[…]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

[…]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

[...] Every week we link to blogs that we enjoy reading. Listed below are the new additions that we picked [...]…

[...] Every week we link to blogs that we enjoy reading. Listed below are the new additions that we picked [...]…

Field Negro is right that whites and the white (in)justice system value dogs, regardless of their color, much more than they value and protect Black women. They value and protect a Black man's dog more than they value and protect a Black man's Black girlfriend.

Chris Brown was wise not to beat a white and blond singer senseless, or he'd be serving 20 years to life in jail for attempted murder. He'd have been treated like a serial ax murderer / rapist if he had beaten a white and blond woman like that.

So, can a Black man be “racist” against a Black woman by preferentially beating up that Black woman based on his correct belief that the legal consequences of beating up a Black woman will be less than the legal consequences of beating up a white woman? No, a Black man cannot beat up a Black woman on the basis of her “race” because “race” does not exist:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program, “DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.”

In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call “race” does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to “race” are references to a fallacy.

And if anyone wants to drag in all of that ideological sociological bullshit about “race” existing as a social construct, then we would have to conclude that . . . Chris Brown is not “racist” to choose beat up a Black woman instead of a white woman. Chris Brown, according to the pantheons and canons of “racism”, because Chris Brown, as a Black man, doesn't have the social power necessary to beat his Black girlfriend senseless.

Except Chris Brown obviously DOES have the power to beat his Black girlfriend senseless, and the power comes in part from the knowledge that the white criminal justice system will not treat him as brutally and mercilessly as it would if his victim were white. So, Chris Brown chooses his victims based on their skin color, but he's not “racist”, because “racism” doesn't exist. Racism cannot logically exist because “race” itself does not exist.

Let me harmonize all of ideological madness for everyone by speaking about skin color that DOES exist instead of “race” that doesn't: Chris Brown has the color-aroused ideation that he will not be harshly punished for beating up a Black woman. This ideation is based on four hundred years of history in the United States of America. Black men are not allowed to beat up famous white female singers and live to tell about it.

So, Chris Brown chose his victim based on skin-color-associated ideation and his knowledge of how skin-color-based (in)justice works in the United States of America.
He chose his victim based not on “race”, which doesn't exist, but based on skin color, which DOES exist. Anyone want to argue whether skin color exists or not?

Instead of asking the “chicken and egg,” “tree falls in the forest” question of whether Blacks can be “racist” against Blacks, which is like asking whether helium weighs more than oxygen underwater, why don't we simplify our terms and ask whether Chris Brown can choose to beat up his girl friend based on the knowledge that the criminal justice system won't treat him as harshly as it would if his girlfriend where white. The answer to that question is obvious, even to ten year olds. He wouldn't DARE leave a famous white woman singer's face looking like that!

I think it's pretty obvious why Black men don't go around beating famous white women's faces to a black and blue pulp: Black men don't want to spend the rest of their lives in jail for one night's angry outburst against a white victim who is more highly valued by white juries, prosecutors, judges and police. This is not “racism” but it is color-based decision-making, which is something that people of any skin color are capable of.

Would O.J. Simpson's case have become two-year-long national cause celêbre if he had been suspected of cutting a Black woman's throat? Of course not! With the “evidence” they had, they probably wouldn't even have bothered to arrest him!

Ideation based on skin color is why Black people kill Black people more than they kill white people. We know that killing Black people is socially acceptable while killing white people is stupid, because it much more often leads to the electric chair.

Color-based justice in the police departments, district attorney's offices, courts and juries leads to color-based decision-making on the part of Blacks and whites alike. Why steal a white refrigerator and get the death penalty, when you can steal a Black refrigerator of equal cost and quality and get two years' probation?

That analysis is not based on “race” and “racism” (the non-existence of the former having precluded the existence of the latter) and it's doesn't require knowing whether barium weighs more than oxygen. It's simply color-aroused decision-making based on predictable color-aroused consequences.

Forget “racism” theory and ideology and witch doctory, and let's discuss skin color-based decision making. Chris Brown is not in jail today because he made the logical but morally reprehensible color-based decision to beat up a famous Black woman singer instead of a famous white woman singer.

Kanje West took a medal out of a white woman's hand during a Grammy ceremony (or Emmy or Nobel?), without physically harming the white woman at all (except with respect to her legal right not to be unconsentually touched, even indirectly) and this became became national news. Chris Brown's brutality toward his girlfriend also became national news, but he was not seriously punished because he beat up a Black woman instead of a white woman. He showed an very keen understanding of the skin color-based (in)justice system for which the United States of America is notorious.

Field Negro is right that whites and the white (in)justice system value dogs much more than they value and protect Black women. They value and protect a Black man's dog more than they value and protect a Black man's Black girlfriend. Chris Brown was wise not to beat a white and blond singer senseless, or he'd be serving 20 years to life in jail for attempted murder.

