Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't you stop pursuing this argument until you actually watch the videos. It'll make you sound less ignorant for speaking on an issue that you haven't done sufficient research on.
It's ignorant to blame the only people who are to blame for using the crack, seeing as how they're the ones ingesting it? Riiiiight. Good logic there. I don't need to watch the videos. If you would summarize, I would be able to find another argument. But it seems you keep ignoring everyone's requests for more information on this and you keep referencing the videos, which obviously no one has the patience to watch. I highly doubt you watched it all, either.
If the content of your posts is indicative of the content of "the videos" most people like myself will have no desire whatsoever to watch them. I have 3 different cartoon stations on my TV, I don't need to watch more comedy on my laptop.
The bolded is a lie. If they see a white person around they'll assume they're buying drugs. And where are your stats to back up your claim? Last time I checked I have a 15 times greater chance of getting shot in my city than white people do, especially in poor areas. The dynamics also vary greatly from region to region... obviously the dynamics in Oakland CA (my city) are not going to be the same as the dynamics in Jackson MI or even Washington DC.
And I'm not understanding the point or that last part. Do you really think there aren't an abundance of racist white towns? The city right next to me (San Leandro) was called by Time Magazine the most racist city in the country back in the 80's, and that's in the bay area. Racism in America is everywhere... the south certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it. There's PLENTY or racism to go around in upstate NY.
First, if Blacks see a white in a black area and assume its them buying drugs, thats an amazingly ignorant and racist assumption. Second, um, have you ever been to NYC? If not, you need to talk about what you know about. Whites have every right to go to a black neighborhood, NYC or Oakland or wherever. I have been to both places, as well as MOST major cities in this nation.
Also, this part by me:
it IS more dangerous for a white person alone in a rough black area at night than for a black person. The reason is simple and obvious, as there is the added element of racism from some thugs that would happen to be black (notice, i didn't say all blacks, or that all blacks are thugs).
I should have qualified by saying in a racial context. Put another way, it is more dangerous for a white person to walk in a bad black area alone at night in terms of racial violence than the reverse. That remains true.
Also, how did you get from this:
"Lastly, yes, you could be in danger in a racist white town, just as I am in Bed-Stuy, or the South Bronx, or Harlem, or Newark, or...take your pick."
to this...
"Do you really think there aren't an abundance of racist white towns? "
Either your comprehension is all wrong, or you are putting words in my mouth, projecting an arguement onto your opponent to then debunk the argument. Sorry, that won't work with me. I never said there are not an abundance of racist white towns. The burden of responsbility is now on you to show a qoute where I suggested such a thing. Feel free to duck the challenge. The only cost is your credibilty here. And your pride.
To break you down some more, however, lets define the terms. Is it a town that is MOSTLY racist? If so, how do you prove that? Is it a town where racists are the VOCAL and ACTIVE minority of the population?
I also notice you didn't deny that it is dangerous for a white person in the areas I listed, as well as their counterparts nationally. That alone drives a stake through your position.
Further again, yes, racism is found everywhere in America. In Black America, in White America, in Hispanic America, in Asian-Americans, etc.
WEBB never asserted that. The CIA admitted it and more. And their go-to boy was Rick Ross. His operation started in LA (where he's from) and he ended up controlling the crack trade in the entire continental United States. His go-to buyers were the crips and bloods. The CIA played a direct part in setting him up and absolving the people who distributed to him of any punishment whatsoever. Try watching the videos next time.
I did use your source, the web link from WIkipedia. If you aren't comfortable with your own source, try to not use it next time! Secondly, I notice you didn't address the part about high drug use in the black community before and after this selected time period. Kills your argument does it?
Name calling, eh? Good one. I've been called worse.
I'm not justifying anything. But the fact is, personal responsibility is a major factor in any situation where someone is doing any kind of drugs. I don't care who invented it, who sold it, how much they paid for it, all I know is the person is consuming it, and that is their own fault.
Besides which, one of the things the CIA is sticking to is that there was no targeting of any specific population, and the gov't didn't create crack. It's all a big conspiracy theory and sadly, you have been indoctrinated with this junk.
Hypothetically, I suppose you also believe that the liquor stores and bars are responsible for creating alcoholics?
... you don't care that the government had a vested interest in the crack trade because they weren't the users? You don't care that they were participating in something that they made illegal? Something that destroyed tens of millions of homes across the country?
No wonder you don't care about what happened in the past. You don't care about whats going on in the present either...
I did use your source, the web link from WIkipedia. If you aren't comfortable with your own source, try to not use it next time! Secondly, I notice you didn't address the part about high drug use in the black community before and after this selected time period. Kills your argument does it?
The key word was a general source about the issue. Obviously I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source. Who would?
