Jump to content
harry brown

Chicago, 21 Shot,2 Dead.

Recommended Posts

Chicago. Street. Gangs,  News. Says,21. People. Shot,2 Dead,I. Think. Past. Weekend.  Some. Black. Males. In. Gangs,Are 2nd ,3rd. Generations. In. Gangs,Black. Man. Said. On. The. News..High. unemployment ..  As. Church. Preachers. Drive,In. Rich. Cars,Bentleys,Merceds Benz ,Lexus,Preacher. Creflo -Dollar,  Had. 2. Rolls. Royce Cars,I. Think.  T.  D.  Jake's ,Private,Jet.  Preachers. Do. Not. Care. About. Children,Poor,Communities ..Politicians,NAACP,,Preachers ,Controlling. Black. Votes,Wanting. Black. People. Money,Church. Money. United. Could. Help. Start. Black. Businesses ....Send. Black. Children. To. College. From. Poor,Inner. City. Schools.  We. Need. Black. Leaders. With. The,Kwanzaa Principle. Thinking....Black. People. Enslave. Themselves.  Black. Leaders. Enslave. Their. Own. People..  On,The. News. Elijah. Cummings. Close. To. Tears. Last. Week,About. Trumps Children. Jail. Cages .  Maxine. Waters,Saying. People. Should. Confront. People. Who. Support. Trump.  Waiting. For. Maxine. Waters. To. Talk. About,Confronting. Street. Gangs,Crack. Sellers,Pimps. Who,Prostitute. Teenage. Girls. .Preachers. who. Steal,Church,Money. To. Buy. Cars,Fancy. Suits,Mansions ,Women   Preachers. As. Vile. As. The. Men...Moral. Voice,John. Lewis. ,Silent..  Maxine. Waters,Elijah. Should. Talk. About. Black. Police. Silent,As. Innocent. Unarmed. Black. Males,Shot,Dead. By. Racist. White. Police.....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, harry brown said:

Maxine. Waters,Saying. People. Should. Confront. People. Who. Support. Trump.  Waiting. For. Maxine. Waters. To. Talk. About,Confronting. Street. Gangs

 

Don't hold your breath.  45 is an easy target and comforting a gang is a whole 'nother ball game. Many of the problem was have we can solve ourselves, but we don;t because we've been largely trained to support the entities that don;t care about us, while not supporting each other.

 

I don't know how to change that other than trying not to do it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'carryover' no-one's talking about is the encouragement, validity 45, his racist administration, and white supremacist supporters make of violence and crime; not to mention the NRA.  Blacks, young and old are emboldened by lack of consistent, fair administration of justice and tolerance of all kinds of social deviance; actually practiced by leaders at all levels and backgrounds.  

 

And it seems the direction of America's going to be constant before it changes course - if it changes at all.  The racist agenda works out better during Black-on-Black crime, Black gang activity is an added bonus for militarized police departments and the Trump agenda.  Throw in MS13, they might start opening re-education camps for all Black folk.  Separating families and jailing babies says tons what they'll do to Black young adults.

 

Most Black churches or organizations are brought, paid for and awaiting orders to justify abuse under the guise of "upholding the law, giving the impression of doing their part to make America safe by getting rid of problem Blacks."  When 99% of all Blacks are marginalized, discriminated against, and victimized by economic inequality.  We're all problem Blacks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the problems in Chicago isn't simply the EXISTENCE of the gangs, but how they're structured today.

Gangs today are far more loosely structured today and fragmented than they were in the 50s and 60s. when you had CLEAR leadership with rules and even discipline in the gangs among themselves.

After the 70s when most of the leaders were taken to jail the younger members were left on the streets with no discipline and no one to really answer to.

I'm not sure about Chicago or New York but in Detroit back in the 70s if you go into a neighborhood and your car go stolen there was somebody you could talk to who KNEW who stole it and you could either negotiate it back or pay for it back.
If someone got killed....the criminal leaders underground KNEW who did it.

After the 80s with the drugs and break up of the gangs, all types of madness started happening and no one could figure out who was shooting who over what.



I've said it before and I'll say it again.....

The ONLY time the crime and violence problem in the inner cities of America will be solved is when RIGHTEOUS BLACK MEN organize and march in ranks into those communities to solve it OURSELVES.