Can Black people be racist against one another, by preferentially beating up a Black woman because the legal consequences will be less in the white criminal (in)justice system? No, a Black man cannot be preferentially beat up a Black woman because of her “race”, because “race” doesn't exist, as a matter of scientific and biological fact.

And if anyone wants to drag in all of that ideological sociological bullshit about “race” existing as a social construct, then we would have to conclude that . . . Chris Brown is not “racist” to choose beat up a Black woman instead of a white woman based on the consequences within the white justice system. Chris Brown can't be “racist” because he doesn't have the social power to beat his girlfriend senseless.

Except Chris Brown obviously DOES have the power to beat his girlfriend senseless and the power comes in part from the knowledge that the white criminal justice system will not treat him as it would if his victim were white. So, Chris Brown chooses his victims based on their skin color, but he's not “racist”.

Let me harmonize all of this for you. Chris Brown has the color-aroused ideation that he will not be harshly punished for beating up a Black woman. He also knows that he would be UNDER the jail if he had beaten up a white woman in the same way. So, he chose his victim based on color-aroused ideation and his knowledge of how color-aroused (in)justice works in the United States of America.

He chose his victim based not on “race”, which doesn't exist, but based on skin color, which DOES exist. Anyone want to argue whether skin color exists or not? So, instead of asking whether Blacks can be racist against Blacks, which is like asking whether helium weighs more than oxygen underwater, why don't we simplify our terms and ask whether Chris Brown can be aroused by the color of his victim to treat her in way that he wouldn't DARE treat a white woman?

I think it's pretty obvious why Black men don't go around beating famous white women's faces to an obvious pulp. Black men don't want to spend the rest of their lives in jail for one night's angry outburst against a white victim who is more highly valued by whites.

Would O.J. Simpson's case have become two-year-long national cause celêbre if he had been suspected of cutting a Black woman's throat? Of course not! With the “evidence” they had, they probably wouldn't even have bothered to arrest him.

Ideation based on skin color is why Black people kill Black people more than they kill white people. They know that killing Black people is socially acceptable while killing white people is stupid because it much more often leads to the electric chair.

Color-based justice in the police departments, district attorney's offices, courts and juries leads to color-based decision-making on the part of Blacks and whites alike. Why steal a white refrigerator and get the death penalty, when you can steal a Black refrigerator and get two years' probation?

That's not “racism” and it's doesn't require knowing whether barium weighs more than oxygen. It's simply color-aroused decision-making based on predictable color-aroused consequences.

To me that is what we are looking at.

My two are 22 and 17 years old and I still remember! LOL

So what if I came here and gave an opposing view–isn't that the point of an open forum?

It's a sad day if black people can't even discuss something amongst themselves simply because it's a different opinion.

Happy for epidurals…4get about that natural BULL! You gotta loooove pain, or be a pain warrior to buy into the BS!!

Wherein did I personally attack you? By asking you not to “be so uppity that you can't see the reality?”

If you consider that comment a personal attack, you won't last long on this blog or anywhere else.

That's half the reason I don't comment on here as much as I would like.

Every time I make a dissenting comment I get blasted on a personal level and I've never made a personal charge at any other commenter on here before.

Having said that, it still does not excuse him from what he did. PERIOD.

Additionally, since he's 20 years old, that means he's grown up during the time period where being sensitive to women was on the front burner. Men who grew up before the 1980s were still TAUGHT that you DO NOT HIT WOMEN, PERIOD.

Brown has no excuse, and if he respected Rihanna, HE WOULD HAVE NEVER, EVER, PUT HIS HANDS ON HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If Lil' Wayne did the same shyt, we'd get on his ass the same way. Read the blog posts about the shyt he pulled at the “tribute” for Michael Jackson and how we railed at that.

You think Sesame Street is going to associate themselves with the likes of Chris Brown after this? They're going to FORGET they EVEN KNEW HIM.

Please don't be so “Uppity” that you can't see what is the reality.

I never will condone domestic abuse in whatever manner it is, but I just can't but be bothered by the commentary that has followed this. I'm having a distinct problem that everyone has so clearly endorsed the gender roles of man vs. woman and woman vs. man. I'm almost insulted because it seems that the male perspective doesn't have a say-so at the discussion table with this whole Chris Brown and Rihanna incident.

He's TWENTY years old.

And an immature twenty at that.

I mean, everyone's responding to him like he's a fully grown man and been on his own for a while. I mean this is not Lil' Wayne we got here, but Chris Brown, who's two steps removed from doing Sesame Street with Elmo. He's 20 years old, I'm sure his “not remembering” was probably nothing more than him not wanting to go into the sordid details–that I'm sure most people didn't want to hear in the first place.

Realistically, did we want to hear that any more than we would want to have heard about how OJ allegedly killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman?