I take offense to the implication that the French are better than anything else.
Le El Donko flambant viendra pour toi dans ton sommeil.
Pipian, you’re insane. Everything you have said is nonsense. You’re using statistics in reverse to “prove” that certain ethnic groups are lazier than others… and what’s worse is that you’re using statistics you’ve made up (see “from what I’ve observed”).
Also, exactly how does it “seem” that race has an effect on one’s… what are we talking about here? Productivity? Intrinsic value? Of course you follow this stunning observation with “it seems to be more the conditions in which someone is raised.” Does being black count as an environmental condition? I’m glad your examples are a “black ghetto” and an “upper-middle-class white neighborhood.” Tell me what you think someone would be like who grew up in a white ghetto or an upper-middle-class black neighborhood. My suspicion here is that poverty is the problem you seem to be chasing after, not skin color.
And finally:
Then why are we even having this discussion? This one statement undoes everything you have said about Mexicans being better than blacks.
Don’t worry, it won’t last.
You’re assuming I’m actually using statistics. I don’t seek to justify and force my beliefs on you, and as far as I’m concerned, I’d never be able to. There’s really no reason to justify my beliefs with statistics, because I’m not seeking to convert people. Again, I’m going to judge people on individual characteristics, not race alone. You seem to misinterpret what I say. I merely refer to generalizations that I don’t tend to use to make judgment calls.
Productivity, primarily.
Did I say that? No.
Fundamentally, yes. the roles could be reversed. For whatever reason however, they seem to be reversed less often than they appear the way I portray them. That’s what I’m getting at with the environment gravitation idea.
I’m not sure why you chose to argue with me in the first place. All along, while I’ve been stating generalizations, I’ve kept saying that it comes down to the individual when I make my judgment calls. Why do you think I don’t like Leon? Being white certainly doesn’t seem to play a role there.
Honestly, I’m glad you aren’t trying to force your beliefs on anyone, because I’m not sure such a course of action works (reason is rather notoriously resistant to force). As for the fact that you don’t seek to justify your beliefs, well that’s just odd. If you can’t justify them, then why have them?
There’s really no reason to justify my beliefs with statistics, because I’m not seeking to convert people.
Call me a crazy philosopher, but I think there are good reasons for justifying your beliefs EVEN IF you have no intention of convincing anyone else. Fidelity to reason and thought come to mind instantly.
Again, I’m going to judge people on individual characteristics, not race alone.
My problem is not that you’re using race alone, it’s that you’re using it at all. You make negative judgments about people based on productivity (which is fine with me - I do it all the time), then proceed to tie those judgments to skin color. This I think is reprehensible. If your problem is with lazy people, then (no matter how many black people actually ARE lazy) why even bother going that next step and passing judgment on black people? If their blackness isn’t the inherent problem, and I suspect that you aren’t going to be able to convince anyone - hopefully not even yourself - that blackness IS the problem, why hold black people accountable for their skin color?
You seem to misinterpret what I say. I merely refer to generalizations that I don’t tend to use to make judgment calls.
There is some element of me - maybe that intrinsic disdain for objectivity - that tells me there is no way you can hold a belief like “Mexicans are better than blacks” without unconsciously applying it to every Mexican/black person you might come across. So, the options I see are that you have this belief and apply it (either consciously or not), or you don’t actually have it at all. Which is it?
Fundamentally, yes. the roles could be reversed. For whatever reason however, they seem to be reversed less often than they appear the way I portray them.
And you blame this on skin color? Black people are lazy and so they form ghettoes because they can’t be expected to do anything else? Do you honestly, and I say this with the most disdainful sneer I can manage, believe that that’s the case?
I’m not sure why you chose to argue with me in the first place.
Because you made the ludicrous statement that one group of people are better than another. And you defined these groups not by a choice they made (i.e., I’m (sort of) okay with you saying something like “Democrats are better than Republicans,” because those memberships are chosen), but by something they have no control over. This is racism, plain and simple, and I happen to think it’s a very bad, very disgusting, very evil way to be.
All along, while I’ve been stating generalizations, I’ve kept saying that it comes down to the individual when I make my judgment calls.
Again, if you honestly base your judgments of human beings individually, then why do you make generalizations like this at all? It’s dangerous, both for your mind and your body, and it’s wrong.