Expect no other demographic to solve the problem for us, for a number of reasons:

1. Most other people don't give a damn if about Black people killing eachother.
They didn't step in when negroes were killing eachother in Rwanda, so why would they step in in Chicago or Los Angeles or Houston???

2. Most other people are TOO SCARED of Black males to try to confront and check them. Which is why even trained police officers still often use deadly force against unarmed men rather than trying to confront them and de-escalate the situation.

When Trump talks about sending in the Feds to solve the crime problem in Chicago; he's not talking about sending in psychologists and mental health experts to HELP solve the reasons for crime in the first place.
He's talking about using heavy handed policing and possibly military action.

But when Black men are too lazy or indifferent to their own demographic to solve our own problems, what else can we expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is convenient for law enforcement, and routine for the media,  the violence in Chicago is permitted to be referred to as "gang-related", but a closer look proves this to be less than accurate.  Most of the shootings going on between young black males in Chicago are about personal beefs and slights, many of which originate on FaceBook and are committed by individuals  for reasons others would consider trivial.  Just as many of the city's murders are related to domestic violence or romantic entanglements, or felonies such as car jacking and armed robbery and even road rage!  And make no mistake about it, white people and Hispanics also do their share of killing each other. 

 

The idea that all of the slayings in Chi-town are the result of gangs feuding with each other is misleading.  It's more about a culture where individuals settle their personal grievances with guns, and this has gotten out of control.  BTW, there are other cities whose violence quota is just as high or higher than Chicago's. 

 

Maxine Waters has taken on the role of "rabble rouser", doing this as a way to dramatically protest social injustice.  Public officials have not earned immunity from being  harassed by their detractors.   Sarah Hucklebeast, Trump's lying mouthpiece, doesn't command or deserve any respect.   All of this talk  by Liberals about "civility"  stems, in part, from the squeaky-clean Obamas prating about how when others went "low", they went "high". Puleeze.   Doing that doesn't have an effect on the unscrupulous and victorious Republicians who couldn't care less about being fair and polite.  That fool in the white house set the tone early on during his campaign and all of the squabbling currently going on between Americans can be laid squarely at his big smelly feet! His slogan should be "Make America Hate Again" because nothing about this country under him is "great".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cynique said:

"Make America Hate Again" because nothing about this country under him is "great".   

 

WORD!!!

 

I seriously doubt America was ever great.  liberation from the oppression of white European rule by colonialists never make America great, indeed, they weren't even Americans, just seekers of freedom to continue the white legacy of mass genocide, xenophobia, and white supremacy; wasn't democracy at all.  Their success only mocked rights of who gets to be in-charge.  Hence, the U.S. Constitution.

 

There's no such thing as a Black leader today, at least not in the sense of unity seeking common ground on which to struggle.  They died out with the deaths of MLK and M.X,  And even they disagreed as to direction.  Maxine Waters is a politician; just as Barack Obama and all the other Blacks with a so-called plan for Black America.  Consumerism and grandstanding have replaced their priorities which they hide under white social norms of living.  In the name of survival of the fittest or, "if you can't beat them, join them" rationale.  The former of which even I stand guilty because I see myself as fit to survive more than the 'average' person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Reuters) – Pennsylvania prosecutors on Wednesday charged an East Pittsburgh police officer with homicide in the shooting death last week of an unarmed black teenager, the latest in a string of U.S. police killings of black men that has sparked nationwide protests.

 

Officer Michael Rosfeld, 30, surrendered to face a single criminal count for killing 17-year-old Antwon Rose on June 19 as the officer was searching for suspects after a drive-by shooting that wounded one. Authorities have not specified the type of homicide charge that Rosfeld will face.

Video of the incident, showing two men running from a car that was stopped by police and falling to the ground amid the sound of gunfire, sparked several nights of protests around Pittsburgh.

 

A series of police killings of black men in U.S. cities in recent years has fueled a national debate about racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Also on Wednesday, a white police officer in Kingsland, Georgia was arrested and will face voluntary manslaughter and other charges related to the June 21 fatal shooting of a black man fleeing after a traffic stop.

 

Zechariah Presley turned himself in and will face charges in the death of Tony Green, 33, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said on Twitter.

Black clergy and the NAACP have held prayer vigils and protests since the shooting occurred, local media reported. Kingsland is about 35 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida.

 

Few of the officers who have faced charges for the killings have been convicted. U.S. laws give police broad powers to use deadly force when they believe their lives or the lives of others are in danger.