No, it doesn't. There weren't any drugs that were nearly as profitable and as addictive as crack at the time. There was and still is high drug use in the white community, or did all those peaceful hippie protests of Vietnam in the 60's and 70's make you forget about that? And weed isn't an addictive drug regardless. Cigarettes, on the other hand...
... you don't care that the government had a vested interest in the crack trade because they weren't the users? You don't care that they were participating in something that they made illegal? Something that destroyed tens of millions of homes across the country?
No wonder you don't care about what happened in the past. You don't care about whats going on in the present either...
Repeating my previous post: "I'm not justifying anything. But the fact is, personal responsibility is a major factor in any situation where someone is doing any kind of drugs. I don't care who invented it, who sold it, how much they paid for it, all I know is the person is consuming it, and that is their own fault."
What homes were destroyed? You mean households, like the families were destroyed b/c of their crackhead family members?
I don't care too much about this specific topic b/c it has no bearing on 2010.
All black neighborhoods are not thug filled danger zones for whites.
All whites have not had your experiences with black neighborhoods even at nighttime.
Sorry, your experiences do not represent all of the experiences of whites in black neightborhoods.
I never made those assertions, try reading and comprehending next time,ok?
Can you show me specifically, backed up with qoutes/links, where I said that all black neighborhoods are thug filled, that all whites have had my experiences, or that my experiences represent those of all whites?
If you can't, you basically reveal yourself to be a desperate poster that has to put words in another's mouth, to lie basically, because you can't win on the facts alone.
Good luck, we will all be laughing at you! Yes, you just did your own cause a world of damage. Thank you for that!
The key word was a general source about the issue. Obviously I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source. Who would?
No, it doesn't. There weren't any drugs that were nearly as profitable and as addictive as crack at the time. There was and still is high drug use in the white community, or did all those peaceful hippie protests of Vietnam in the 60's and 70's make you forget about that? And weed isn't an addictive drug regardless. Cigarettes, on the other hand...
Um, heroin is more addictive than Crack, and although not as profitable, still highly profitable and prevelant. As to your suggestion on drugs in the white community, did you hear me deny that? Of course there is! I have long been down on ANYONE doing drugs, especially liberals that claim to be so caring towards people of color, but not caring that their disgusting drug habits hurt the (primarily) Black community.
See, Nineties Flava? If you stop hatin on whites, and stopped to talk to some of us, you might find yourself in constructive dialogue.
Hello Mr. Flava. I've been following your posts and I noticed something. You write very well; very clear and concise with excellent spelling and punctuation. So I wonder, how can someone of your obvious high intelligence actually believe that you are being held down by "the man?"
And lets talk about real racism for a moment; visceral racism that you can actually feel. A guy like you could walk down a street in any white neighborhood at night and the worst thing that would happen to you is maybe a cop would stop and ask you what you are doing, but more than likely nothing would happen at all.
For me on the other hand, walking through a black neighborhood alone at night would practically be suicide. If I was lucky I might just get my azz kicked, but the chances of making it through unscathed are pretty low.
How do you reconcile these two realities? Who has more at stake? Who is more racist?
Putting aside the hugely dubious and condescending assertion that any random white person walking around a black neighborhood at night had a considerably high chance of being beaten or killed, the problem is that you are only considering "visceral racism" as "real racism", and therefore asserting that nothing other than that could possibly have a negative impact. It's quite common actually for people to think that anything that isn't spewing slurs isn't racism. Frankly, if that kind of behavior was the sum of all racism in the world, we would all be in pretty good shape. The macro effect of pockets of "Visceral racism" is negligible. But structural racism, even on a small scale, produces large macro results.
The effect of race-based zoning and lending practices, just to cite a couple of examples, doesn't merely disappear just because most people in this period wouldn't be considered orthodox racists. White middle-class people left urban areas due to crime and blight to live in areas where safe, productive living is less difficult, but black middle-class people were forced to stay in said blighted areas due to redlining or minimum lot size requirements which made land prohibitively expensive. Let's talk about urban renewal, which disproportionately destroyed black neighborhoods, functional or dysfunctional, and moved the people into ghettos and housing projects which were intentionally isolated from the rest of society by major roads or geographic barriers. That's the kind of difficulty that accumulates and carries on for generations. But there are those who say that we should ignore those accumulated effects and judge the progress of disenfranchised groups to non-disenfranchised groups. How do we do that when a lot of this stuff continued to happen well into the second half of the century? People underestimate that blatant structural racism has only recent become widely considered unacceptable.
I'm not arguing that people who start off lower should just give up. What I'm saying is, why would we, who supposedly want a just society, be content to ignore that some people start lower than others when considering things like policy and culture?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't need to watch the videos. If you would summarize, I would be able to find another argument. But it seems you keep ignoring everyone's requests for more information on this and you keep referencing the videos, which obviously no one has the patience to watch. I highly doubt you watched it all, either. 