Because it’s difficult to justify ANY stance in this argument aside from utilizing common human decency to justify NOT being racist and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are of other races, which I do in practice. As for a stance on whether or not race or nurture has an effect on productivity (one of the primary values of worth in our currently economically focused culture), it is difficult to justify ANY stance, as it is difficult to find ANY proof.
I’m not arguing that point. I’m merely stating (now) that it is difficult to justify EITHER side of the argument, and thus rather futile to try to do so.
Generalizations of a race to productivity relationship, if not used as the direct cause of judgment justification, are different from actually justifying judgments based on productivity alone, or justifyint judgments based on race alone. I make generalizations on the race, and individuals can prove me wrong and have a good appearance in my eyes. My generalizations are not prejudices (which you seem to imply) but merely statements of apparent (not actual) fact from my point of view, and generalizations, while generally adding a detractive value to the group the generalization is made of, does not imply that everyone will always have that detractive quality in my eyes. It may prove to be a hurdle in the first few awkward minutes, but those first few awkward minutes help to set the person’s actual appearance in my eyesm rather than an apparent appearance.
The problem is the inherent nature of man to want to cut corners and expend less energy. In this case, the mental energy needed to make a judgment on people you will never deal with for more than 5 minutes. If you aren’t going to deal with them for an extended time, there is little incentive to take the time to judge their character honestly (this subconscious analyzation time can be taken to, say, analyze other perhaps more necessary things). I never said that blackness was the PROBLEM. Indeed, it’s probably not skin color that makes the problem, but the actual culture. The fact that culture is tied almost indelibly to race, and race is unfortuantely often tied to skin color is an unfortunate one. Blackness is related to the problem, but blackness is not the problem and I never said it was. It’s the culture that’s the problem (and that’s the main reason I said that I found Mexicans to be one of the better races. Their culture is much more amenable, and much more… productive? Shall we say? Or rather, that it encourages productivity while black culture, on a whole does this job much less?)
As I said before, it’s impossible to NOT unconsciously apply it, especially at first. But that’s not to say that such unconscious “fears” can be put to rest. Isn’t that what psychology is based on? Putting unconscious fears to rest?
No, I believe that it’s based on culture, which is, as I said, tied to the race, which is tied to skin color. So the “culture” of the ghetto is detrimental, and unfortunately the African American race tends to have this culture more than European Americans (to separate this argument from the “skin color” ideas. I merely continued to use the skin colors to represent the race as a whole, not the skin color. You seemed to interpret it otherwise. That’s not to say I feel adamant about “political correctness” when it comes to refering to other races though.
So am I supposed to say that a person who is predisposed towards committing crimes toward my property and person (due to nurture/cultural reasons) is not someone I have a right to hold disdain and hatred for or at the least judge as someone I don’t want around my family?
Generalizations are necessary (if problematic) when you don’t have enough information to judge a person by his individual qualities.
So yes, generalizations can be and are dangerous in many occasions, but if you’re willing to offer an alternative that doesn’t risk my life and limb trying to judge a person who would have been judged properly by following a generalization, be my guest and tell the world. Part of the problem is the “better safe than sorry syndrome” where you’d rather be paranoid of people who are less like you because they are different and seem more inclined (at least according to our pervasive media) to demand more, be in crime more (thanks to rap!), and so forth.
If other races truly didn’t want generalizations, they would work on clearing their names rather than telling people it’s wrong to make generalizations. I mean, can you honestly say that ALL black people are innocent and unlikely to be detrimental (potentially) to your life through crime or whatever they MAY do when the most prevalent image of them portrayed by the media is “I’m a dirty rapper who cusses and talks about sex and does drugs and then gets shot in gang warfare”? The worst part, in my opinion, however, is that the media GLORIFIES this type of image. So instead of correcting a bad image, it tries to shape culture to accept the WRONG image and actually adjust itself to FIT the wrong image…
predispo-what now? better safe than huh? Pipian, you are completely right, except for one thing. It’s not just black people that are out to get you, we’re all predisposed towards committing crimes toward your property and person, every last one of us. People of all cultures and creeds, all religious backgrounds and skin colors are against you Pipian, so you might as well hate us and keep us away from your family. We look different from you, so if your mind we’re dangerous. So untill the wold is populated by Pipian clones, I suggest you live in an underground bunker and eat spam forever.
eats spam
Kill Whitey!
