# The African and Caucasian minds: Differences in Hip Hop "styles".



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

The Caucasian mind, or being, differs from the African's in many aspects (one may say that their "souls" have easily distinguished ways of operating). 

I will use Hip Hop as a means of discussing these differences, as I believe engaging in (the majority of) Hip Hop's elements--MCing, DJing, Dancing (whether popping, locking, bboying, etc), is the truest self-expression, the truest/freest "being" that one can have/do/be. A true dancer becomes the music: letting it move his body naturally (there are no ifs, ands, or buts; there is only the next step). The emcee channels words that fit a certain rhyme scheme. 

What are the noticable differences between the (average) Caucasian emcee and the (average) African? Body movement and lyrical flow. Why is it that Caucasian Hip Hop heads so often lack "flavor"? Because their minds exist in abstraction; less of their consciousness is associated with the body. 

For the African   feeling -> Movement -> thinking, while for the Caucasian thinking -> movement ->feeling. The reason this is so, I believe, is because the caucasian mind has evolved through years of abstraction. Why abstract? To overcome obstacles, to achieve goals. (Ignoring cultural and political conditions; ignoring society altogether) Is it easier to live in very cold climates, or mild to hot climates? Which takes more effort, planning, and abstraction to secure survival? Abstract thinking--a dissociation with the body/present environmental conditions--is emphasized in the Caucasian mind, while the African's mind is more in touch with the present environment. I am not saying one is worse, or the other is better (but one or the other would, mostly likely, prove more efficient for different tasks). 

The African emcee molds his mind to the music, letting his lyrics fit into the environment's rhythm; while the Caucasian emphasized abstractions, remaining still in place as his mind actively searches for an answer in the ether.


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

What? I'm lost. Personally I think you chose the subject of hip-hop so your work wouldn't be seen as offensive and get deleted. You talk a lot of shit.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

Ah man, I knew someone would get all emotional about this. What "shit" am I talking? Am I talking shit about whites, or blacks? I honestly don't know. 

I explained why I chose the topic of hip hop. I wasn't aware I wrote anything negative about either of the minds' tendencies...


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

It wasn't really negative, just...rubbish. There I said it!


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

Wow, I've never seen so much bullshit in so few words. Care to (make a fool of yourself while you attempt to) explain why it's "rubbish"?


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

No, I can smell the bitterness on your breath and I need some time to relish in it.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

Why would I be bitter (it was you, in fact, who began spitting nonsense at me, only to alter your stance once I called you out on it)? I'm the logical one.


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

"one may say that their "souls" have easily distinguished ways of operating". The logic that is beyond all understanding...


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

Why? It follows from the previous statement, making it obvious that mind/being = soul, and that the differences in how they think are easily seen (through the examples I give, in the context of hip hop). 

It's okay. Childish minds can't help but interpret text childishly. Maybe in a few years--if you humble yourself--you'll manage to grasp _some_ of my (simpler) thoughts.


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, as black and white 'beings' are different, I didn't know beings/souls were tainted by colour but thank you for enlightening me...Oh humble master accept my sarcasm as a gift. :king:


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

> Yes, as black and white 'beings' are different, I didn't know beings/souls were tainted by colour but thank you for enlightening me...Oh humble master accept my sarcasm as a gift.



The mind is filtered through the body in daily life (and while asleep--restricted by one's belief systems and association with the body). 

Apparently my previous post didn't enlighten you. Hopefully you'll manage to not screw up my message this time around.


----------



## Intel (Dec 10, 2007)

Its not right to say that the mind is filtered through the body as they're both infused with each other. A little filtered but not totally. 

Secondly the mind isn't "restricted by one's belief systems and associations with the body" while asleep. During deep sleep the mind doesn't even exist. There isn't even the concept of 'I'. So during this time there is no mind to be restricted. As your consciousness becomes more gross the mind comes into being once again. 

And last of all, I still don't see what you're trying to get across. Every individuals mind differs, black and white, white and white. Whats your point? But keep spouting that nonsense if it makes you feel better.:tongue:


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 10, 2007)

> Its not right to say that the mind is filtered through the body as they're both infused with each other. A little filtered but not totally.



