Troy

Women, with a better than a high school education, are this site's largest demographic. Opinionated adjective: (1) conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions. (2) having and expressing very strong ideas and opinions about things As far as opinionated I guess it depends upon the way you are using the word. I tend to find you often more characteristic of the first definition. This is based upon our interactions, For example, when you asserted Black girls are the largest demographic of college students (factually inaccurate), and was presented with a simple question which would make the truth plain, you resorted to Sarainistic replies, rather than simply conceding you made a mistake. Now it is great to have strong ideas and opinions, as in the second definition of the word--in fact this forum would be boring without people who have them. Of course you fall into this category as well. But often there is a thin line between strong opinion and dogmatism. I guess from time to time we are all guilty of it; but rarely does one who is called on it back up and say, "you know you are right, I need to rethink my position." Instead they generally dig their heels in deeper--which defeats the biggest benefit participating in these forums growing by learning from other.

Great line up! Many are firends of the AALBC.com website. In fact Zetta Elliott just guest blogged for us: “Who Will Write a Story for the Children of Eric Garner?” I have already added this event to our events calendar.

There have been many books written n the subject of technology and one's feeling of "disconnectedness" I blogged about some of the more popular book in his vein here. One of the books, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other by Sherry Turkle get deep into this.

@Pioneer1, that is exactly why I choose that particular word. There probably aren't many places where few places I could use it where folks would "get it."

sa·ra·ian: adjective: Hyperbolic, unsubstantiated conclusion fueled on emotion, ignorance, or desire to obfuscate an issue. Typically utilized when facts, reason or logic can not be applied.

Thanks for sharing the additional information. Once Facebook opens the floodgates does anyone one, for a split second, think their Blog posts will be seen as many times as a big corporation's content? Sure we have to compete with corporations on the World Wide Web, but the web, even with Google's dominating search, is far more democratic that Facebook. Where else can you quadruple your fan base and see your reach drop by 75%? Whats next promoted (paid) Facebook Instant posts? I don't serve a lot of Ads on AALBC.com. This discussion forum only has two. I could very easily quadruple the number of ads and even embedded them in the posts (like Facebook), but I hate sites which inundate you with advertising. Facebook also recognizes too many ads spoil the experience, hence the limit. But again Facebook can afford the limit the ads because they are not paying for the content creation. I hear you Mel regarding the selling of advertising, but here is the trade off. I'm giving content to Facebook for a marginal increase in reach, which will likely come at the expense of reach that I would have gotten directly. All content producers should boycott this Facebook "service." Then what would Facebook do? I guess Facebook would have to create content and compete like everyone else. Which would not be a bad idea for them since they have the platform and already know how to control people. They could run the HuffPost Okie Doke and get people to write for free--just for the privileged of being on Facebook. Indeed many of us do this already...

Cynique, you touch more people than you may appreciate :-) Your stories are important for they are a historical record. I will do my best to ensure they, as well as everyone else's thought are preserved.

Here is a more balanced take on Facebook's Instant Articles. If anyone finds a Black platform talking about this subject in a critical way please post a link. My Huria Search, shows Black sites just sharing Facebook's press release, which is not news but free propaganda/promotion for Facebook.