Before I get started, I just want to point out that it’s people like you who give conservative libertarians like myself a bad name. We aren’t all (or even mostly) racists; it’s just the loud ones who are racists and homophobes. That said…
Yeah, that dastardly common human decency will get you every time. Also, I’d say it’s fairly easy to justify a stance in this argument, in that there is no biological evidence for the kind of position you’re taking, while there is every reason to believe that people whose major biological difference is skin pigmentation are not radically different in propensity. Add to that the inherent difficulties with the very notion of race as biological and one wonders exactly whether or not the statement “Mexicans are a better ethnic group than blacks” is even coherent.
and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are of other races, which I do in practice.
I wonder if you do. You make a rant later down in this post about how black people are more likely to be dangerous because of rap… and that makes me question whether that’s not a bias you inject into all of your dealings with people.
As for a stance on whether or not race or nurture has an effect on productivity (one of the primary values of worth in our currently economically focused culture)
First of all, “values of worth” is an exercise in bad grammar. All values are of worth, by defintion of the word “value,” so dispense with that other nonsense.
Second, whose culture is so “economically focused” that productivity is the measure of a man? There are certainly some glorifications given to the rich, but my culture still values good people over rich people, especially in the wake of all this Enron business, in which bad rich people have been hung out to dry. Mother Theresa was not productive, but ask any American whether she was a better person than JP Morgan and you’re likely to get answers that apparently would surprise you.
it is difficult to justify ANY stance, as it is difficult to find ANY proof.
It’s difficult to find proof of what? That productivity is not tied to race? Simple logic can take care of this. Watch:
Pipian: “Productivity is determined by race.”
LPFabulous (after providing a list of non-white productive folks): “Not so.”
This is what we call proof by counter-example, and it is a valid form of argument.
Or maybe you mean it’s difficult to find proof that people can have worth independently of productivity, in which case you’re a lunatic.
I’m not arguing that point. I’m merely stating (now) that it is difficult to justify EITHER side of the argument, and thus rather futile to try to do so.
Well, you see, I don’t think that’s the case, as I have indicated above.
I make generalizations on the race, and individuals can prove me wrong and have a good appearance in my eyes.
Why do they have to prove you wrong? Why is it the responsibility of other people to overcome your irrational prejudices? You have repeatedly stated that you make judgments about people on an individual basis, yet you are here indicating that you handicap at least a significant number of these cases. Yeah, that sounds fair.
My generalizations are not prejudices (which you seem to imply)
Actually, according to Merriam Webster, a prejudice is “a preconceived judgment or opinion,” which is clearly what this is. So I’m correct.
but merely statements of apparent (not actual) fact from my point of view
What the hell is an apparent fact? And, if it differs from an actual fact, why am I bothering with it at all?
and generalizations, while generally adding a detractive value to the group the generalization is made of, does not imply that everyone will always have that detractive quality in my eyes. It may prove to be a hurdle in the first few awkward minutes, but those first few awkward minutes help to set the person’s actual appearance in my eyesm rather than an apparent appearance.
-
“apparent appearance” - ??
-
Again, why are other people responsible for overcoming your prejudices?
The problem is the inherent nature of man to want to cut corners and expend less energy. In this case, the mental energy needed to make a judgment on people you will never deal with for more than 5 minutes.
Why does this judgment have to be a negative one? Why can’t you just create a judgment about people in general (as most people do) and go with that when you interact with someone for five minutes? What can it hurt to just assume that one person is more or less like everyone else?
I never said that blackness was the PROBLEM. Indeed, it’s probably not skin color that makes the problem, but the actual culture. The fact that culture is tied almost indelibly to race, and race is unfortuantely often tied to skin color is an unfortunate one. Blackness is related to the problem, but blackness is not the problem and I never said it was. It’s the culture that’s the problem (and that’s the main reason I said that I found Mexicans to be one of the better races. Their culture is much more amenable, and much more… productive? Shall we say? Or rather, that it encourages productivity while black culture, on a whole does this job much less?)
I do declare that this is a foaming rant that is not based on any sort of factual evidence. In fact, it’s based on racial stereotypes that have been disproven countless times. I wonder if you actually know any black people or just read about them and wonder what it must be like for the masses to have to interact with the “Negro race” (in my best George Wallace accent).
So am I supposed to say that a person who is predisposed towards committing crimes toward my property and person (due to nurture/cultural reasons) is not someone I have a right to hold disdain and hatred for or at the least judge as someone I don’t want around my family?