 

I'd bet a dime to dollar neither one these murderers get convicted!  violence in America is as normal as white media and officials using the 'N' word.  But Black violence in Chicago rampant, they say? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does it matter whether or not the young people killing eachother have actually pledged loyalty to a particular gang or not?


Whether the young man dies from the bullets of a rival gangster's uzi, or from the bullets of an old rusty .32 fired by a jealous boyfriend......he's just as dead.

And the deep seated motives behind the violence are still the same:

-Low self esteem and hatred of self and those who look like self (which is why white women can walk their dogs and go jogging through the roughest neighborhoods in the the city and not worry about being attacked)
-Drug and alcohol abuse
-Entertainment (music, video games, ect...) that encourage reckless violence
-Proliferation of guns among those not trained to respect and handle them

The violence that's been going on in urban America for the past 30 years or so has deserved "state of emergency" status as far as I'm concerned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/26/2018 at 10:46 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Much of the problems in Chicago isn't simply the EXISTENCE of the gangs, but how they're structured today.

Gangs today are far more loosely structured today and fragmented than they were in the 50s and 60s. when you had CLEAR leadership with rules and even discipline in the gangs among themselves.

This is the introduction to your "dissertation" on gang life, which you have now abandoned in favor on another "dissertation wherein you offer "revelations"  about a certain element of black youth, revelations that are news to no one. 

 

Black problems and what causes them have been discussed here and on all the other social media discussion boards ad infinitum, and everybody just parrots the same ol tired litany.  As far as urban violence goes, one thing that needs to be acknowledged is that there are programs and resources available and 2-parent homes within the black middle class which turn out young black men who are not losers.  Furthermore,  until a way is found to put white, racist, trigger-happy cops in check,  the personal profiles of  black youth  don't matter. 

 

16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

...(which is why white women can walk their dogs and go jogging through the roughest neighborhoods in the the city and not worry about being attacked)

Oh, really? This may be true in Detroit, but it is most definitely not the case in Chicago.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cynique

 

Black problems and what causes them have been discussed here and on all the other social media discussion boards ad infinitum, and everybody just parrots the same ol tired litany.


Show me on any other discussion board where someone else has suggested that righteous Black men organize and march into the ghettoes of America to clean them up.

The only other group that I can think of who has seriously proposed this is the Nation of Islam.

 

 

 

 

there are programs and resources available and 2-parent homes within the black middle class which turn out young black men who are not losers.


Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "loser".

In my opinion, a healthy young Black man isn't a "loser" simply because he may be incarcerated or financially broke.

The problem MAY NOT lay with him, but in the SOCIETY that he's living in.

The same young Black man on the street who is feared and reviled by society and considered a "thug"....in another era in another society may have been loved and adored as a strong and brave prince!


Oh, really? This may be true in Detroit, but it is most definitely not the case in Chicago.


Oh!
I guess GENTRIFICATION hasn't come to Chicago yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In my opinion, a healthy young Black man isn't a "loser" simply because he may be incarcerated or financially broke.

The problem MAY NOT lay with him, but in the SOCIETY that he's living in.

A loser is a loser.  An "incarcerated or financially broke" young brother isn't a winner.  Victims of society are losers even if this isn't entirely of their own making.  You become a winner when you find or are provided a way to successfully overcome your negative circumstances and go on to survive or even thrive.  "Loser" can be  interchangeable with being "unlucky".  All losers are not people of bad character, just like all winners are not ones of good character. Whatever the case, Life doesn't give a damn because it holds no obligation to be fair. Society reflects life. (BTW, the Chicago Cubs baseball team was nicknamed the "Lovable Losers" because for 100 years a pennant eluded them.  Then they  underwent a remarkable transformation and  became an extraordinary team, going on  to win the World Series, and become acclaimed winners!)

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Show me on any other discussion board where someone else has suggested that righteous Black men organize and march into the ghettoes of America to clean them up.