It is right to say that the mind is filtered through the body. Do you think, during your waking consciousness, you ever perceive outside your physical senses? Saying that it isn't right because I didn't specify something else that happens is just being argumentative. You just said "A isn't right because there is both A and B!" You were hopeless from the start, admit that you attempted to use me as a scapegoat, and accept that I've easily refuted every "argument" you've made. I'm in a different league, Intel. Go back to the sandbox. 




> Secondly the mind isn't "restricted by one's belief systems and associations with the body" while asleep. During deep sleep the mind doesn't even exist. There isn't even the concept of 'I'. So during this time there is no mind to be restricted. As your consciousness becomes more gross the mind comes into being once again.



Why are you restricting the mind to the concept of "I"? "I" consciousness is just one way a mind can operate. You have heard of REM sleep, right? Have you considered I was referring to that? No, you didn't, because that wouldn't enable you to make such lazy, half-assed arguments, would it? 

How do you know the mind doesn't exist while the body is in deep sleep? I only accept this argument if you restrict the "mind" to the perceptions of waking consciousness. How silly the "logical" materialists can be, when they make such absolute statements about things they couldn't possibly know. 



> And last of all, I still don't see what you're trying to get across. Every individuals mind differs, black and white, white and white. Whats your point? But keep spouting that nonsense if it makes you feel better.



Haha, "last of all", like you've even made one sensible point. 

Yes, every individual differs mind to mind, but I am talking about the average for two types. You still haven't managed to explain why it's "nonsense". It is about something... it is sensible. I didn't say all white minds or black minds are the same. Why do you keep insulting me to try to save face when you were out of line to make the ignorant comments you made in the first place?

I am so tired of taking the care to emphasize certain things in my text, just to prevent impulsive egos from jumping to faulty conclusions, only to have to argue with those that do it anyways.


----------



## Intel (Dec 11, 2007)

I said that the mind is not *totally *filtered through the body. Sometimes during the day you're not even aware of your body, such as when you're off daydreaming. Also if you've ever been in a deep meditative state you would know that one can have many out-of-body experiences. So I still disagree that the mind is totally filtered through the body. Or we can use your analogy, A can function seperately from B, although A is sometimes filtered through B.

Your second comment is funny. Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!? Everything that you've ever experienced, whether it be a thought or perception, has all happened through this sense of 'I'. Without 'I' there would be no world, for the world to exist for you there needs to be this 'I' that experiences it.

So unless you're some kind of sage that recognizes the impersonal nature of all things, including this 'I' thought then you've just made a ridiculous statement. Also even if you were a sage and believed the world to be one, you would still experience things through 'I', just at a deeper level.

I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.


----------



## ieuan (Dec 11, 2007)

I thought the article was unscientific. It was a poor attempt to show racial differences. In the first few sentences you lapsed from mind into soul, then trivialised the whole thrust of your thought by inexplicably drifting in to hip hop, a behavioural pattern of dance which has nothing to do with quality of a man's brain.

I thought Intel took the bait too easily and got dragged into a meaninglass debate. In short I think the article is classical flaming.

All brains in all human being are essentialy the same, although it is a scientific fact that Asian brains are larger than the rest of humanity, no one knows why. Some speculate it is because Asians are the oldest peoples. But I don't think much of that argument.

The quality and make up of our brains is the same throughout the world so why do we behave differently? It is of course because of cultural differences and language. Our upbringing and the way we relate to each other with patterns and structre of society all have an input into our personality, and how we think and how we bahave.

So that's the end of that silly discussion. No more to be said, is there?

I feel silly now having fallen and willingly engaged in such a topic.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 11, 2007)

> I thought the article was unscientific.



I didn't attempt to make it "scientific".


It was a poor attempt to show racial differences.

Not really. I did what I did. If something this short was too difficult for you, why would I bother going deeper from the very beginning?

In the first few sentences you lapsed from mind into soul, 

Lapsed? Excuse me? I am explaining the terms. Why do people think their confusion = writer's confusion? The greek 'psych' refers to mind, being, soul.




> then trivialised the whole thrust of your thought by inexplicably drifting in to hip hop, a behavioural pattern of dance which has nothing to do with quality of a man's brain.