I’m having a bit of trouble trying to interpret where you’re going here. If what you’re saying is that black people are predisposed toward committing crime toward you, I have two possible responses:
-
Everyone is predisposed toward committing crimes against you (I mean a general, and grammatically poor, “you” - but I also mean especially you because you’re a jackass).
-
You’re a jackass.
Generalizations are necessary (if problematic) when you don’t have enough information to judge a person by his individual qualities.
Agreed. Now explain how these generalizations can legitimately be based on skin color. And use facts (actual ones) please.
So yes, generalizations can be and are dangerous in many occasions, but if you’re willing to offer an alternative that doesn’t risk my life and limb trying to judge a person who would have been judged properly by following a generalization, be my guest and tell the world.
Umm… what? Have you ever interacted with human beings? With any success at all? We’re not all out to get you. Maybe those crazy nigs with their collard greens, but the rest of us are pretty safe. And we all interact with each other without presupposing anything like “Black people are violent criminals.” Now tell me how often you interact with anyone in which your life and limb are in danger. And, in those circumstances, how many times could you have determined you were in danger without reference to the skin color of other people?
Part of the problem is the “better safe than sorry syndrome” where you’d rather be paranoid of people who are less like you because they are different
You are paranoid of people because they are different from you? Have you ever even seen an after-school special? Or read an issue of X-Men? Or really anything at all?
If other races truly didn’t want generalizations, they would work on clearing their names rather than telling people it’s wrong to make generalizations.
Every ounce of my strength is being used not to scream obscenities at you. You, sir, are an old-fashioned bigot and a stain on the history of humanity. This one sentence is the most disgusting thing you have yet said and I have no desire to even attempt a rational response.
I mean, can you honestly say that ALL black people are innocent and unlikely to be detrimental (potentially) to your life through crime or whatever they MAY do
No, of course not. But I don’t think anyone is unlikely to be detrimental to my life. Even my own friends have to be dealt with in such a way that they don’t cause ruination of my being, but that’s part of interacting with other people.
By the way Pip, the show “Cops” is not really a good reflection of ethnic tentancies towards committing crimes.
There’s a difference between hating someone for skin color and hating someone for their culture.
Your choice. In any case, I refer to rappers as portraying a harmful stereotype. You obviously don’t trust a word I say anyway shrug
OUR culture. AMERICAN culture. CAPITALISTIC culture.
Rich != Productive. See all the rich families that have every existed.
Her productivity was in a different form. Rather than purely economic, her productivity was social related, and an applicable form of productivity. She helped others ACHIEVE productivity.
You keep assuming that I say that there are no exceptions to the rules. However, as you continue to gloss over every time I say that…
Exactly. But you provide no support for the other side. That’s what I mean by saying that it’s impossible to provide solid proof on either side. There’s no clear case for a lack of biological restrictions, but there’s no clear case for absolutely none.
As I mentioned before, it’s a matter of weighing the amount of time to be spent judging versus analyzing more important matters.
Then everyone is prejudiced when going into an argument, particularly political ones.
It’s the difference from a fact as justified through my observations and a fact as justified through third party observations.
Refer to the above.
They must justify the time spent in judging them, especially critical if I’m not going to deal with them for an extended period.
Because not everyone is the same as everyone else. If I can’t assume the worst of people, you can’t assume the best of people either, so your request is equally moot.
Then you explain how people turn into gang members eh? I say it’s nurture. Do you say that it’s nature?
Did I say that black people were? I said that people in a poor culture that is more accepting of committing crimes. Explain why people commit crimes, even when they know that it is wrong. Is it their nature? Or is it the culture and environment they were raised in? I submit to you, the latter.
Culture. It has nothing to do with skin color. If it had to do with skin color, blacks would sometimes be grouped with Hispanics.
You are saying that if a black person comes up to me with a knife in his hand, I can’t suppose he’s out to kill me, because I have to make a judgment call based on his character. I can’t ASSUME based on how he appears.
Have you ever considered the possibilty of what happens when the judgment would be right if you were prejudiced, but wrong (perhaps to a mortal extent) if you were not? Am I supposed to tolerate blacks saying “I’m gonna kill those damn whities” when I can’t say “I dislike black people”?
