Viacom CBS terminates Nick Cannon contract after anti-semetic and anti-white remarks

Give that man his three million now Les

 

Come on Nook....he said "white people" as in ALL white people, and then followed that up with "white people suck".

He didn't say "some white people" (which if he did I could understand just as I would and do understand that some black people suck and some Hispanic people suck etc etc).

Sucking as a person (and being a racist) has NOTHING to do with the color of ones skin. It DOES have to do with what's in a person's heart and soul however.

 

hmmm. This sounds awfully familiar. Like somebody telling people they are wrong without providing justification for said claim.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are being overly sensitive IMO.

He was not saying that all white people are racist or that it is something inherent to white people.

The reality is that this nation has been overwhelmingly controlled and ran by the white establishment, and they were the ones that draft laws and procedures. If we lived in a nation that was historically 75% black and racism against whites was a serious concern, we would be having this conversation about black people.

 

Actually the 2 things are not at all alike.

Why are you still salty?

I and others have provided justification for said claim several times in this thread.

 

Take your internet point and get out of here.

@Nook
@RayRay10
@B-Bob
@dmoneybangbang
@D-rock
@KingCheetah
@Jayzers_100
@jiggyfly
@DonkeyMagic
@donkeypunch
@No Worries
@NewRoxFan
@SamFisher
@Carl Herrera
@dobro1229
@boomboom
@J.R.
@Deckard
@Xerobull
@Ubiquitin
@Invisible Fan
@Sweet Lou 4 2

1 like = 1 good luck

+

 

So you now deflect it by mentioning others? It does not matter if 99% of the world thinks that slavery is justifiable. Appeal to popularity does not get your premises any closer to the truth.

I have given you plenty of chances to either acknowledge you have no justification or set me straight and now seeing your post made me LOL. I am still waiting for your "u are not the boss of me" when pinned to a question you cannot answer.

How is "That's it exactly and shows that all people are not immune from the charms of people who tell them what they want to believe." different from you telling people they are wrong without justification?

 

Apologies to anyone I missed such as...

@CCorn
@Jontro
@Buck Turgidson
@conquistador#11
@London'sBurning
@Surfguy
@fadeaway
@Rocket River
@FranchiseBlade
@Rashmon
@JuanValdez
@calcium
@Andre0087
@mdrowe00
@TimDuncanDonaut
@BigM
@Haymitch
@EddieWasSnubbed
@gifford1967
@AroundTheWorld
@CometsWin
@dc rock
@Yung-T
@AleksandarN
@Ziggy

1 like = 1 good luck

+

 

One has nothing to do with the other and it tells me a lot that you think they do.

I can't help that choose to ignore everything else I have said in the thread, do just not like to read?

 

WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING IN THE D&D???!?

I GOTTA GO SHOWER NOW...

 

@zzpot
@DudeWah

 

...a lot of these sentiments have pervaded American history, particularly throughout the latter half of the twentieth century (certainly after World War 2). And unfortunately, like most social contracts in America then, the "whiter" you were, the better the deal you got.

I have a couple of brothers who are much older than me. Every so often, they would mention a bit of consternation over some Jewish people's opportunistic relationships with black people. Some Jewish people would be cordial and friendly with Negroes in certain settings (usually their own homes, or if they were visiting someone), and more than a little stand-offish and dismissive in public or business settings, they said.

As it happens, such behavior wasn't as uncommon or relegated to Jewish/Negro interactions in relation to anyone else. Negroes were just at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder (might have been slightly worse to be homosexual or "foreign" or female, at the time), and as such, most of the time such brusque (if not unfair) treatment or conduct towards Negroes was simply status quo. It was expected. It was a way to conform to the "American" ideal.

That tension has always existed between Jewish people and Negroes here, unfortunately. And especially after what Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany did during the 1930s and 1940s, it makes sense (strictly in terms of survival) for Jewish people to do whatever it took to avoid another nightmare like the ones the Nazis perpetrated. They, of course, saw the potential for it happening here, and wanted no part of that.

Martin Luther King, in his famous letter written from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, cited the hypocrisy of local clergymen who tried to upbraid King's social movements on behalf of Negroes. One of those clergymen was a Jewish Rabbi who was particularly critical of Dr. King, and King minced no words in his rebut of him, specifically, incidentally. King also warned that if white people successfully rejected his nonviolent activists as rabble-rousing outside agitators, that could encourage millions of African Americans to "seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare."

...and so you have Nick Cannon.

Your point, Nook, about the general distrust between Negro and Jewish communities waning in recent years (because of the recognition by those groups of shared causes and purposes), speaks to the function of changing the laws that existed that perpetuated a segmented view of society (civil rights laws). Younger people in this country have had the unique benefit (since the country's inception) of not being forced into segregated mindsets or world views because of the laws of the nation. They tend to understand more readily and openly that their fates are shared and intertwined.

But that's only because they've had the opportunity to grow up and go to school together and play together and meet each other's families and live their lives without the pretense of "...they're not as good as you are..." or "...it's something wrong with them..."...

...and that's only happened because Negroes got those laws changed. Over and over again, there have been white people who have had their hands on the reins of state and looked the other way, or even actively worked against, any type of racial harmony or equity. You hear that report from everybody who cites Abraham Lincoln's reticence to abolish slavery before the Civil War, to Lyndon B. Johnson's own well-chronicled coarseness and indifference (under the right circumstance) toward black people...