Drifting? I had the idea to explain the difference in the context of hip hop from the very beginning. I wrote the title before anything else. How is it triviliazing? It's a single example that clarifies their differences in being. 

What do you mean dancing has nothing to do with a man's brain?



> I thought Intel took the bait too easily and got dragged into a meaninglass debate. In short I think the article is classical flaming.



And you're wrong to think that. I'm not saying either side is good or bad. Don't restrict me to your own mental limitations. 



> All brains in all human being are essentialy the same, although it is a scientific fact that Asian brains are larger than the rest of humanity, no one knows why. Some speculate it is because Asians are the oldest peoples. But I don't think much of that argument.



Essentially the same, because they have a lot in common? 



> The quality and make up of our brains is the same throughout the world so why do we behave differently?



Again, the wuality and make up is not "the same". That is just an example of how arrogant people can be when they first start to understand (how many) things (are alike). 




> It is of course because of cultural differences and language.



That's part of it, of course. 

 Our upbringing and the way we relate to each other with patterns and structre of society all have an input into our personality, and how we think and how we bahave.



> So that's the end of that silly discussion. No more to be said, is there?



No that's not. It;s the end of your useless input, however. 



> I feel silly now having fallen and willingly engaged in such a topic.



Better than feeling like the idiot that you are.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 11, 2007)

> I said that the mind is not totally filtered through the body. Sometimes during the day you're not even aware of your body, such as when you're off daydreaming. Also if you've ever been in a deep meditative state you would know that one can have many out-of-body experiences. So I still disagree that the mind is totally filtered through the body. Or we can use your analogy, A can function seperately from B, although A is sometimes filtered through B.



I've had plenty of out of body experiences, but that is why I said "associations with the body". You still perceive the environment in a way habitual to your waking life's memory. You're finding conflict where there is none. Karma is essentially habit, and it follows into dreams, meditative states, etc. Buddhsm attempts to quiet and control the mind as an attempt to break habits (reducing one's wants/needs, becoming (more) content). This is Karma for the Hindus, and is helped by behavioral therapy and lots of careful philosophy here in the West. 






> Your second comment is funny. Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!? Everything that you've ever experienced, whether it be a thought or perception, has all happened through this sense of 'I'. Without 'I' there would be no world, for the world to exist for you there needs to be this 'I' that experiences it.



First off, you'd really help me out if you used quotes. Frankly, I don't trust your explanation of what I said, and sometimes I have to look back to see exactly how I worded it (you should take advantage of this care instead of rushing to faulty conclusions when a perceived conflict (in your definitions) gets you all excited).  


> Oh the mind isn't restricted to the concept of 'I' isn't it? And how would you know!?



No it isn't. First off, explain what the hell "I" is. What is the concept? WHat exactly is one, before they are an "I"? What grants them "I" hood? 

I didn't perceive through a cultural belief of what distinguishes one "I" from another when I was an infant. If one can perceive it then, why can't there be moments where "self-consciousness" isn't conscious? When you are so engrossed in a moment you aren't conscious you are thinking (this is not "I" consciousness). This is why people are happier doing some modest gardening then riding around in their boat. How would I know? Because I remember moments where my full concentration went on a certain task, and I wasn't currently "thinking" at all. I was just perceining... taking in a stimulus, and creating an output, no mediating it with how it relates to one's self. We have moments like this several times a day, if even for a few moments. Just because one has been engrained with an idea of what "I"ness is doesn't mean it persists for every moment (waking or dreaming) of one's life.

Were you raised religious or something? Your mind seems very... devotional, to certain cultural beliefs. It's like your proposing some God granted these beings this "I"ness, and that is what they are from the start... an infant is born and, somehow objectively, it is distinguished as special from the rest (simply because the nervous system makes sensations on this "body" easily conscious to the mind that perceives them). So yes, this infant, as soon as it is born (or conceived, for that matter!) is infused with an "I" consciousness that its similar species has imagined up and memorized through the years of written history. That's your stance? 




> _So unless you're some kind of sage that recognizes the impersonal nature of all things_, including this 'I' thought then you've just made a ridiculous statement. _Also even if you were a sage and believed the world to be one, you would still experience things through 'I', just at a deeper level._



Comapred to you, I am indeed. After all, I was talking impersonally and nonjudgementally about the general differences between two races' (average) minds, and you start going off like I'm some racist. You're just trying to save face now, since I see this "I"ness is so vital to your being. That's called egoism.