It would seem to me that they aren’t working to rectify it. You explain to me how black people can honestly not try to portray themselves to appear in a good light and instead rely on people saying “you’re racist” without actually working to remove the stereotypes? You won’t stop racism until you start clearing the stereotypes. And blacks apparently don’t seem to mind being associated with rap since I don’t see people trying to actively stop it. Hell, you still have people saying “black power” and “death to all whites!” How the hell are they, as a race supposed to get over that stigma if they don’t try to actually CHANGE it?
Pip, your quick judgement of somone else’s culture is really an unfair one. You really need to look at it this way. There are 4 different types of culture. One kind of culture is the national culture. Our national culture has many subgroups, including your average evcery say middle class joe who has a nice salary and raises 2.5 kids. These subgroups can vary from state to state, but usually if one state is a “conservative state”, the population is mostly republican, or the opposite for “liberal states”. It’s unfair to assume that somone from California is a tree hugging hippie, just as much as it is to assume somone from Alabama is a red neck. The next kind of culture is the media culture. This is the one that you seem to associate with when you referr to “culture”. This culture is made up of extremes, including rap stars who only seem to want to slap hoes and bust caps in asses. This culture however is not limited to state lines or even ethnic groups. Rap is in fact listened to by just as many white people as black people. Very few of these people listen to it and decide they also want to bust caps in various asses. Most of that influence comes from the next kind of culture, the local culture. The local culture is made by people in the immediate are, whther it be just on your block or your whole town, it varies quite a bit. This is where people are influenced to either join a gang and thus caps are bust into asses, or where people join a church group and help the poor. local cultures are influenced by media culture, and also national culture. However, the local culture is at least 10 times more influential on the individual than national or media cultures combined. The next culture, is the family culture. When you are raised by your parents or family group, you become part of their culture, which can be completely different from the local, media, or national cultures. This can be the most influential culture of all, though it often become sless and less important in the teenage years. There is no such thing as the “black culture” because cultures everywhere are different. Perhaps the local culture in your area encourages violence and crime amongst black people, but I seriously doubt it. You’re making huge assumptions based on national or media cultures, which are quite warped from reality. I would rethink my position on hatred for a specific culture if I were you and ask myself if I really know what culture was. Do you honestly know? Think about it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you seem unwilling to draw that distinction. See any time you have skipped from “Mexican” to “Mexican culture,” thereby lumping cultures by skin color and voiding any desire you might have to delineate along non-skin color lines.
Your choice. In any case, I refer to rappers as portraying a harmful stereotype. You obviously don’t trust a word I say anyway shrug
No, ASS, what you refer to is the fact that all black people ought to be treated as if they are individually the same as Tupac or some other two-bit gangster. The rapper stereotype is a harmful one, but you seem to be the only person here willing to apply it to all black people… except in those cases where, for some reason, they decide to put forth the time and effort to gain the benefit of your doubt, which you have for terrible reasons refused to grant them in the first place.
OUR culture. AMERICAN culture. CAPITALISTIC culture.
You do know that Americans, nearly all of them in fact, have values that are not in any way limited to productivity, right? In fact, a great many Americans have a strong distaste for over-productivity (working more than 40 hours a week, etc.).
Rich != Productive. See all the rich families that have every existed.
Agreed. Taking the time to read my post before freaking out might have helped you here. The point I was making is that Americans are more than willing to punish rich (=productive, which I never disputed, and totally agree with) people who are otherwise dastardly.
Her productivity was in a different form. Rather than purely economic, her productivity was social related, and an applicable form of productivity. She helped others ACHIEVE productivity.
You do realize that this point is pure nonsense, right? First of all, you have up until now spoken ONLY of economic productivity, so this “social productivity” is outside the sphere of the argument. Also, what in the name of all that is good and holy is “social productivity?” And what do you think Mother Theresa did? She wasn’t a welfare agency. She comforted the suffering, she didn’t make them valuable members of the workforce.
You keep assuming that I say that there are no exceptions to the rules. However, as you continue to gloss over every time I say that…
Well, you see, the problem with rules is that they only admit of a few exceptions before they become nonsense. The claim that “Black people are, as a rule, dangerous/unproductive/whatever” has so many counterexamples that it is ridiculous to accept it as a rule.
Exactly. But you provide no support for the other side.
What kind of support do you want? That the science known as biology does not allow for any causal connection to be drawn between skin pigmentation and productivity, except in weird cases like landscaping jobs at the Equator? Because there is an entire body of human knowledge standing by that.