Certainly you don't think this is an original idea.  It's a grandiose suggestion that never gets beyond the talking stage because people with foresight understand how the logistics of it would prevent its implementation.  However, for years righteous black men in the form of community and church  leaders, entertainers and athletes who give back to the "hood", even law enforcement groups have all embodied microcosms of this dynamic via of regular demonstrations and marches and wholesome social activities and mentoring programs. It's so common that it doesn't make the news.  Also, "each one, teach one" has been the motto of many individual activists.  All the bad that goes on in the inner cities is what is publicized because it's sensational.  One  problematic factor which has become a part of the underclass culture is the irresponsible breeding of children. Men like you who celebrate promiscuity and wallow in their testosterone can share the blame for this.  And until birth control becomes popular in the ghettos, there will always be neglected kids who grow up to be losers.  

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cynique said:

A loser is a loser.  An "incarcerated or financially broke" young brother isn't a winner ... All losers are not people of bad character, just like all winners are not ones of good character. Whatever the case, Life doesn't give a damn because it holds no obligation to be fair. Society reflects life .....

 

 

@Cynique:  That's the unfortunate truth of reality.  I never thought about it that way.  Thanks for an undeniable explanation of 'loser.'

 

12 minutes ago, Cynique said:

 Men like you who celebrate promiscuity and wallow in their testosterone can share the blame for this.  And until birth control becomes popular in the ghettos, there will always be neglected kids who grow up to be losers.  

 

 

Yeah, we love marking territory with our testosterone, as if a Blackman is in charge of anything except abusing Black females.  Well said!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cynique

Victims of society are losers even if this isn't entirely of their own making. You become a winner when you find or are provided a way to successfully overcome your negative circumstances and go on to survive or even thrive.


So by your definition.....were the slaves of America who were victims of society at that time "losers"????
 

 

 

 


Krazy Alexander

Yeah, we love marking territory with our testosterone, as if a Blackman is in charge of anything except abusing Black females.


Speak for your self because I don't abuse Black females.

Is THAT the reason you decided to marry a NON-Black woman?
To avoid being abusive????



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cynique said:

What was your previous idea of what a loser was

 

Someone with the ability to be strong but chooses to submit to mundane matters of the world.  A follower too weak to walk alone.  A Blackman who abuses women, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

by your definition.....were the slaves of America who were victims of society at that time "losers"????

i  can't believe you asked that question.  Of course slaves were losers.  They lost everything,  their freedom, their identity, their families, their  culture.  Just because they weren't responsible for this happening, doesn't make them winners. They were victims, and victims are the epitome of being losers because Life has kicked them in the ass. 

 

@Kalexander2  Losers are not necessarily bad people.  They're hapless unfortunate people.  A female abuser is a bad person but if he is in total charge of his life, in this cruel world, he is a winner because he has triumphed over what was keeping him down.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cynique said:

They lost everything,  their freedom, their identity, their families, their  culture.  Just because they weren't responsible for this happening, doesn't make them winners. They were victims, and victims are the epitome of being losers because Life has kicked them in the ass. 

 

I'm afraid you are right; by the very definition a 'loser' is one who loses, does not win.  

26 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Losers are not necessarily bad people.  They're hapless unfortunate people.  A female abuser is a bad person but if he is in total charge of his life, in this cruel world, he is a winner because he has triumphed over what was keeping him down.  

 

Redemption: compensating for one's shortcomings is a personal 'winning' accomplishment, then; Apologizing to one's self without repeating the fault is true sincerity making her/him a winner; not apologizing to others for redemption because sincerity may be uncertain and who's embedded fault(s) render him a constent loser? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone loses and wins over one’s lifespan. Trying to win using the same method(s) repeatedly, resulting in no change, may also show the person is borderline insane. Black folk looking for apology where there is none makes him a loser. The constant focus on a fault and blaming others makes him a sore-loser. The better person is one who walks away without looking back is on the road to winning.

 

The loser unable to notice mundane challenges and focus instead on personal worthless matters may never be a winner; especially if the challenges and worthless matters lives with the loser.  We Black men are always looking for a handout or apology never to receive neither; bitterness and anger turn to desperation turns to stupidity and live in a rut.

 

 View from the rut is limited, life in the rut is all they know while every else lives their head.  Losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cynique said:

 

i  can't believe you asked that question.  Of course slaves were losers.  They lost everything,  their freedom, their identity, their families, their  culture.  Just because they weren't responsible for this happening, doesn't make them winners. They were victims, and victims are the epitome of being losers because Life has kicked them in the ass. 

 

@Kalexander2  Losers are not necessarily bad people.  They're hapless unfortunate people. 

 


Interesting.........

What about handicapped people or people with disabilities?