As for the last part, how do you know that's not what I'm doing right now? I'm telling you, you don't know shit, and I'm only being this blunt because you were asking for it from the very start with this ridiculous mix of ignorance and arrogance. I don't give a shit about my self-concept, I have become honest with who I am (and that is why I can comfortably by honest about the differences in others without judging them as "Good" or "Bad".)

I'm in a completely different mindset from you, Intel. Save these posts, you might enjoy it in a few years. 



> I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.



Okay. Well I just explained things for you further. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, you might just want to admit that you're not yet on my level, and quit. It's so obvious, to me... but you're not yet reasonable naturally; you are struggling to be. My mind naturally thinks reasonably, and I actively think creatively. It's very fun, once you understand this "I"ness is bullshit and you stop taking it so seriously (as long as you can utilize it to survive, fuck it. Why limit yourself to an ego through which you label yourself "Good" or "Bad" according to your merits through a cultural scoring system? Good-Enjoy the moment. Bad-Don't intrude on other's ability to enjoy the moment.


----------



## Intel (Dec 11, 2007)

> Comapred to you, I am indeed. After all, I was talking impersonally and nonjudgementally about the general differences between two races' (average) minds, and you start going off like I'm some racist. You're just trying to save face now, since I see this "I"ness is so vital to your being. That's called egoism.



Ha! Now you're lecturing me on the ego. Mate i'm past all that new age shit. Let me quote you a true master. 

Mooji: " ' I need help' is the important statement here. It is wise to seek help, until you go beyond the need for help. Not the arrogance which claims 'There's no one to be helped, no I, no you. No one exist, only that which Is', which though true when spoken through the mouth of the *sage*, is completely false when uttered from the ego mind- *the ego rising through the intellect posing as some kind of spiritual hero*. This understanding cannot be grafted onto the ego-centred mind, for true understanding dissolves the seeker-ego. There is no one left to claim freedom as an achievement."

Compared to me you're a sage, who are you fooling? That statement clearly rose out of the ego. Maybe you need to spend more time under the bhodi tree practicing your mantras burning or burning incense. 



> This is why people are happier doing some modest gardening then riding around in their boat. How would I know? Because I remember moments where my full concentration went on a certain task, and I wasn't currently "thinking" at all. I was just perceining... taking in a stimulus, and creating an output, no mediating it with how it relates to one's self. We have moments like this several times a day, if even for a few moments. Just because one has been engrained with an idea of what "I"ness is doesn't mean it persists for every moment (waking or dreaming) of one's life.



'I AM' is not false, only what comes after it. I am this or I am that. Or in your case, you derive your sense of self from a particular race. However without the thinking mind 'I AM' remains. It simply isn't the false 'I am' based on past. Or the ego. Whatever happens, even if a God were to appear before you, you would have to present to witness it. 'I' would have to be there to know this.

God didn't come and tell me that I am. The world didn't come and tell me that I am. Its like Sri Nisargadatta said "What is mine is mine and was mine even when God was not". Just little thing called 'I'.



> I don't give a shit about my self-concept, I have become honest with who I am (and that is why I can comfortably by honest about the differences in others without judging them as "Good" or "Bad".)



You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now. Why are you still a seeker?



> I'm in a completely different mindset from you, Intel.



Thats true, a different mindset, yet still trapped in the mind. You haven't escaped samsara yet my friend. :-({|=


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 11, 2007)

I didn't know you could get any more foolish. Are you completely projecting yourself onto me or something? Nothing you have said about me has been true. 

Just because you jumped into New Agey stuff when I mentioned "Ego", and ran with all that, doesn't mean I'm a "new Ager". When are you going to see that you are the prejudiced one? You're the one that just pasted a couple of quotes from "masters" because you couldn't make a decent argument on your own. 

You don't even know what you're arguing about... you just argue about a different thing from post to post, and I refute them all. This is ridiculous. Give up. You responded to my thread as an asshole, fooling yourself into thinking I was the asshole, and all I have been doing is pointing out to you, time and time again, that everything you say is flawed, and everything you do at this point is to save face. Go buy yourself a dog and pride yourself in being a "good master" or something. You're a waste of my time. 