Hi @Mel, I finally got a chance to watch this video. This is a brilliant idea, beautifully packaged, and presented in a compelling fashion. While I was watching this video I was tapping my foot trying to figure out how one is compensated for providing Facebook with all this compelling content. Over 2 minutes into this 3 minute video they finally said, "publishers can bring their ads with them." But it is not clear to me how this ad presentation will work from watching the video. I'm still not moved, and actually have a problem with, Facebook constantly telling us how many people they have on their platform, as a selling point to convince publishers to give them FREE content. Our platform’s potential audience is not Facebook, but the World Wide Web itself, which will ALWAYS have more people! Content does not just pop out of thin air, we pay to have it produced, or spend a great deal of time and effort creating it. Why for, God's sake, would anyone give content to Facebook for free. This allows Facebook to monetize the traffic and the visitor behavior without having incur the expensive of generating content of their own. This is why we have our own websites. So, I'm supposed to pay writers, edit the copy, produce video, gather images, format it for Facebook system, and just hand it over to Facebook—for free? No. They need to pay. The notion that Facebook can deliver content to mobile users, better than a major content producer is silly too. First, 4G mobile phones can download content faster than most people can receive it with the cable connection at home. Nobody waits 10 seconds for a page to load on a 4G phone. There is nothing that Facebook is doing that National Geographic (the subject of the video) could not do better on their own website. Also, publishers can only do what Facebook allows them to do, which is a very limited subset of what is possible. This, I argue, is what is curbing creativity on the web. Facebook's content will always be presented in a less compelling fashion than what is possible on the web. This is not to suggest that websites always get it right. In fact, most of they time they don't. But the imperfect world of the World Wide Web, is what makes it beautiful, The stale, cookie cutter world which FaceBook promises is far less desireable. Besides, why would major companies so willingly give one company so much power? If Facebook is not paying National Geographic for the right to publish their content then Facebook is simply brilliant and National Geographic are fools, or engaged in a desperation move (are print publications in THAT much trouble?) Also giving content to Facebook introduces another gatekeeper controlling who can see your content. I often lament the control Google exerts as a gatekeeper in terms of the discovery of content on the web. But while I have my complaints about Google, they are more focused on providing you with the best answers to your searches. Facebook, in contrast, is concerned with delivering content that will keep you engaged with their platform. Their is a profound difference between the two. Google sends you to websites most likely to help and inform you. Facebook presents you with content most likely to keep you on their platform so that they can maximize their revenue. Whether you are helped or informed is incidental. If all the major content providers give their content to Facebook, then users may feel completed to go to Facebook, which increases Facebook's stranglehold on the net and when on entity exerts this much control we are all worse off.

... courtesy of my favorite racist spammer -- Unkel Ruckus. The funny thing is that I had to think a few seconds before I put 2-and-2 together to get the stupid joke. I didn't recognize any of the women.

I send her some book recommendations and my latest Black History Month post and was unfriended

24th Day of ‪#‎BlackHistoryMonth‬ - Zora Neale Hurston’s - Glossary of Harlem Slang

Pioneer, don't even play; Xeon and Sara are clearly not the same person.

I get friend requests like this on a regular, almost daily basis. I noticed this trend last year. But it seems to be getting worse lately. I know one of Facebook's biggest challenges is dealing with stuff like this as these pages surely contain links to sites with viruses, malware, spam you name it--which you can quickly spread to others. Usually the images are not quite so pronographic, typically a provocative bathroon mirror selfie, but sometimes the images are FAR worse (or better depending upon your predictions). This is the the kind of photo that gets a site banned from Google, but Facebook is strong enough in that they don't have to worry about what Google thinks.

@Pioneer1 I ain't studying Sara. Rest assured there is nothing she could write to brew animosity between you and me.

Well this is the only video I ever loaded directly onto Facebook. Facebook do provide some data on views. My video was viewed 98 times (defined as someone who watched the video for at least 3 seconds). Of those viewers, on Facebook, only watched it for longer than 30 seconds. That is pretty much all I got, but it is enough to tell me virtually no one watched the full video on Facebook. Further given the nature of content on Facebook it ages out very quickly meaning I'm not likely to get more viewers of the video. I did however pin the video to the top of the page, as I don;t plan to add any more content to my Facebook page (save the Black history month posts which are shared remotely). YouTube stats are a lot better because the average view time was 3:37 on 24 views over the last 2 days, I also got two subscribers. I posted the video on my website yesterday, so it will get a lot more traction here than on Facebook, so I expect the YouTube views to be steadier over time, while Facebook views have already petered out.

23th Day of #BlackHistoryMonth Wallace Thurman author of The Blacker the Berry..., one of the most widely read and controversial works of the Harlem Renaissance

Chris the embedded video did not get any more exposure than my average post. I think the videos that get more exposure are the funny, meme like ones, not some dude talk about his website :-) These snapshots were taken this morning. The Favorite 100 titles shows about 6 times the reach as the video, but was only on Facebook two times as long. People like lists.