Do you consider them "losers" too?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

59 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

What about handicapped people or people with disabilities?

Do you consider them "losers" too?

 

Not if they were able to neutralize their physical infirmities by being so mentally  and intellectually capable that they are able to triumph over adversity and be financially independent. You are apparently having a problem with the very simple definition of the word "loser" which you want to make fluid, give it a face, attach conditions to it, and come up with words which you consider synonyms for it.

 

To me, loser is the opposite of being a winner, pure and simple.   It has no character. It is simply an indication of one's status in a situation or society-at-large.  Life is made up of winners and losers, haves and have-nots.  (Losers  who come up with rationales for their status or are in denial about it usually exemplify  the word in its slang vernacular).  Fortunately, being a loser is by no means a permanent status, and can even be an incentive to become a winner. Also, no where is it written that winners are automatically people of good character. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cynique said:

To me, loser is the opposite of being a winner, pure and simple.   It has no character. It is simply an indication of one's status in a situation or society-at-large.  Life is made up of winners and losers, haves and have-nots.  (Losers  who come up with rationales for their status or are in denial about it usually exemplify  the word in its slang vernacular).  Fortunately, being a loser is by no means a permanent status, and can even be an incentive to become a winner. Also, no where is it written that winners are automatically people of good character.

2

 

Actually not that simple, for some people, obviously.  The key phrase you profoundly stated: "being a loser is by no means a permanent status, and can even be an incentive to become a winner. Also, no-where is it written that winners are automatically people of good character;" lends to the negativity of being a loser.  Nobody wants to be a loser or they want to hide it and appear as a winner.  Overcoming obstacles and odds, self-sustainability, respect for family, neighbors, and the environment favor winners.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

50 minutes ago, Kalexander2 said:

Also, no-where is it written that winners are automatically people of good character;" lends to the negativity of being a loser. 

  How does a winner with bad character lend to the negativity of being a loser?  Harvey Weinstein, the recently disgraced sexual predator and  poster boy for the #Me, too movement was a winner in every sense of the word.  He was a big player in the film industry, rich, powerful and famous. But he was also an arrogant, lewd, cruel, egocentric misogynistic creep, all of which contributed to his eventual downfall, leaving him to be what he presently is: a loser whose career is in shambles.  Donald Trump was victorious in his bid for president, but he is an unscrupulous, inept, lying, narcissistic,  pussy grabber, basking in the highest office in the land.  Ol Bernie Sanders is an over-the-hill loser but many hold him in high esteem.   It is, what it is.

 

They do say "everybody loves a winner". Vince Lombardi noted that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing".  And that's the name of the game in this dog-eat-dog world, where millions daily go about their hum drum routines, managing to keep their heads above water, philosophically reminding themselves that "you win some, - you lose some."   And, so it goes...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cynique said:

How does a winner with bad character lend to the negativity of being a loser? 

 

Well, according to your enlightening definition a loser can be a bad/negative trait in a person, but not necessarily, if used as an "incentive to be winner, etc.;" however, a winner who is of bad/negative character is (or can be) in actuality, a 'loser;' hence, lending to, or defining your concept of a 'loser' as possibly a bad/negative thing. YES or NO? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a winner is never a loser whether he has good character or not.  He can become a loser when his circumstances change, but he can't be a winner and a loser at he same time because the word loser means that in the game you were playing, you lost.  And, the word "loser" doesn't mean that you are a bad person; it just means that in a particular set of circumstances, you did not defeat adversity.   The terms "winner" and "loser" have nothing to do with the kind of person you are, they just describe your "rank".   Other adjectives, however, can be used to describe the kind of winner or loser that you are.  You can be a "sore" loser, or a "cocky" winner, or a "courageous" loser and a "gracious" winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't like speaking plainly in our PC world world.  We used to call able bodied men who pan handled on the street, "bums." Today they are described, euphemistically, as "homeless." If one were to described one of these bums as a loser you'd be considered heartless and cruel.

 

We all know in sports everyone gets a trophy just for showing, when in my day you had to be the "winner." Getting a trophy back then meant something; today it means nothing.  Teachers are discouraged from grading papers in red ink or even giving out Fs.  They have to give "trigger warnings" to protect the tender sensibilities of the precious little darlings in the classroom.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, brother Troy, I've been thinking a lot about sister Cynique's concept of the terms loser/winner; I too am having a really hard time seeing DT as a winner and, as you point-out, a panhandler/bum/homeless person as a loser; as much as I hate to concur, I have to because she's right.