> Or in your case, you derive your sense of self from a particular race.



Are you kidding me? What is this supposed to mean? Read my posts again. And again, and again. I can't believe you are _this_ stupid. You are paying no attention to what I have said. You're a disgusting creature of habit. Grow up, little ape. 



> God didn't come and tell me that I am. The world didn't come and tell me that I am. Its like Sri Nisargadatta said "What is mine is mine and was mine even when God was not". Just little thing called 'I'.



ukel:

You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now. Why are you still a seeker?]

Middle eastern beliefs? Excuse me? Stop profiling me based on prejudice, I talked about a great deal more than "karma". It really sounds like you're just projecting the shit that you know you are (from how you used to be, before you were "passed the new age shit"). 

Give it up, Intel. Hve you ever met a mentally challenged person? Someone with downed syndrome, maybe? No joke, your mind is to theirs as mine is to yours. 



> Thats true, a different mindset, yet still trapped in the mind. You haven't escaped samsara yet my friend.



Never claimed I have. Is that some kind of argument against my defense against your original argument that my first post was rubbish? You're all over the place trying to point out flaws in ME rather than flaws in particular argument relating to specific points.

Do the world of intelligent people a favor and take a vow of silence, ok? Please.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 11, 2007)

> You have become honest with who you are? Really? All I see is some guy trying to feed me some middle eastern beliefs which haven't arisen from his own experience. _If you truly did recognize this 'I' as "bullshit" then you'd be enlightened right now_. Why are you still a seeker?]



HABIT/KARMA! Damn. Does your fly-like mind exist merely to test my patience? One can understand the invalidity of "I"ness while still suffering (from it), because one's patterns of thought have been so grounded in the context of that "I"ness. How could you be serious in that claim? Please, don't answer that. It would be no more than a (more) complicated grunt, anyways.


----------



## Intel (Dec 12, 2007)

> Just because you jumped into New Agey stuff when I mentioned "Ego", and ran with all that, doesn't mean I'm a "new Ager". When are you going to see that you are the prejudiced one? You're the one that just pasted a couple of quotes from "masters" because you couldn't make a decent argument on your own.



To be honest I don't care what label you put on yourself, all I know is you're a bullshitter.



> You're all over the place trying to point out flaws in ME rather than flaws in particular argument relating to specific points.



My posts are all over the place because your logic is all over the place. I'm just pointing this out, and I don't mind going off into seperate arguments because your original post was a joke. It was trash, not worth my time. Jeuan said all that needs to be said on the matter.



> You're a disgusting creature of habit. Grow up, little ape.



Since you haven't yet broken the chains of karma I guess you'll want to split a banana with me?



> Hve you ever met a mentally challenged person? Someone with downed syndrome, maybe? No joke, your mind is to theirs as mine is to yours.



So you don't derive your sense of self from a particular race, just your 'superior' intellect. But no no, thats not ego. 

You should stop beating off so much, its melting your brain. Find yourself a girlfriend, get married and have kids, drink fine wine and be merry. Enjoy the rest of your sorry existence you call 'my life'. And as you're on your deathbed taking your final breath, know that the soft voice whispering sweetly into your ear "I win again, clown" is Intel. :joker:


----------



## winner (Dec 12, 2007)

*Could be good reading*

I don't think this works. While you are trying to express an outlook on something it is actually one sided. It down plays the 'caucasian' role and up plays the 'african' role. It is not insightful so much as it is opinionated, even though as an opinion one can see that you tried to reason it out. If you present it more in a manner as to what is good and bad on both sides, that would be the open minded way of presenting perspectives. More of a comparison positive and negative on both sides.

If you did that I think it would make for interesting reading. It's always good to read about things that are generally not writen about. 

You are using the words 'african' and 'caucasian' but it is clear your perspective is from a 'black' and 'white' perspective. And that kind of thinking goes along with a one sided opinion.

Know too that when you write about blacks and whites, it will quickly be interpreted as racism. So you must put out extra effort to say what you mean as clearly and understandably as possible. It takes a big open minded person to bring it off. 

