself. Black civilization predates and informs Judaism

The following is excerpted from a Harvard Business Review article, "When Do Company Boycotts Work?" Customers must care passionately. For customers to participate in a boycott they must passionately care about an issue. The main driver is moral outrage. Examples are violation of human rights, firmly held religious beliefs (e.g. the boycott over Danish products in Muslim countries after a controversial cartoon in a Danish newspaper), discrimination, betrayal, and so forth. The cost of participation must be low. Smart activists make it easy for customers to participate in a boycott. They target a single company so that customers have plenty of alternatives or a single product. This is one reason why retailers and oil companies make good boycott targets. It is easy for customers to shop somewhere else. Entertainment companies (e.g. Disney) are much harder to boycott successfully, especially if their products are unique. The issues must be easy to understand. Activists often fail to effectively communicate their objectives in a simple manner. PETA’s McCruelty campaign, for example, has had limited impact in part because the underlying issues are complex and not intuitive. Boycotting fur, however, is easy to understand. The mass media is still essential. While social media platforms have made it easier for activists to gain support, activists need coverage in the mass media for a boycott to be successful. Such coverage can then steer viewers to the relevant social media sights. Media coverage requires strong audience interest and a connection to an issue that the audience passionately cares about. Publicity stunts, such as occupying a building or involving celebrities, generate audience interest, but they must connect to a bigger topic. Greenpeace succeed in its campaign in large part by framing the issue about disposal of the Brent Spar as a recycling issue, a passionate topic among the German public.

OK @Cynique, it has been 5 days of back and forth mansplaining, manslain and we have gotten no where. Did you forget that it was you you started this? I wrote; "Well one of y'all please mansplain "Wednesday Thursday Friday" to me 'cause I did not get it." and you replied; "A man can't "mansplain" to another man. Mansplaining involves a man regurgitating what a woman has already said, or a man cluelessly attempting to clarify what a woman has figured out for herself." Your reaction to my statement and your ongoing defense of it, is why I thought you took this seriously. If you did not care, why didn't you just let my statement slide? The lady doth protest too much, methinks (since you love the British and their dictionaries so much )

LITTLE MAN, LITTLE MAN is James Baldwin's, first and only book, for children. He described it as a “celebration of the self-esteem of black children.” In the book's new introduction it is suggest that audiences at the time the book was originally published feel audiences were not ready for Baldwin's perspective, which might explain the book’s initial reception.

The only thing fueling this conversation was you rejecting my use of the word and me defending my position. I see you won't even concede that the word is not in M-W. Rather you've scoured the Earth and found a definition a British dictionary: mansplain VERB [WITH OBJECT] informal (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. Here too, there is no requirement that the the target of the manspliation has to be a woman. While that is "typical" it is not a requirement. I will continue to use the word in the fashion that I have been (mansplaining to a man), for it is correct usuage. Look the use of an informal word or a very malleable. Indeed the use of the English in information conversation is. Remember when "gay" meant "happy?" Today no man would not describe themselves as "gay" unless they were homosexual, no matter how happy they were. Maybe I'd describe myself as mansplaining to a guy I wanted to disparage because one only typically mansplains to a woman. Or maybe, one would request a mansplaication to highlight the idiocy of the request or the expected definition. Sorry Cynique the word has evolved just as quickly as it was coined.

It looks like I may be missing a couple of Ghettoheat titles in my database. Please post the ISBNs.

Allow me to mansplain; what you keep describing as a definition from Merriam Webster is NOT a definition. As you wrote it is described as a word "we are watching" for potential inclusion in their dictionary. Understand, or do I have to mansplain further? @Cynique, if you actually read the entire text for understanding, rather than cherry picking it to support an erroneous position, you would have included the thesis statement from the article (the very first paragraph, emphasis mine): We haven't seen adverbial use yet, but we're keeping our eyes open. The word's death knell has been sounded—it's so broadly applied that some say that any time a man opens his mouth he's accused of mansplaining—but mansplain is clearly not going to be dropping out of use any time soon. Clearly, at least to anyone actually interested in understanding, it does not seem likely that they will be including the word in their dictionary any time soon. This is just reading comprehension. Accusing me of refusing to use Google is a silly and disingenuous. I'd already found, via Google, and read the article from Merriam Webster before you posted the broken link to it the first time. It fact, I used it to support my argument. Astonishingly, you tried to use the very same article to support an opposing position?! Also, pointing out my typos is an unnecessary diversionary tactic. You obviously understood what I meant. I was going to ask more than one question but changed my mind and never changed questions to question... If something is unclear ask for clarity. Another weak tactic is ignoring the facts I've presented and accusing it of being "emotional thing" with me. You know me better than that. Besides you are as fully engaged in this debate as I am, but I have not accused you of being "emotional." I don't have to my position is much stronger. Yes the term is derogatory, for the reason Merriam Webster described in the quote above. If you read the linked article, "death knell has been sounded," you'll find more reasons.

This is so very deep. Cynique the idea that we can't, while sitting in front of a computers, even agree on whether a word is in the dictionary is exasperating to the point of being "Pioneeric." I have the MW app on the cell phone app; mansplain is not coming up there either. I showed you a reference from the MW website where they explain why the word is not in their dictionary. Still you want to insist the work is there, with only your word and broken link to back you up. I guess that is what they mean by alternate facts. Will any amount of mansplaining get you to see reality? @Del Cynique must be a fixed Sun sign like Taurus or Leo huh? OK @Cynique I have a simple questions for you. Would you want to see a journalist use the word in a new story? For example; "The Minnesota congressman mansplained the new legislation to group of educators at the Association of American Educators conference on Thursday." Yes or No?

LOL, being accessed of mansplaining is what drives men to cheat. I beg to differ with you on many points @Cynique; It is women, not men, who initially perverted the term by misuse it in the ways that I described earlier. Mansplain is not in the Merriam Webster dictionary. The link you provided is broken. Here is a article describing Merriam Websters's stance on the "word." The "Urban Dictionary" is not a formal dictionary. Sure, mansplain can be considered an idiom, but that does not make it a real word; one that is found in a proper dictionary and is appropriate for formal communication. You may love language, but surely you must appreciate that the use of words like "mansplain" distorts language. There are much better, and clearer, ways of expressing oneself. Naa'mean?

Found at the top of my Facebook feed the other day.

Cynique, do I have to mansplain "mansplain" to you? I gave you a definition of Mansplaining which you have either ignored or rejected. My use is not unprecedented: Beside this is not really a word. It is like arguing about the definition of "troysplain." The word does not appear in the word in the Merriam Webster dictionary. The Atlantic defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman" In the vast majority of the "definitions" I've read, there is no requirement for mansplaining to be done by a man to a woman as you asserted. Generally qualifier "often or "usually" is used. @Cynique, why insist upon "proper use" of a word that has no official definition?