...while it is unequivocally true that "racism is racism" and "everyone can be racist" on the face of the statement (which of course isn't any more true now than it wasn't true before, when the people who tend to sound off with this would have been the very same people who would have told peaceful Negro protestors to go home if you didn't want police dogs sicced on you back in the 1950s...it's the equivalent of arguing over whether or not the earth is flat, because the earth is going to be round no matter who makes the argument against)...

...all that really is, is another way to get away from the crux of the conversation. The truth exists without (and in most cases, in spite of) context. Context is relative to the human condition: what is important or relevant to us is what often is regarded as "truth".

So anybody so inclined to tell the truth...but wants to pick and choose which parts of that "truth" to tell based on what you personally consider to be important...

...ought to not waste any time and go straight to the direct lie, because it's going to wind up with the same result or end.

That's something I believe we could all learn from the Donald, the leader of the free world...

 

I agree on context and people with ulterior motives will pick and choose points in history or episodes to further their own agenda with no regard for context and the time period.

We, in this country have a history of a new immigrant class starting near the bottom and eventually move up the social ladder with one exception- African Americans. To me, this isn’t really debatable and the context for why that is the case is never taken fully into account. The blame is laid at fatherless homes or lack of ambition. No one discusses the actual causes and the unique history of AA.

I recently was listening to a recording of a black college professor recorded in 1989. He was roughly 80 years old and he gave a perspective of history in the 1920’s-1940’s that is not depicted in history books or movies. He discussed the fact that the issue was not segregation. He believed that at that time whites had little interest in black people and black people had little interest in living with or by white people. The issue that caused the civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s was the fact that separate but equal was SO UNEQUAL. He stated it was indefensible and that is what caused a push to end segregation in the black community. My point being that the treatment of a group of people in the USA for hundreds of years was so extreme that many on both sides didn’t want desegregation. Couple that with black men in WWII believing they would be treated better after returning from the war, only to be treated worse... led to the more extreme (and I would argue effective) call of black empowerment.

I honestly concluded that institutional and common racism against AA would not end until there was several generations of strong interracial families.... then I heard a light skinned biracial family member of mine refer to AA outside of the suburbs as ******* that “make us look bad.”.... I swallowed my Viking inclination to back hand him into the window and spoke to him... he is half AA, and he views himself as “good black”.... At this point I have little hope outside of seeing suppressed groups banding together and insisting on being heard and change.... as for my family member (headed to Stanford); I reminded him that the next time a cop pulls him over, they may think he looks a little too black.

 

Can we all take a moment to appreciate @RayRay10 nuking us with likes every morning?



We appreciate it fam

 

@RayRay10 never met a post he didn't like.

 

...he just wants us all to get along...

 

Pretty much, except far right wing, or racist (what’s the difference amirite?) post

Them dudes are missing out on thousands of likes.

 

"No one discusses the actual causes and the unique history of AA..."

...hmh.

You know, I've heard the saying, many times, that the greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.

I suppose, then, that telling American History without telling "African-American" history (either completely or correctly)...would run a close second.

But that is a large portion of this lingering national problem, isn't it?

Most everybody has an opinion. Not really much of a chore, there. Opinions tend to come in pairs...like butt-cheeks. Everybody's sitting on a couple of those, so everybody feels the same kind of important.

There was no "America" without "African-Americans". I know this because the people who founded this country made sure to expressly designate them as inferior...in perpetuity, in many cases.

Nobody questions why you have a dog on a collar. You might get those so inclined to ask what kind of dog it is..or maybe call the local constabulary if it's felt that you've got no business telling them what to do with their dog if you happen to be African-American...but nobody argues about whether it's a dog or not.

Mostly.

What you wind up with, when ..."no one discusses....the unique history of African-Americans"...

...is somebody like Ben Carson, standing up in front of a group of people telling some magical fairy tale story about enslaved Africans chained at the bottom of slave ships, who were "immigrants" with "dreams" of their descendants having a chance at a better life in the "New World"...

...or people actually thinking that Thomas Jefferson's "relationship" with his enslaved houseworker, Sally Hemings (whom he couldn't bother to release from enslavement at any time), was "loving" and "consensual" and "transcended the bounds of contemporary society" (read that last part in some doofus reimagining of colonial America a while back)...

...or people saying things like the Civil War was not fought over slavery (when the Confederacy started the war and stated that that was exactly why they were fighting it)...

You wind up with a lie that is more enticing and inviting and defensible than the truth could ever hope to be. And with our capitalist bent...you wind up with even more people committed to its sustained existence because of the massive check it writes.

Sooner or later (and my own personal preference is for sooner), we're going to have to do more that debate the nuances of what American chattel slavery was, or how many people around the world were enslaved, or how many Negro homes are broken and how many Negro brains are full of mush...

...we're going to have to stop pretending that two separate and distinct ideas are able to co-exist in the same place at the same time.

Only "white" people, it seems, can vote for someone who's openly racist (or sexist, or homophobic, or sexually deviant), and claim that one thing doesn't inform them of the other.

The last (half) Negro president had to publicly distance himself from his lifelong pastor for saying "racist" and denigrating things about America.

Even poor old Nick Cannon, who's about as sharp as a plastic spoon, has been begging and pleading for his job back for a lot longer than his whole "racist" and anti-Semitic comments took to fall out of his mouth.

Most of the people who want to say that "all lives matter" or that "everybody can be racist" (because of when they pick and choose to say those things)...aren't the persons who could point me in the direction of "up" if they were laying flat on their backs...

 

If I’m ever having a bad day I just log into CF to see all my posts RayRay liked