Keep trying 

:thumbr:​


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 12, 2007)

Thanks for the advice, Winner. I think you're right about a lot of those things. I was a little hesitant to go deeper into it, especially discussing ho I think one or the other is "good"/""bad"/(preferable in certain contexts), but I wanted to see if anyone would be interested, and not just call me a racist. This thread probably belongs in the discussion forum.

Intel. J


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 12, 2007)

Intel,

If you had 1/10th of the self awareness (I never said I didn't have 'ego'; you're hysterically jumping to conclusions in desperate attempt to protect your self-concept) I have, you would realize that just about everything you do towards me is just a projection. You are full of nasty little conflicts. 

Really, just stop. At this point you're just trying to point out that I have an ego, and I am subject to karma, because you're hurt. But I never denied any of these things. I may have insuklted you, but I have done it for just reasons, and I have been reasonable in my responses to you. You've just been a mess of drunken finger points.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 12, 2007)

Winner,

I also wanted to say that I think you were right about me up playing the "african". After all, this post was inspired after a few days of watching a collection of MC's. I prefer the "flavor" of a talented black emcee.


----------



## Intel (Dec 12, 2007)

Your the one that brought Karma into this, and now your trying 'flip the script' on me and act is if I instigated your rabble. If what I do to you is a projection, then the garbage you talk about being having a superior intellect to mine is only a projection. But what does it matter because nothing is real right? Don't answer that.



> If you had 1/10th of the self awareness (I never said I didn't have 'ego'; you're hysterically jumping to conclusions in desperate attempt to protect your self-concept) I have, you would realize that just about everything you do towards me is just a projection.


The fact is that you criticize me for 'trying to protect my self concept' when you're doing the same thing. Your ego feels superior to me and thus makes itself seperate. You contradict yourself at every interval. You've got to be the biggest bullshitter ever to walk planet earth. 

I'm hurt? No friend, i'm just joking on you because you're a clown. Come on man, go sit down, sit down, just....just....go sit somewhere and think about life, think about where your at in life.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 12, 2007)

"Caucasian"  versus "African"    aren't you kind of mixing metaphors there?

Three are caucasian africans.   There are blacks who are not African.

All this apart from the hazy generalities of the piece itself.


----------



## winner (Dec 12, 2007)

I think you are right about this being on the 'debate' forum. It is a controversial subject and as I see from the previous post it is the topic itself that is being discussed. 

This is not a work of nonfiction material that's been placed on the forum for 'writers critique'.


----------



## JohnN (Dec 12, 2007)

that whole article, didn't make much sense. Not scientific, no logic.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 12, 2007)

Intel, I'm done with you. I didn't een read your last post, why bother? You haven't made one decent argument about anything yet. You can repl to have a last word or whatever if you want, but I'm done wasting my time on someone who emotionally reacts to the words rather than trying to understand how I use them. You're hopeless to understand my thoughts right now. 

Lin, I tried to make it clear that I was talking about Caucasians and Africans in general. Maybe it would have been better to use "Black" and "White", but there would still be exceptions.

John. It wasn't supposed to be scientific, and it _was_ logical. You're just not intelligent enough to do your part of the work (reading my words carefully). 

I guess I shouldn't have made this kind of topic on a forum where most people are wannabe writers, not true thinkers. That _was_ my bad. I've had enough of people butchering my words because they're unable to properly interpret them. Words aren't real people, you use them to understand a message. Not the other way around. Cattle.

Real writers are seers. All I see her are a handful of people with above average intelligence (completely spoiled by bloated egos).


----------



## winner (Dec 12, 2007)

the word 'science' does not have anything to do with this material. I think it is simply about the word being stated and everyone jumping on the band wagon to use it as a means to vent feelings with. 

Again though, I don't see this as nonfiction material to critique. This is an opinion. I do think it would have received better treatment on the 'debate' forum. Maybe you could start a thread there. 

I had something like this happen to me on my thread about Thanksgiving Day and it became very political and centered on the indians being slaughtered. I was blown away. I mean when one starts a thread here on the forum there is no way of telling where its going! ha ha

Controversial thinking is always motivating. Pushes one to think. Try opening a thread about this on the 'debate' forum and see what takes place there, if anything. 