Yes I'm familiar with all of these points. And I stand by the statement. First, my statement does not suggest that people should not be accountable for their behavior that was a conclusion of "Saraian" proportions. To clarify further: We all should all be held accountable for our behavior. Where we differ perhaps is who to blame for our predicament. If you know our history in the country, you know the vast majority of the time we have been here we were either enslaved or living under legalized apartheid, which did not end until the 1950's! Needless to say the racism still continues -- but even if it was wiped out completely when Jim Crow ended, who would think a people would reverse 100's of years of oppressions in less than a lifetime. We have to fight racism AND be accountable for our behavior. Dealing with only one of these problems will end in failure. 100 years ago we were compelled to depend on each other for survival. I believe it was for this reason we were able to build communities like Black Wall Street in Tulsa. Today those of means would rather live in a white neighborhood. Today we depend upon the government. If you are familiar with the Moynihan (Moynihan graduated from my neighborhood high school) Report, you are also aware of the discussion around social programs that were put place and worsened conditions in urban centers by creating incentives for dysfunctional behavior. For example, to get government assistance you could not have a man in the house. The film Claudine, illustrates this brilliantly. The more kids you had the bigger the check. 100 years ago we educated our own children--because we had too. We created great institutions of higher education. Today those very same institutions struggle for survival. Why? Because our best, brightest, and most financially well off rather go to white schools, ghettoizing HBCU's I have a the same question for you @Xeon: Why do you think Black folks 100 years ago did not suffer the crushing exigent dysfunction and intra-group violence as Negroes in 2016?

Good points Kids sitting around all day playing video games all day simply illustrates is that young boys don't know what is best for themselves. Sure, video games, TV, and Social media are for more engaging than sitting in front of unskilled teacher with little passion for her the subject matter trying to teach a room full of Black boys she can't relate to and probably don't like very much. Kids would absolutely run around and play, but who would they play with when everyone else is on Snapchat?

Feminine/masculine behavior is defined by the culture. As discussed these cultural norms are changing rapidly in the US, and vary from region to region. If we are lucky our nature dovetails well with the culture. Men are typically stronger than, in a culture in which we hunted animals for our very survival this was a great characteristic to have, today the only benefit might be in attracting a mate, for the wimpiest dude in the world can go shopping and score dinner. In the classroom, kids need to run around and burn off energy. Sitting behind a desk all day is hard for all kids but even harder for boys (not in all cases but on average). So it really depends upon how you define "behaving" yourself. In the anecdote cited by Chris; does it make sense to punish a boy for not sitting with his knees together? We can define noncompliance with this rule as misbehaving, or lacking discipline. But more often than not these rules made up by women often conflict with very nature of boys. Also I'm not for one second saying that we all have to do things that go against our nature we do, but Black boys are asked to do it more often than any other group I suspect. Besides the gender bias, they also have to contend with the race bias--which is substantial.

Simply Southern, have you had any training in writing? If not, I would take some classes to learn the craft and join a writers group to get some serious critique of your work. If you are a novelist you would really need to have a completed manuscript before you do anything. I would suggest you even have it professionally edited before trying to find an agent. Big publishers (those who pay advances) typically toss unagented manuscripts. I attended a seminar recently where someone suggested the following. Paying for the deluxe service at Publishers Market Place ($25 per month). Then review their deal database. Look for books similar to yours and see who the agent was. This will take some grunt work, but you can come away with a really targeted list of agents who have recently done deals for books like yours. I often recommend The Guide to Literary Agents, which is absolutely better than nothing, but if you have the time, using the technique above will give you more timely results.

Cynique, to be clear: If a girl is a a tom-boy, and a boy is effeminate by nature that is one thing. What I am saying is that women teachers, often without realizing it, reward feminine behavior and punish masculine behavior. Of course people are on a broad spectrum with it comes to behaviors and sexuality, you will find men who exhibit what would be considered traditionally feminine behavior. There are some guys that don't have an aggressive or competitive bone in the bodies. They would have enjoyed playing board games with my mom and sister, but you would want them on your football team. These guys would probably do very well in your garden variety female run and administered classroom. Oh and sexulaity is indeed distinct from gender. Which is why you have people who are homosexual after a sex change.

Xeon, I put up profiles, on the site, for people like Thomas Sowell (I read most of his books), Shelby Steele, and others. Occasionally get grief about it from other Black folks. The stereotypical southern Black has more in common, with the republican platform that the democratic one, anti-gay marriage, Christian, conservative, but votes democratic. This is why Ben Carson was embraced by southern Blacks--despite the apparent Blacks folks in the major urban centers not understanding this. Of course Black in our majority urban centers also vote democratic. As far as are party affiliation is concerned we are a monolithic group. But that does not matter very much as our concerns have not been much of a factor since the Civil Rights Movement. During this most recent election cycle we been hearing a lot more about the adverse impact Bill Clinton had on the Black community. As a result, I think Bernie has a strong chance to win the democratic nomination. If this happens I think the republican--even if it is Trump, which seems likely, will win.

“so you'll see a straight man who likes women but has a lisp and bashful demeanor.” I don't know about that one @Pioneer I'd be willing to bet this is exceedingly rare; like 4 standard deviations for men with those characteristics.