 

 

What the sister has done is, removed herself from the empathic nature of the word(s) - not from the person(s), simply look at the strict meaning of winner and loser.  DT won the presidency, he's still fighting to win some inhumane/fascist policies, including his border wall and just won his travel ban, etc., he is winning, a winner.  An awful human being to say the least, but he is a winner.

 

Now, from the empathic nature of the person(s), the panhandler/bum/homeless person failed (lost) his effort(s) toward success, to be independent of poverty, but if he/she is still fighting they may be decent people who are fighters, but still losers.  Making also right that every winner is not a good person and every loser is not a bad person.   While this is something that'll be on my mind for quite some time, I think sister Cynique is onto something of philosophical importance here.  It merits further, seriously considers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Woman, you're CRAZY as hell.....lol.

It's one thing to be cynical.
It's another thing to be cruel and crazy.

I think you've been talking to Krazy Alexander a little too much now.
I'm beginning to wonder was it a mistake to encourage more dialog between you two....lol.


I don't believe anyone is a total winner or total loser.

To call someone a winner or loser is like calling them superior or inferior.....you have to first define the SUBJECT in which you're calling them a winning/losing in.

Superior in WHAT?  golf, writing, diving,.....
Inferior in WHAT? cooking, academics, sports......

A winner in WHAT?   dating, fighting....
A loser in WHAT?  buying houses, racing cars......
What have the lost in? 

Some people may be losing financially, but winning in health.
Other's may be billionaires but losers when it comes to relationships.

A woman may be considered a loser by you because she's a slave...but if she's in the HOUSE and getting all types of treats from her master she may consider herself a WINNER, especially compared to the other slaves and if she ends up living to be 104 with 35 great grandchildren....is she still a loser even though she's a slave?

A person with no legs and in a wheel chair may be a multi-millionaire who is a great conductor with a wife and children.
Would you consider him a loser even though he didn't overcome the fact that he couldn't walk?


Futher, in my opinion in order for someone to qualify as a loser in any field they have to have lost REPEATEDLY.
Losing one time or in one thing...doesn't necessarily make you a loser any more than telling one lie makes you a liar or stealing one thing makes you a thief.

The action has to be repetative....and again, the subject in which they're losing in should always be attached....e.i.. "loser at finances" or "loser in relationships"...ect.


Your definition is too blanket and simplistic in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1No. my definition is too exact, in your opinion.  You, as usual, want to adopt the word,put it through the pioneer wringer, and paint it with your brush,  creating little pictures that you've made up in your mind, adding your captions to them, using adjectives to try and change the meaning of the noun "loser", co-opting the points that i already made about the "types" of losers . Next, you supply your synonyms for the word "loser", all of which are inaccurate. All of which is the typical way that you process things in the world according to Pioneer. And then have the nerve to call other people crazy. Git outta here. i don't know how long you labored over your mawkish little essay  but it's bunch of blather that defines extenuating circumstances; not the word LOSER.     A loser is the opposite of a winner.    (There's probably a good reason for  why you think you're an authority of the word "loser", - an explanation which would fit the definition of the word "rationale".)  😌

 

MERRIMAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY

loser:

1: a person or thing that loses, especially consistently. 

2: a person who is incompetent or unable to succeed.

 

OXFORD DICTIONARY:

loser:

NOUN

1. A person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest.

2. A person who is disadvantaged by a particular situation or course of action.

 

URBAN DICTIONARY

loser – n. A person who has fallen off the social ladder, climbed down the social ladder, jumped off the social ladder, or just never bothered to climb the social ladder in the first place. 

 

And, of course, you'll come up with your usual whining about accepting the words of white men, sulking because i don't accept the definition of a black man who writes '"ect." instead of "etc."  and who,  by his own admission, is not the smartest person in the word.  You can say that again!   😆

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Lol, I'm not sure why you had to get all NASTY with it but again.......

Your definition isn't too exact,  it's too blanketed and vague.

While you claim that YOUR definition (not the three that you just provided which are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what you were saying earlier) is not meant to declare a loser "good" or "bad" ; it's still renders an unfair judgement upon people because it doesn't take into account the ENTIRE PICTURE of their lives.

Again......