Wish you well 
:flower:​


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 13, 2007)

You're right Winner, I intended it it to be a means for discussion... not hoping for a critique. Maybe tommorow (gotta go to work, then a work party afterwards today) I'll bring this over to the debate forum (maybe not a simple copy-paste, but we'll see).  Thanks for the support! You are right, sometimes you really can't know how others will interpret (run with) what you throw out there.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 13, 2007)

First comment was fair- what a lot of shit- challenge, bet you can't tell the race of peeople who post just from their posts- not me my avatar is a giveaway. Peoples minds vary one to the next, you might find some synchronicity in cultural groupings, racial groupings, forget it, this is just rubbish.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 13, 2007)

> Maybe it would have been better to use "Black" and "White", but there would still be exceptions.



Yeah it would have, since that is what you are talking about.   

And it's  not a matter of exceptions, it's a matter of not everybody fitting into these simplistic, silly stereotypes.

It's not that people can't interpret your words: it's that they don't make sense.   I'm amazed that nobody has called the piece "racist" yet, by the way.  But that's really what it is.

Saying that people here aren't "true thinkers" is meaningless.  You piece is too shallow and slipshod to indicate that you are any judge of that.

You put this here for critique.  You are getting critique.    Don't be a crybaby and start telling people there is something wrong with you if they don't think your piece is any good.   Because it's not.   It's just a simplistic mind-fart that explores no ground any newer than the widespread stereotypes of black/white musical taste and who boogies.   I would suggest you not try to sell it to anybody you ever want to read anything you write in the future.

Don't let your own ego bloat up enough to fuck up your chances of improving your work.


----------



## Matthatter (Dec 13, 2007)

You're fitting me into a silly stereotype Lin, it's not racist. You are butchering my words just like the others.

I think calling Hodge out on his idiocy too many times has made you more confident than you should be. 

I actually didn't put it here for a critique (but for discussion), but, as I said, that was my bad (putting it here). 

Sell it? Diidn't plan to. It was supposed to be for discussion but I see your brainwashed by a false interpretation of "all men are created equal". It is ridiculous to think that there are no general differences (I never said this wasn't general, and I pointed out several times that it wasn't taken to apply to all individuals, ya stupid) between races. I don't judge any person according to their race from the geto go, I wait to see their actions, and when I see exceptions, I note them and think of (and treat) the person accordingly. 

I don't think this is some solid nonfiction work (I understand it was the wrong choice to put it in nonfiction), it is short and meant to spur discussion. 

The piece is a bit shallow, as it is general and short. If it claimed it was something amazing, then maybe you could judge me off of that. 

Olly, I am not saying all minds are the same (I have mentioned that several times). Seriously, how retarded can you people get? "Oh oh! He's talking about race! Racist! Ignore his points that he is talking about something general, that not all individuals may fit, the man is a racist! BURN!"

You guys should just write some bullshit children's stories to help integrate children into the completely illogical cultural myths. Be good boys, everyone. Don't threaten anyone's security. Let them believe what we all (have no good reason to) believe. 

As for the challenge... that would only be fitting of I claimed ALL black minds were A and ALL white minds are B. I never said that. You just showed how ignorant you are of what I'm talking about. 

Read, carefully. 

(Back to Lin) My ego isn't in the way of my work. Again, I don't consider this a "work". It's something I wrote up in a few minutes for discussion (go ahead and argue I shouldn't have posted that here, I will agree wih that).

Do you know what a stereoptype is, Lin? It's judging an individual based off the group. I am talking about the trend of the group... not individuals. Fucking ridiculous...

Next time read an entire post before you jump to conclusions, that might help keep you from ignoring points that I stress just to keep dumbshits like you from jumping on another fucking bandwagon. The one who thinks outside the cultural box is also the scapegoat. 

Everything I said above may be too complicated... I doubt your mind could read through it without getting upset about (your) associations with certain words. So, forget all my other suggestions, I'll make it easier for you:

Just shut the fuck up.

There we go.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 13, 2007)

> You're fitting me into a silly stereotype Lin,



Oh, not like your piece does.  Funny.     No, it's not that I didn't read it.  It's that I read it and came to those conclusions.  So did everybody else, apparently.  