There’s no clear case for a lack of biological restrictions, but there’s no clear case for absolutely none.
Exactly how clear do you want the case to be? It seems to me that the reasons for thinking productivity is not linked to skin color far outweigh those on the opposite side, in that the ones on the opposite side don’t make any sense.
It’s the difference from a fact as justified through my observations and a fact as justified through third party observations.
The difference being that those third party observations have controlled-for variables and large sample sets, whereas yours involve one black boy in a backwards baseball cap outside 7-11 and Antonin Scalia.
They must justify the time spent in judging them, especially critical if I’m not going to deal with them for an extended period.
Except that they’ve already justified at least some respect just by virtue of the fact that they are people, and you’ve already chosen to ignore that.
Because not everyone is the same as everyone else.
Hey, good call.
If I can’t assume the worst of people, you can’t assume the best of people either, so your request is equally moot.
You must come from a crazy place if assuming that not every black person is a violent criminal is synonymous with “assuming the best of people.”
Then you explain how people turn into gang members eh?
I assure you that it’s not by being black.
I say it’s nurture. Do you say that it’s nature?
But you DON’T say that. You have repeatedly made it clear that culture can be treated as synonymous with skin color, thereby making it clear that YOU think it’s nature.
Did I say that black people were? I said that people in a poor culture that is more accepting of committing crimes.
Which, you’ve made repeatedly clear, is aka “black culture.”
You are saying that if a black person comes up to me with a knife in his hand, I can’t suppose he’s out to kill me, because I have to make a judgment call based on his character. I can’t ASSUME based on how he appears.
Actually, what I would like you to think is that if anyone at all comes up to you with a knife in his/her hand, you just might want to exercise caution. The skin color of the knife-iac is hardly relevant to the issue.
Have you ever considered the possibilty of what happens when the judgment would be right if you were prejudiced, but wrong (perhaps to a mortal extent) if you were not? Am I supposed to tolerate blacks saying “I’m gonna kill those damn whities” when I can’t say “I dislike black people”?
Actually, I’d like for you not to tolerate when people say either of those things. They’re both ridiculous. The problem of course is that, and I’m sure your mom taught you this, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Just because you have seen a black person, or even a dozen black people, say “I’m gonna kill those damn whitites” does not justify you in taking the same low road.
It would seem to me that they aren’t working to rectify it.
Why should they have to? It’s your friggin’ stereotype. You are the one with the problem.
You explain to me how black people can honestly not try to portray themselves to appear in a good light and instead rely on people saying “you’re racist” without actually working to remove the stereotypes? You won’t stop racism until you start clearing the stereotypes.
And what would this monolithic entity known as “black people” have to do to “clear the stereotypes”? Would it require all black people in the country becoming law-abiding citizens and joining the ranks of the middle class? And why should black persons who are now being law-abiding and productive members of society have to bear the stigma that you want to attach to them simply because some people who look like them are bad people? Should I judge you based on the antics of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Timothy McVeigh? If not, why is this different?
And blacks apparently don’t seem to mind being associated with rap since I don’t see people trying to actively stop it.
So because the aforementioned monolith has not risen up Joe Lieberman-style to quash rap music, every black person is implicated in every mention of “hoes” and “bitches”? That means that all black people are okay with this? Let me tell you, Clarence Thomas minds being associated with thugs like Tupac DESPITE the fact that he’s not stomping out rap music.
Clarence Thomas also claimed that someone put a pubic hair on his coke.
But you’ve got a point. If I had been born black, I wouldn’t associate myself with rap. Jazz and soul, however…
That was me. Not my pubic hair. I just put it in the Coke.
We can switch to Condy or Colin Powell or any other successful, reasonably intelligent black person (read: not Al Sharpton).
But you’ve got a point. If I had been born black, I wouldn’t associate myself with rap. Jazz and soul, however…
Lies. Pipian has informed us that you would be, by default, associated with rap music because you’re black. Rap is black. And rap is evil.
.: Black is evil. QED.
Alright. I admit defeat.
but at least I’m not wicks.
drty pinko commi blaxks
Let’s all give thanks for not being wicks.
The fact that I am not wicks will sustain me through my darkest hours. I may (will) become a hopeless bum without even a piece of cardboard to my name, but I will not despair, because I will still not be wicks.