You called slaves and disabled people who couldn't overcome their disability LOSERS.

And again.......

While those conditions certainly aren't ideal and most people who are in them those conditions would surely change them if they could....they may have other qualities and accomplishments going on in their lives that OUT WEIGH their misfortunes.

And my problem with YOUR definition of a loser is that it fails to take those other qualities and accompishments into account.


The fact is, EVERYONE is a combination of both a winner and loser to various degrees.

Some win more than lose, others lose more than win.....all in different areas.

We must be careful with tossing around these vague and blanketed statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1There is nothing vague or blanketed about the word "loser".  It is concise and complete unto itself and it is what it is.  You are the one wants to bend it out of shape with all of what i already referred  to as "extenuating circumstances". i never said that being a loser was a permanent condition, but it aptly applies to down-and-out people who at any given time in life have not overcome their obstacles for whatever reason. (When you asked my opinion on whether handicapped people were losers, I said "Not if they were able to neutralize their physical infirmities by being so mentally  and intellectually capable that they are able to triumph over adversity and be financially independent.") What did i say in any of my posts about the word "loser" that  contradicted the definitions i supplied?? You, however, disagree with my stand by re-cycling things i said, crafting them to be your position when they simply echo what i already said. SMH If you had your way, there would be no such word as "loser" because you want to blur reality by making excuses for losers, all of which is an example of your inability to be objective about the word.  

On 7/3/2018 at 10:11 AM, Cynique said:

Well, a winner is never a loser whether he has good character or not.  He can become a loser when his circumstances change, but he can't be a winner and a loser at he same time because the word loser means that in the game you were playing, you lost.  And, the word "loser" doesn't mean that you are a bad person; it just means that in a particular set of circumstances, you did not defeat adversity.   The terms "winner" and "loser" have nothing to do with the kind of person you are, they just describe your "rank".   Other adjectives, however, can be used to describe the kind of winner or loser that you are.  You can be a "sore" loser, or a "cocky"

winner, or a "courageous" loser and a "gracious" winner.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 10:54 PM, Cynique said:

They do say "everybody loves a winner". Vince Lombardi noted that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing".  And that's the name of the game in this dog-eat-dog world, where millions daily go about their hum drum routines, managing to keep their heads above water, philosophically reminding themselves that "you win some, - you lose some."   And, so it goes...

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We must be careful with tossing around these vague and blanketed statements.

Oh puleeze, who tosses around any more generalizations than you???   What "We" need to be careful about is to respect language enough to adhere to the meaning of words instead of tailoring them to fit an agenda. This offense certainly contributes to all the fake news out there today. It also contributes to the lack of communication between people. Alas, I prefer to paraphrase The Bard: "What's in a name? A loser by any other name would be just as defeated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK
....if that's what you're going with.

I just think it's dangerous to toss around blanketed names like "loser" and attach them to people you know very little about.....including their character or the circumstances that put them in the positions they're in.

You want to call the men incarcerated in an IN-justice system as "losers" when in reality most of them didn't lose....they were CHEATED in a rigged system.

You talk about how it's fluid and being a loser doesn't have to be a permanent condition, but every psychologist knows the damage putting negative lables on children can do to their self esteem which can affect their behavior.

If you call a child who is doing poorly in school a "little loser" and call them that repeatedly, with their self esteem and self worth damaged.... how likely are they to "over come" whatever caused them to "lose" in the first place?

Again, WE need to be careful just tossing these blanketed statements around.....

WE need to first think about what effect our statements will have on the subjects/victims of those statements, and then what effect will they have on our community as a whole.

Constructive criticizm is often necessary, but just calling people "losers" without mapping out a plan to uplift them and improve their lives is counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, BLAH, BLAH. YADA, YADA, YADA

On 7/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, Troy said:

People don't like speaking plainly in our PC world world.  We used to call able bodied men who pan handled on the street, "bums." Today they are described, euphemistically, as "homeless." If one were to described one of these bums as a loser you'd be considered heartless and cruel.

 

We all know in sports everyone gets a trophy just for showing, when in my day you had to be the "winner." Getting a trophy back then meant something; today it means nothing.  Teachers are discouraged from grading papers in red ink or even giving out Fs.  They have to give "trigger warnings" to protect the tender sensibilities of the precious little darlings in the classroom.

 

 

Troy got it right.  You still can't see past your nose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×