You can lick your ego wounds with that "everybody's twisting my words" shit if you need it, but it isn't doing you any good.   It's not usual to see EVERYBODY on this forum agree on something.   And everybody agrees with the pretty obvious:  this is a superficial, poorly thought out non-thought.
You should pay attention.
Sorry. 
But bullshitting yourself and squawking about everybody buy you being full of shit isn't helping you, is it?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 14, 2007)

O.K. Everybody has got you wrong, we have all mis=interpreted it. What does this say about your writing? If I were youI would accept that the ideas are flawed, because it's either that or you can't write for shit and have totally failed to explain yourself. Oh, or you are right and the rest of the world are all wrong and that way lies the mad house. It is racist, you are right Lin, you express cultural differences in terms of race and then say "Not all of them" and that makes it not racist? Your subject is differences in thought process defined by race, saying there are individuals who vary doesn't change that. Accept that the main variations are caused by cultural exposure in childhood and it gets interesting, there is a group of islands off the Japanese mainland where they practise a sort of a-rhythmical drumming to scare off invaders, apparently it's a bit like bagpipes, puts your hair on end. However it is dying out because you have to learn it before you have ever heard a sychopated rhythm. Now that is interesting. What I do like about this thread is that everybody is being reasonable so far, my two eldest are only half caucasian and I can't be the only one who wants to pick you up and shake you, yet we are all talking nicely, trying to reason.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 15, 2007)

> yet we are all talking nicely, trying to reason



Not me.  I'm being an asshole as usual.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 15, 2007)

Not really, you even said "sorry" at one point. Gave it it's own line, you're just a big pussycat.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 15, 2007)

Having attempted unsuccessfully to read the original post (it may as well have been written in Urdu for all it meant to me) I am now about to rapidly move on to matters that don't require much intelligence to grasp.

Goodnight, all.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 16, 2007)

> I am now about to rapidly move on to matters that don't require much intelligence to grasp.



It's good for a man to be aware of his limitations.




(Just kidding you, Ox.  It was too cheap a shot to resist)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 16, 2007)

I think he did grasp it, then had the intelligence to let go very quickly.


----------



## Newyorkknicks07 (Dec 23, 2007)

first of all, are y'all black? Cause if your not, that ruins the whole piece. If you are, i sort of see where y'all comming from. But not completley. I know some white boys who can dance better then me.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 23, 2007)

But can they jump?


----------



## Newyorkknicks07 (Dec 26, 2007)

lin said:


> But can they jump?


 
lol, yeah the nba is full of white boys who can jump.


----------



## winner (Dec 26, 2007)

*"Why should we stay here? To be accepted by them? Or to be tamed by them?"*

mm


----------



## Intel (Dec 26, 2007)

Now thats where your wrong Winner. This thread has broadened my definition of 'chump' as well as seeing how narrow minded individuals talk shit and take defense behind their 'higher intellect'(" Everything I said above may be too complicated").

And this thread won't go on, its done. But I like the smiley faces you had at the end. I'll leave you with a crimbo smiley. :santa:


----------



## Linton Robinson (Dec 26, 2007)

> lol, yeah the nba is full of white boys who can jump.



Spoken like a Knicks fan.


----------



## velo (Dec 26, 2007)

C-c-c-can't we all j-just get aloooong?  







Unbelievable that this tripe was allowed to go on, what a waste of bandwidth.  Even my anti-censorship viewpoint doesn't extend to childish flaming and name calling.  This isn't a discussion about writing, it's a pissing match between developmentally disabled children.  Grow up.

To keep myself from being hypocrite, I'll post some feedback.  This wasn't a story or an essay or...well, much of anything.  It was a subjective fragment of something that even the writer appears to not understand.  It was backed up with no facts, made vague assertions at best, and was wholly inarticulate in terms of content.  THe writing stucture was adequate but it failed to convey any sense of what the overall meaning was supposed to be.  Honestly, I'm sorry I wasted calories reading it.  Hopefully the neurons that I've used to hold that memory will be freed up soon and put to a more useful purpose.


----------



## winner (Dec 26, 2007)

mmm


----------



## winner (Dec 26, 2007)

*"Artistic growth is, more than anything else, a refining sense of truthfullness"*

mm


----------

